Main Area and Open Discussion > General Software Discussion

Why subscription-models for software suck

(1/5) > >>

zridling:
I've ranted about this in other places, but I truly hate the idea of subscription-based licensing. I'm all for programmers getting paid, but the subscription model tends to force developers to insert frivolous and superfluous features into their programs — look no further than Microsoft Word — rather than just developing the program. Sure, some years development is thin; others it's fast and furious, all of which I'm willing to pay for when the program is made better, not on some arbitrary 1-year or 2-year model. Ah, it just bugs me.

moerl:
MS Word is subscription based? Huh.. I thought subscription means having to renew on a yearly basis, or two years or whatever. I don't know that to be the case with any MS Office products. Still, I agree with you. Subscriptions suck. I'm cool with the traditional pay for one version-possibly pay for future upgrades-model. I mean, if I buy any version 3.xx of something, then it's ok if I'm expected to pay a small update fee for 4.xx.

Carol Haynes:
I think MS have been pushing subscription model licenses in the commercial world.

Actually in practice a lot of software is effectively subscription based these days - either that or you can't even download bug fixes. Most shareware allows updates for a limited period - it is getting much rarer to get 'lifetime updates' even when we aren't talking about upgrades.

moerl:
I think MS have been pushing subscription model licenses in the commercial world.

Actually in practice a lot of software is effectively subscription based these days - either that or you can't even download bug fixes. Most shareware allows updates for a limited period - it is getting much rarer to get 'lifetime updates' even when we aren't talking about upgrades.
-Carol Haynes (March 28, 2006, 02:58 AM)
--- End quote ---
Though I agree that lifetime licenses are the nicest way of buying software.. it's far from the most profitable way for a software maker. That's why there's less of that, and in essence I see nothing wrong in thinking that way. With a lifetime license, you literally give away your current work and all that follows it, which is VERY generous.

Carol Haynes:
Not really - life time updates (ie. bug fixes, making it work properly now, fixing security issues etc) is not the same as lifetime upgrades where you get new functionality.

I realise that lifetime updates is probably impossible (who'd want to be maintaining or using version 1 of a utility written for Windows 3.1 now) but it is becoming increasingly common for software to be sold without the ability to get updates at all without some sort of subscription, or extremely time limited updates.

Actually for the individual user I think MS have got it about right wrt updating software - they basically supply patches for about 5 years for each product (loads of people still use Office 2000/Windows 2000 and still get security updates/patches/service packs for free and they are products that are about 6 or 7 years old now).

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page