Comment by SecretDreams
24 days ago
> which, from a business point of view, is especially important in a field where regulations do not change very fast, because users have little incentive to upgrade
This take is diametrically opposite to what end users need. In a world where "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" is perfectly fine for the end user, buying a one off license for a software seems much more sane then SaaS. SaaS is like a plague for end users.
I don't condone piracy, but I also don't condone SaaS.
In a perfect world, I would have agreed with you, even if it's diametrically opposite to my interest as a software developer cum business owner.
But in an imperfect world whereby our dependencies ( software components that we use) and platforms that we need to build/rely on ( like Civil 3D) do charge us on annual basis, and that some of users expect perpetual bug fixes from us, with or without a support contract of sorts, SaaS seems to only way to go for our sustainability.
There's gotta be better middle ground. Release something polished and only fix major bugs/vulnerabilities for free (because that's a liability). Minor bugs are accepted for a one off cost (I'm still using Microsoft 2016, e.g.).
We've all got to push back against these bloated saas models that don't bring tangible benefits to end users and serve only to pad company valuations. Make new versions of your software with features meaningful enough to encourage people to upgrade and outline support periods for existing software sales after they buy a one-time license. There's gotta be a better way. For everyone (except big tech CEOs).
> Release something polished..
That's why software keep adding bloat fancy buttons and change color scheme every few years. This is anti-productive.
Just charge for support, or if that is too harsh. If that is too harsh, charge for upgrades (but give point/minor bug fixes for the version they have for free).
No support contract? Pound sand.
This sounds good, but in the real world it leads to massively upset customers.
The problem exists from both sides of the coin. Firstly the bulk of customers don't purchase a support contract. So there is very little income to pay staff. So the "support" department has very few people. They're also not very good because low wages means staff turnover.
Then Betty phones with a problem. Significant time is spent explaining to Betty that we can't help her because she (or more accurately her company) doesn't have a contract. She's fighting back because an annual contract seems a lot for this piddly question. Plus to procure the contract will take days (or weeks or months) on her side. And it's not I any budget, making things harder. Betty is very unhappy.
The junior tech doesn't want to be an arsehole and it's a trivial question, and is stuck in the middle.
We switched to a SaaS model in 2011. Users fell over themselves thanking us. They don't have to justify it to procurement. The amount can be budgeted for. No sudden upgrade or support fees. Users get support when they need it. The support department is funded and pays well, resulting in low staff turnover, and consequently better service.
Plus, new sales can stop tomorrow and service continues. Funding for support remains even if sales saturate the market.
Consumers may dislike SaaS, but for business, it absolutely matches their model, provides predictability, and allows for great service, which results in happy Users.
2 replies →
> "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" is perfectly fine for the end user
That's okay, but in say, 2 years when Mac OS 28 completely bricks the app, the developer will not be there to give you an updated one (even if you're willing to pay), since most of the addressible market already bought the app in 2025, and after 2 years with almost no revenue, the developer stopped working on it, deleted the repo and moved onto another project. The developer can't even rely on a future OS update "encouraging" people to buy "App (N+1)" since it might be "ain't broke" for 1 year, or for 5.
The point of a subscription is not to rip you off, it's to acknowledge a few realities:
1. For reasons beyond developers' control, platform vendors do not provide a "permanent" platform, but a shifting one without any long-term guarantees. You can put a 100-year certificate into your app, but the OS vendor might decide that only certs with expiration less than 45 days are okay and your app no longer works unless you're around to (A) keep abreast of the platform's rules and changes, and (B) ship an update.
2. Many software offerings need to provide a server-side component, which is never a one-time cost.
3. Relying on upgrade purchases to sustain a product gives developers perverse incentives to shove a ton of new features just to be able to pitch "Upgrade to Appitron 2!" with a ton of bullet points, whereas subscription pricing incentivizes them simply to keep users loving the app forever, including adopting new technologies but also just improving the core experience.
Due to 1 and 2, it makes sense to let users who stop using the program after a short time pay very little, and to let users who rely on the continued operation of the program, pay a little bit each year, instead of paying $500 once and using it for a few years, and maybe upgrading for $250.
> I don't condone piracy, but I also don't condone SaaS.
What's wrong with SaaS?
If we didn't sell our desktop software to ~1000 companies as a SaaS then few would afford it. We could sell one-off/perpetual licenses for maybe $1M but only our biggest customers would manage that expense, while smaller competitors would not. And if that means we sold only 300 licenses, then the price would be even higher because the number of licenses sold would be even smaller. The SaaS is basically what the customers ask for. They can cancel and switch to competing software when they want to. In fact, customers who use the software rarely feel the SaaS yearly cost is too high so ask for even more SaaS-y functionality such as paying by minute of use or per specific action like "run simulation", instead of having a yearly subscription. Because they might just use it a few days per year so they feel that (say) $10/yr is too much.
If a user gets ongoing value from software it makes sense for them to be willing to pay ongoing for that value. What users need is that the value they get from a product is more than the money they are trading for it. A one off license would be the result of a race to the bottom due to competition.
Sure, if there is increasing or evolving utility being offered. But it’s also fair to charge for upgrades in that case.
If I get ongoing value from my fully paid off car, should I keep paying the OEM? How about my house or my bike or my shoes? My toilet (huge ROI on this one)? My fridge?? Why do we feel that software gets to impose this ridiculous SaaS model? The only real answer is "because they can", not because it's helping anyone.
Reality is that many modern software developments have plenty in common with designing a toilet. You spend time identifying the problem statement, how you can differentiate yourself, prototype it, work out the bugs, ship the final product, and let sales teams move the product. The difference is the toilet can't be turned into a SaaS (yet) and, if it ever could, that would break functionality because you're supposed to poop in it, not have it poop on you.
The funny thing is SAAS frequently provides less value because of automatic updates. If your toilet could change its shape at a moment's notice because of some study on a sample of people who are entirely unlike you or even just because some random PM wanted a promotion, and you could not stop it from doing so, it would be incredibly obvious how bad that was. Yet many people in the software field try to convince users that mandatory automatic updates on their devices are a good thing.
2 replies →
I think it would be fair to keep paying for a car, house, bike, shoes, toilet, and fridge. If I'm still using such great products, why not reward the creators of them. But as a consumer I am also price conscious so if a competitor can offer an equivalent product for cheaper I will go with them.
5 replies →
Seriously, I have a house full of appliances, tools, clothing, and so on, that I get "ongoing value" from and whose manufacturers don't have the gall to try to charge me monthly for. Totally unacceptable business model.
3 replies →
I am not sure if the replies are serious or sarcastic
> work out the bugs, ship the final product
This part is left out in modern software development.
Bugs ? What bugs ? We just (re)wrote a new version. This one should be better.
Because I ate food each day between 1 July 2013 – 31 July 2013, I didn't starve and die. I am receiving ongoing benefit from not being dead. Should I continue paying for all that food?
No, since that food no longer exists. There's nothing the food creator can do. They can't cause it to spoil after you ate it. The massive benefit of not dying allows the price ceiling of food to be very high. But within society there is a lot of competition for nutrients which prevents food from reaching such heights.
5 replies →