phrom

Yeah, I keep notes on org files in local disk and access them through Emacs. I have no need for SaaS to take notes. There's probably nothing an alternative could offer to pull me away from Emacs, even to a different desktop app.

But the topic of discussion here is whether people are getting tired of subscriptions, and why that is. I don't like subscriptions, so that's the perspective I'm contributing to it. You can't limit the discussion to only people who want to use online services and then say you're having an honest discussion about subscriptions.

Oh, I don't mind it either. It's not like they're stopping to sell paper copies. I used it a long time ago, my employer had a company account, it was great.

At least my lament is not so much that it is naked profit seeking, but that it is naked profit seeking that warps the product.

In the example of games, that additional revenue stream of day 1 DLC means content being arbitrarily cut off from the game before it's even released. That premium subscription with a +30% XP bonus is often a -30% XP loss for normal players in disguise. Those loot boxes and battle passes are holding hostage rewards that would be given out naturally through gameplay in another time. Those energy and gacha systems are preying on whales and gamblers.

In the case of software, at the same time the subscription model got popular, every application has also been reimagined as a "service, not a product". Maybe the death of local desktop apps would have happened anyway. I don't know.

They already got the idea. Look up the "O'Reilly Learning Platform"

You are making a subjective judgement on what a modern note taking app or password manager should be like. They could be developed as local desktop apps, just like the office and image editing programs are.

Personally, my notes are not going on anyone else's servers.

Part of the problem with being tired of subscriptions is being tired of applications that would be perfect to run locally being instead developed as a web app, for the benefit of requiring a server and justifying the subscription.

I hate using a phone and its small screen. I don't need my data to sync with other devices. So there's nobody "modern" making software I'd like to use.

Look at what Jetbrains does. When you complete a 1 year subscription, you get a permanent license to a version of the software you're subscribed to, that is 1 year older than the latest.

It is at the same time a subscription to the latest updates, and a one time purchase of an older version that will still be able to open your files, if you drop the subscription. Or the company disappears.

I think that is the best option for a subscription. If you go the one off purchase route though, consider also adding a "grace period" where users get free upgrades to the next version or at least a good discount. For example, if I buy your $50 dollars software, and the next week you show up with a new version with really cool features for the same $50 dollars, I would feel scammed, especially if you hadn't made any announcements that the new version was about to come out. Try to either have a release schedule where you announce a month or two before they're out, or to offer a month or two or free upgrades if you someone buys a version right before a new one comes out.

Enough people have paid attention that I am able to use Emacs and be insulated from any practical impact from SaaS, since it can handle everything I need as a developer. In fact, I have my passwords and my notes on it, to mention some things from OP.

I agree with the micromanagement, but I don't see how subscription costs are less flexible than a buy once model. You can choose to have a single price, or multiple price points, in either payment model.

I love seeing how many people mention Jetbrains as a good example of a subscription model when this topic comes up. I agree. But I think the reason it is good is that a yearly subscription to one of their products can also be seen as a one off purchase of a 1 year older version of that product, with an accompanying free trial of their latest version. Then if you liked that trial, you get a chance to purchase it after 1 year, at a discount. And then another deeper discount after 2 years.

That's really hard to find a problem with, whether you prefer subscriptions or one off purchases. It's really a mix of the two.

If revenue is not attached to feature planning, how are users going to influence what features get developed?

True, because of how necessary OS updates / security fixes are, sooner or later you're forced to upgrade, even on a "buy once" model. But in that model, at least there was still a chance of an effective user boycott.

When Windows Vista and Windows 8 released, people got mad, and enough of them stuck to Windows XP and Windows 7 that Microsoft had to address it, for example by going back on the Windows 8 start menu. Now that they're switching to this permanent license, free upgrade, model, that is going away. Thankfully Windows 11 is very boring, but if they pulled off another 8 start menu, there'll be no real way for people to avoid it or have their voice heard now.

Those old games still run on the old operating systems, and you can still get those systems because they were also on a buy once model.

If those old games were subscriptions instead, they would probably be unplayable today. Their authentication servers would be shutdown after so few players remained that it wouldn't be worth it for the company to keep it going. Just like a lot of multiplayer games are closed nowadays.

Funny you mention Windows and Office. Office is getting worse while moving to a subscription model, while Windows is getting worse by moving towards ads.

A subscription model takes away the user's option to install the software they bought inside of a VM disconnected from the internet, where that software would likely remain runnable to the end of time, regardless of the software company's opinion about it.

Sure, such use might not be allowed by the Terms of Service, even for a one off purchase. But my point is simply that it is possible.

I personally think this makes subscription-based software a worse option than a one off purchase, off the bat. But there's not really a single answer to this. There are good and bad companies, there are good and bad SaaS, and reasonable people will disagree in which is which. If a SaaS looks like the best option for something, and the company looks nice, sure, I'll subscribe.

You don't have to agonize over paying for major upgrades because you're being made to always pay, whether you get an upgrade or not.

It's a nice bonus when you get an upgrade for your payments. But other times you're an Adobe subscriber and lose access to your colors, because turns out you should also be subscribing to Pantone for those. And who knows what you'll have to pay for next.

FYI,

"This site has been reported as unsafe Hosted by www.decipad.com Microsoft recommends you don't continue to this site. It has been reported to Microsoft for containing phishing threats which may try to steal personal or financial information."

Using Edge on Windows with SmartScreen turned on.