[always_good]

They are complaining about both, which means they might have a good argument but it's infected with their bad argument.

Can't have your cake and eat it, too. But I suspect they also just don't want to pay a subscription. Well, who does? I also don't like having to pay for coffee.

[kbenson]

There is nothing wrong with full price software. It fully works, it just needs to be clearly outlines how long your support lifecycle is, which many companies don't think about. Pay full price, get X years of bugfixes (and access to new versions, depending) from date of purchase.

There's three types of model really, and the problem is when companies have multiple models in place and don't treat them equivalently.

Pay in advance - This is like buying a car. You get a warranty for certain covered problems. Costs a lot.

Pay subscription for local software. - This is like leasing a car. You pay a lesser amount each month, but have full usage of the vehicle. You lose access at the end of the lease.

Pay subscription for cloud based software - This is like using ride-sharing (or maybe a community shared vehicle system) for everything. You have access to the software on demand when you need it, and lose access when no longer a member / you stop using it.

All these models work. The problem with some full price software is they were selling it like it had a warranty and not defining the warranty. Expectations are all over the place, and when they don't match reality, people get upset.

Additionally, in this case people are upset about how there's two models in place and they don't appear to be handled the same, as they had some expectation of a type of warranty with full price software, and all of a sudden it feels like the company has changed how they are handling warranty requests for already sold full price software.

As a company, communicate clearly and follow through with that you've stated, and these problems go away.