Subscriptions make companies lazy and it degrades the product. I'm looking at you: Foundry, Adobe, Maxon, heated seats on BMWs ...
They rest on their laurels, enjoy the increased cash flow, say it allows them to work on regular updates. But this goes from being useful bug fixes, to merely shuffling the UI around, changing the fonts, introducing nonsensical features nobody asked for or can make use of, and gutting useful features for "streamlining" purposes... while longstanding bugs that actually need fixing are still unfixed.
Eventually customers become dissatisfied with the product and make up for lost features and degraded user experience with a smörgåsbord of perpetually licensed or FOSS alternatives from various competitors because they too will want to improve their cash-flow instead of being bled dry every month.
Companies that choose to offer lump-sum permanent licenses have to make a bigger effort to convince customers to upgrade, which means the product improves. Also it makes your customers more committed to your product. You should invite this kind of challenge and forgo the temptation to boost cash-flow because it keeps you on your toes. Subscription-only will seem great for a while but eventually you'll atrophy and fail.
Something similar happened when software went from being released on CDs/DVDs to regular patches and downloads. Not saying we need to go back to that era, but QAs had to work harder back then because distribution was expensive. Nowadays you can release things in an unfinished and broken state.
Man I think you're spot-on. Back in the day the biggest motivator companies had to make good products was that they would be competing in the market with their own old products.
Not anymore, and it shows
Wow, really great insight--I've never seen it framed like this before, but it makes so much sense. Typically software becomes worse over time, and therefore uncompetitive with previous versions of the same software. The fix? Never make the previous software available, and force users to upgrade to the worse, new version.
This explains a lot about why subscriptions have become the norm.
They were also incentivised to stuff as many new features into their products in order to make them look like they were worth upgrading.
Look at how bad Adobe Acrobat got before they even started thinking about subscriptions.
If you have a product and a team working on it, it’s tempting to just keep adding things to the product. You can’t just sit around fixing bugs, they say. When that is precisely what customers would want. Can’t make upsells though and when you’re a business that kind of thing really matters… nobody from within can see that the ship is so heavy it can’t stay afloat anymore. Until it’s sunk.
Subscriptions can create an illusion of a deal, because in principle, you’re ostensibly able to benefit more for a fixed price. But are you?
Netflix is a good example. You can watch as much as you want for a flat rate, but how many people watch enough to justify the monthly fee? (Putting aside the question of whether watching so much is actually a benefit in the first place.) Companies recognize the distinction between potential use and actual use, and so in practice, many are paying more for less and subsidizing the outliers that consume more. When actual use exceeds predicted use, the company will raise the price of subscription.
Subscriptions make sense for situations where there are regular maintenance costs or where the benefits are received at a steady and proportional rate.
I don't understand why most people don't just torrent? Everything in one place. It's actually more convenient than streaming services.
>I don't understand why most people don't just torrent? [...] It's actually more convenient than streaming services.
I think your technical sophistication means you're somewhat out-of-touch with what "most" people do.
Most normal people watch Netflix/HBO/etc on smartphones/tablets, or stream devices like Amazon Fire Stick, Google Chromecast puck, Apple TV cube, or the "smart tv app" built-in with their Samsung or LG tv. All of those "mainstream devices used by most" don't make it easy to access torrenting sites or files. Sure, one could hypothetically sideload a torrenting app on a Google Chromecast but now you're beyond the demographic of "most people" because you have extra complexity of also adding some USB storage to save the torrent or point to a local network share.
The type of situations that makes "torrenting more convenient" are people watching everything on a laptop or have a dedicated HTPC media server hooked up to their tv.
I'm technically savvy and it was not easy to sideload Kodi player onto Amazon Fire Stick to legitimately play DVD ISOs. It required a lot of google searches to finally figure it out. (E.g. after realizing VLC app for Fire Stick doesn't work, and then finally stumbling across a "developer setting", and then getting the SMB network path correct, and so on...) Thinking that most people could just torrent is being unrealistic.
Torrents nowadays have <1% the number of people they had a decade ago. It didn't used to be considered technically sophisticated, just a new version of file sharing that everyone used two decades ago.
I just stream files from my Macbook via AirPlay to my tv. works pretty seamlessly. No media server setups. They don't even have to be on the same wifi network. I think most TVs support several streaming protocols nowadays? I got the cheapest Samsung smart TV.
You are probably right I'm out of touch with technology, but I also think that many people do much more advanced technical stuff like using VPNs - became pretty mainstream.
>I just stream files from my Macbook via AirPlay to my tv.
Ok, explaining your situation with a laptop clarifies where you're coming from. (Which my prior reply anticipated and covered in my 3nd paragraph about torrents being easy for people using laptops.)
In any case, most normal people do not use AirPlay from their laptop, nor cast from a Chromebook, nor cast/mirror a Windows to their tv to play Netflix/HBO/Disney. Instead they just use the mainstream hardware streaming devices or the built-in tv app. Torrents would be much less convenient for the way most non-techie people watch tv (Roku/FireStick/SamsungTVapp/etc). Netflix has stated many times that the majority of their customers' watch time comes from smartphones/tablets/tv and not desktop/laptop web browsers.
Because you’d be denying cast and crew of their royalties?
If people pirated on a mass scale, the losses would add up. Whatever you may think about streaming platforms, don’t punish the people just trying to make a living.
Attachment to honesty and maintenance of the societal fabric.
I would pay for a streaming service if everything was in one place and working seamlessly with all my devices like my torrent/AirPlay setup.
I play for a TON of services. Just not streaming.
I also couldn't care less about copyright and all that stuff.
Are you asking why more people don't pirate content?
Yes.
It's difficult to understand why you think this is a commendable norm. Not only is it illegal, but it is unjust, whatever the faults of the industry.
