> If I'm happy with the weights you've given me, and I'm not using your compute for inference and not wanting or needing any updates off you, why should you continue getting money off me and my customers?
I definitely understand the appeal of the desire to “buy it once”, but I think there are a few issues:
- almost no software is static. Look at a package like python Requests and even though it does the simplest thing and has barely changed from a user perspective, it gets updated all the time. This is true for most software. This is doubly true for something like local AI models where both the software and the hardware are changing constantly. Subscriptions motivate sellers to keep their software up to date.
- If I’m an app developer, the idea that I can try something out for $X/month is very appealing versus making an upfront investment of (let’s say) $X*20. This is doubly true for something like local models where I will almost certainly want something new when the models improve.
- To add to the first point, I work at a startup. No one asks questions when I want $20/month licenses. But let’s say I want something that’s gonna be in the 5 figure range annually. If I go to my CFO and ask for $50k upfront and then we implement something and the project fails, I look like an idiot. If I ask for $2000/mo budget for something and then we try it for two months and it fails, no one cares. Subscriptions are just safer in this sense.
I think the issues you're describing are all modern internet software issues. I'd guess you're possibly a bit younger than me, or maybe forgotten how software worked before about 2010.
- All compiled software is static. New versions are released. I'm happy to pay for new versions/features if I want/need them. But if the version I have is working offline, it doesn't need security updates, and if it does what I need, it doesn't need new features. Same applies if I'm building software for others, if the library does what I need for my software for my customers and I need nothing more off the dev, why should I keep paying the dev?
- I'm struggling not be sarcastic here, sorry, but this might shock you to hear: most humans find the idea of being able to try whatever they want and get paid for it appealing. That's not really how money or life works though.
- I don't know how to respond to this point, it's a bit of a strawman. Yes, if the only other option is to pay $50k up front for a local model, then your point is valid.
As a kid, I spent literally hundreds of £ on the first Sims, and Sims expansion packs at £20 /pop. EA got loads of money off me, I got loads of new features I wanted. I moaned at the time, but on reflection, everyone was a winner. Sims is still going now (possibly as a subscription!)
Again, apologies for a bit of sass here (that's a me problem), but the number of people who seem to sincerely believe the points you've put forward is why I'm personally sad at the state of modern software economics.
Are you forgetting that the upfront price for software used to be a lot higher than it is today?
You’re talking about times before 2010 and an EA game, but that’s not the right comparison. These Desert Ant AI models are an SDK, a professional middleware library. Licensing that kind of software in the pre-2010 days used to cost tens of thousands of dollars.
In other words, the proper comparison here is the various libraries that EA licensed to make the game, not the game itself.
I'm old enough to remember buying software in cardboard boxes at Bestbuy.
> I don't know how to respond to this point, it's a bit of a strawman.
Why is it a strawman? I can sell you software for $100 once or I can sell it to you for $10/month. I don't think anyone is suggesting that I'm gonna sell it for $10 once though.
In particular, Desert Ant is saying their software is free for 100k active devices per SDK. That's likely a lot more users than most peoples' side projects. Given that, I'm guessing that $50k (even annually) is not a crazy number (yes, obviously $50k is not what a consumer would ever pay).
50k annually for a static set of weights is actually crazy, though.
As in - I make software for a living and they can fuck off. Produce the item. Sell the item at a cost you find reasonable. Convince me to buy it again with an upgrade that's worth buying.
Period.
There's no "service" happening here. If anything, the proposed cost model just makes me incredibly unlikely to engage at all, because it means they're going to insist on trying to track my users (a thing I don't like doing...) with whatever bloatware they shove into their "sdk".
They're not selling it to you/it doesn't come out of your salary?
They're selling it to your employer. You're literally not even the customer for this product. There's no need to get angry that they're charging enterprise/vendor rates for a product.
And it's free for up to 100k devices. If you are running anything on 100k devices you should be able to afford $0.50/device and. If you aren't then why do you care? It's still a very customer-permissive and flexible business model so I cannot understand why this is upsetting or offensive
they literally would be selling it to me.
I deploy browser extensions to millions of devices, and small local models that I can run in that space are incredibly appealing.
But the "per user" model is just especially difficult to justify here, and comes with a TON of fucking downsides like usage tracking, feature availability, and product structure (ex - is a trial user a user? how long? etc...)
---
And it's not even like they're justifying it with model download support or caching... they shove it entirely onto hugging face, or have you self serve.
As their literal target audience - I'd rather buy the weights for a fixed price (even a high one), and not let them influence my product design decisions with saas style pricing.
It's a strawman because it only makes sense if the one off up front cost is $50k, which wasn't the argument I was making. If the one-off up front cost is $20, then your point makes no sense - your boss would have no issue.
An alternative would be instead of 1 of charging over 100k users $50k, charge every user a one off $20.
I guess it's hard to discuss alternative billing methods without knowing what need to be recuperated.
Thanks for the response, appreciated. Again, sorry for the sassyness.
> - All compiled software is static. New versions are released. I'm happy to pay for new versions/features if I want/need them. But if the version I have is working offline, it doesn't need security updates, and if it does what I need, it doesn't need new features. Same applies if I'm building software for others, if the library does what I need for my software for my customers and I need nothing more off the dev, why should I keep paying the dev?
Who is allowed to make copies of the library?
LLMs are static though.
In the way that, say, Garmin Maps are static, I agree.
Very much like map CD-rom updates, I think a lot of people wouldn't mind paying per-update for these models, and would understand the implications. That is, if there weren't so many open models available.
... So we both agree.