Main Area and Open Discussion > General Software Discussion

Why subscription-models for software suck

<< < (2/5) > >>

moerl:
I don't know if we understood each other. Under lifetime licensing I understand the selling of any version and then providing updates forever, for free. For example, if you buy something at version 3.xx, updates to any subsequent version will be free. Is that what you meant, or something else?

Carol Haynes:
Not really -- depending on the company/developer there is a difference between upgrade and update.

For example ... JGSoft produce EditPad Pro. When you buy EdirPad Pro version 5 from them you get unlimited updates as long as version 5 is being developed but if you want to move up to version 6 when it released you buy an upgrade. In JGSoft's case this is reasonable value for money as they don't have an automatic version bump every year. Lots of companies use this model - MS Office is a product that works in this way, and older versions are support for years so it is reasonable.

Some companies work on a free lifetime upgrade policy (WinZip used to be like that until the company sold out and the policy was changed). This is great for users but perhaps a little unreasonable as it reduces any income from current customers.

However, increasingly companies are working on new models:

1) Buy a subscription to get updates - ie. you buy a package and so long as you have a valid additional 'subscription' you can download updates (eg. most antivirus and firewall companies use this model and usually the first 12 months subscription in the price).

2) Some companies are not providing free updates/bug fixes at all (not upgrades to the next product version just bug fixes) and expect customers to buy an upgrade for every update.

3) Others restrict the time scale you can get updates (I have seen some applications advertised with 30 days of support and free updates).

mouser:
I agree that the arbitrary year-based subscription models are bad, except perhaps for things like antivirus programs where you are really paying for the continuous updating of the virus definitions.

its reasonable to pay for major version upgrades and keep normal updates and bugfixes free.

a good rule of thumb for me is that a user should never have to pay for a bug fix.

so if a program is updated to fix some bugs, that update should be free, regardless of purchase date.

the other thing that bothers me is the sometimes very high upgrade prices.  it seems to me that upgrading should really be a very minimal fee, maybe 25% or at most 50%.

moerl:
the other thing that bothers me is the sometimes very high upgrade prices.  it seems to me that upgrading should really be a very minimal fee, maybe 25% or at most 50%.
-mouser (March 28, 2006, 09:55 AM)
--- End quote ---
I've noticed that too! It's terrible. And I agree wholly with your percentages.

Carol Haynes:
Actually I think high upgrade prices are rather counter productive. If I am confronted by a high upgrade price I will think "do I need the upgrade" and if there is something I do need then "is there an alternative" ... high prices don't foster loyalty.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page