[errantspark]

The real reason for the software as a service model is that it makes it easier to extract/capture value. Many SaaS offerings would be better at providing value to customers with non-SaaS architectures, unfortunately providing value to customers is second to providing value to shareholders.

Don't pay for SaaS, don't encourage this bullshit. If foss offerings don't cover your usecase piracy is better for humanity than paying.

[echelon]

So don't pay the engineers that built the product and continue to maintain it?

That's fine with fixed priced software if the software is static and frozen in time, but most software is living and breathing and requires continual investment.

You can absolutely use an old WordStar license. In fact, several notable authors do.

[errantspark]

> So don't pay the engineers that built the product and continue to maintain it?

Saas isn't the only way to pay people.

> most software is living and breathing and requires continual investment

Is it though? or is this broadly another side effect of value extraction focused engineering? I'm quite happy to buy a new version if it makes my life notably easier. CS2 is broadly a better experience than CC, etc. etc.

[olliej]

> > So don't pay the engineers that built the product and continue to maintain it? Saas isn't the only way to pay people.

> Saas isn't the only way to pay people.

> It kind of is if you have a product that people expect updates for, or you have to have very high prices, or a secondary source of income.

> > most software is living and breathing and requires continual investment Is it though? or is this broadly another side effect of value extraction focused engineering? I'm quite happy to buy a new version if it makes my life notably easier. CS2 is broadly a better experience than CC, etc. etc.

But are you happy to pay for better architecture that doesn't have shiny new features? Or support for new X (depending on the product this could be image formats, it could be architectures)? etc

To be clear I am not saying I want subscription based software, but I understand the business argument for it.

[unionpivo]

> But are you happy to pay for better architecture that doesn't have shiny new features? Or support for new X (depending on the product this could be image formats, it could be architectures)? etc

Depends on what product, and my use case.

> To be clear I am not saying I want subscription based software, but I understand the business argument for it.

Has nothing to do with more supported X or better architecture, its just about money. In fact SaaS offerings are often compromised and worse of than when they were standalone (at least in my experience with software that made transition from standard releases to subscription).

Additionally in my experience with software that went that route (standard paid releases to subscription) that just signals that the customer milking has become, and pretty much any new feature is looked at from how can we milk it standpoint.

[olliej]

> pretty much any new feature is looked at from how can we milk it standpoint.

That’s how more or less all features are chosen? The alternative is going out of your way to spend time/money on features you know have minimal/no interest.