Right, the issue is that we are owning our stuff less and less. You used to be able to even buy a copy of an OS on a CD. Thus, I don't think a subscription justifies the cost of maintenance, and a lot of app models don't do subscriptions for app updates.

Of course, if there is a cloud component, that's a different story because there are recurring costs to hosting a server. Or maybe a user uses the service enough to justify the subscription (e.g. Apple Music subscription vs paying per song on iTunes or how Claude Code and Codex are actual subscriptions that are extremely worth it for the user).

▲

mpyne 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

I still have my CD for Office 97 and (somewhere) SuSE Linux 7.2, but I can't honestly say I can continue to use those.

The way to get around that is either continually releasing feature upgrades with one-time payments, or paying for access to the software only while you need that access.

Both models have strengths, one is not inherently evil and the other inherently good.

It's easy to say app updates should be bundled into the one-time cost but even that needs to have a time bound on it. When software lasted 3 years that potentially made sense, but now the release velocity is so much higher that there would be an explosion in complexity to try to keep up with all "one-time" releases going back for years.

Even completely Free software packages struggle with the balance with how far back to claim prior releases are under maintenance (e.g. LTS is popular, but so are 'rolling releases'). That's because of the underlying economic complexity with the costs to maintain what has gone before vs. the cost to develop what will come next.

▲

dabluck 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

I addressed this in the post. I don't quite understand what people mean when they say they want to own their software. I mean okay you can put the CD on the shelf. Now what? I understand why they don't like paying money. But ownership just doesn't make a lot of sense when talking about a mobile app.

▲

cogman10 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

> But ownership just doesn't make a lot of sense when talking about a mobile app.

Why shouldn't it?

Why does my calculator app need a subscription? Why does it need constant updates?

There's no reason the ownership model shouldn't exist for apps. There's also no reason why all apps should need constant development.

▲

dminik 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I want to be able to put that CD in my drive 20 years later and have working software. You used to get this. I still have some CDs that I could plug into my computer and (perhaps through Wine) get working software.

▲

edent 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

If you shut down, I want to still be able to run the software.

OK, if you're running something with a cloud component, I might not get all the functionality. But if you decide that you don't want be in the app business any more, I still want to use what I paid for.

	▲	lghh 2 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Tbh for most things you could probably run a personal version of the webserver component yourself.

▲

thatxliner 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

No, I'd argue that this applies even for a mobile app: they can be shut down and become unavailable on the App Store or whatever.

On Android the solution is side loading if you have the APK. But on iPhone, unless you have the source code or IPA, you're stuck

▲

giantrobot an hour ago | parent | prev [-]

I have a retail copy of Photoshop 7 I bought decades ago with hard earned money. A full copy of Photoshop then was hundreds of dollars. I still use it to this day.

I learned Photoshop well enough back in the day to do cool stuff and make a few bucks on the side doing graphic design. I'm not a professional graphic designer at all so it never made sense for me to get on the version treadmill. Even today it does everything I need and more.

Adobe got paid for the work they did. I've gotten incredible value out of my purchase since I've used it so long and the cost has amortized over decades.

Subscriptions imply change. I don't necessarily want change. If I buy something that suits my needs...it already suits my needs. Adding more shit isn't necessarily a boon. Changing the behavior or look with a new update is infuriating. This is especially true of complex software that takes time to learn.

For a developer selling a subscription the strategy of locking up data is entirely rational. They'll keep getting money no matter what they do because they're holding my data hostage. It's a model I have no interest in.

Even better is when they decide to shut down or get bought out. If the subscription shuts down there's no amount of money I can pay to get it back.