|
|
|
|
|
|
by _dot__dot_
1766 days ago
|
|
|
I don't quite see why free bug fixes/minor features + paid major upgrades model should be any different from subscription model for developers, except giving the users control over when to upgrade. Control that is essential for apps that contain critical data. BTW, I think they do have an option that you pay for 3 years upfront. At least, that was one of the options they mentioned when I complained about the lack of the option to buy a license. To me that did not seem an acceptable solution because you pay upfront and still have all the drawbacks of the subscription model such as being dependent on the trustworthiness of a quite obviously untrustworthy company. Add to that the removal of local vault option, and it becomes even less acceptable. |
|
|
I know that it's very common for subscription models to coincide with forced upgrades (as this one does), but that seems like a choice on the part of the company as opposed to something inherent to the revenue model. I'd be quite happy to pay a developer to continue to maintain an older version of their software.
Like you pointed out, I think a fee structure where you pay for major updates and otherwise pay a maintenance / hosting subscription fee makes the most sense.
I think that you see open source projects that struggle along all of the time because their developers cannot afford to work on them enough. Not every project, but enough of them. I try to support projects like that too.