[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.