Sorry, this was all the executives heard:
> Subscription-only will seem great for a while
The ayes have it. Motion passed, now let's discuss the subscription tiers. How many stickers should we include with the premium 'founders' subscription tier?
That's not true. They also heard
> Companies that choose to offer lump-sum permanent licenses have to make a bigger effort to convince customers to upgrade
The video game industry is plagued by this problem. With live-service games becoming commonplace, there has also been a recent trend of games being released in an incomplete state. The shocking part is that multi-million dollar "AAA" game studios are engaging in this behavior. There's also a strong "own nothing" component to the issue.
I'm sorry to write that all those were problems before subscriptions too.
Managers trying to hit targets and ratchet performance metrics, product managers trying to clear queues, the exponential growth of complexity from size (ala mythical man month)... Fundamentally it's a misalignment of incentives and and as yet unsolved problem of scaling social knowing.
I continue to maintain that the problem here is not greed but laziness. Make money with less effort or make even more money over a longer term with more effort. Building for the future requires effort and investment and has the potential to make more money than focusing purely on the current quarter.
Expecting something more for little to no effort might be considered a form of greed.
It’s both greed and laziness.
> Companies that choose to offer lump-sum permanent licenses have to make a bigger effort to convince customers to upgrade, which means the product improves.
Why can't they expand their customer base instead? With a great product, you sell millions of copies, pay everybody's salaries and pay investors.
Something like for example Affinity should in a rational market eat at least half of Adobes customer base with their current offerings. So maybe it's a problem of marketing?
I have never in my life seen an advertisement for any app with a pay-once offer, even though I have bought most of my apps as pay-once. And they're always several levels higher in quality than other offerings.
Affinity did have a growing userbase, partly because you could just buy the app for $50 and use it perpetually.
I assume with Canva buying them out and making it "free", Affinity will fade away and eventually just be folded into subscription-only, cloud-only "products".
This is exactly why I bought Affinity. That, and the fact that the old version did not require an "account" and "activation". You send them money, they give you an unlock key, and that's the end of your relationship with them.
>Something like for example Affinity should in a rational market eat at least half of Adobes customer base with their current offerings. So maybe it's a problem of marketing?
I suspect Adobe's customers look at their tools in a different way to the typical HN poster. They don't want too many new features because that disrupts their existing workflow. They would prefer to get annoying bugs fixed over something that causes them to relearn the software. They aren't even that worried about subscriptions because the software is a means to an income.
Graphic designer here. Adobe’s products are the golden standard in the industry and are often the only products used by entire graphic teams, being the odd one out using Affinity’s or (heaven forbid) Corel’s tools makes collaboration difficult (if not entirely impossible) due to how unfriendly and unpredictable portability between apps can be, and unpredictable is the last thing you want in an environment where precision is absolutely essencial.
It’s sad, really. Adobe’s apps are powerful, yes, but they’re stuck in time. They perform horrendously and have terrible UI/X that aren’t even standardised between apps (even something as simple as the icon for their own assets library cloud is not the same between apps).
How I wish someone would come along and eat Adobe’s lunch to force it to pull itself together for once, but alas, that’s unlikely at best.
Considering how cheap Affinity is (and now it's free). Why don't studios just get both apps? There's almost no learning curve in switching between them.
I foresee a lot of smaller actors switching to Affinity in the future, just like tons of people went to Canvas.
Canva is a nice tool for light work only, but no studio, agency or design department worth their salt relies on Canva for more serious work—and rightfully so, Canva is not a player in the same space as Adobe and Affinity, for example.
Affinity is nice, and I really do wish they would corner Adobe a bit more so they could get their act together. But the fact is Adobe has encroached upon every corner of this industry, pretty much all of their apps are the standard tools for any given design job (from both a software and hardware perspective). It would take a massive amount of effort to convince designers used to Adobe’s tools to switch to an unproven new tool, and it would take an even bigger effort to actually make these new tools become the standard.
I would love to give Adobe the boot, but the truth is that no one has been able to meet Adobe’s apps head on as of yet.
But that's what I mean with studios installing both. You're not forced to choose either Adobe or Affinity. Since you can install different software on a machine, it would be in the interest of every studio to work with both apps. No need to give Adobe the boot.
Now that Affinity is free, you will have many more clients and small studios sending you material in their formats.
As for Canvas, I expect every pro studio to be able to work with that format, since legions of clients will make their stuff in Canvas and send it to you and vice versa.
It's like Visa and MasterCard. You don't have to pick only one, and if you're smart you will accept both.
The thing is, studios might “offer” it, but designers aren’t likely to go for the new kid on the block with Affinity’s option when Photoshop is sitting right there; and Canva doesn’t play any part in this little software war, really. Canva is not aimed at pro work, professionals do use it if needed but it is not a tool of choice for any serious design work, it’s really just a stop-gap tool to enable non-designers to do some decent design work, but nothing more than that.
The truth is Adobe has a massive upper hand here in both market share and public perception. Affinity’s offerings might be 100x better, but they will never be “THE Photoshop”—that’s how deep Adobe’s claws are buried within this industry.
You're probably right. But Adobe were also very successful when they used the pay-once model.
Updates were fewer and far between back then, but they were bigger updates with more features. Now, many subscription services seem content to milk fewer feature upgrades staggered over years.
Yes, upgrades used to be a thing people looked forward to and celebrated.
Now, they're often dreaded, pushy, and frequent.
This is how I've felt about Apple, and it doesn't just include a model with a jack, but a worsening of the iOS system, models that are no for most users of previous models. Apple has run out of ideas, and maybe that's the entire smartphone category.
People will still buy smart phones, but I think their will be less enthusiasm for the latest and greatest model.