[diffeomorphism]

That does not seem to be the case, at all.

For example, people complained very loudly about not being able to buy photoshop anymore. Any time office365 is discussed, again people complain. People seem to hate subscriptions.

What is true instead is that people are forced into subscriptions because one-time purchases are just not offered anymore.

[fleddr]

I agree. For quite a few people, both Photoshop and Office is software that is "done". It already does a thousand things more than they use so users would be absolutely fine to pay a one-time fee for a particular version, and just stay there. This option has been taken away, which is consumer-hostile.

I consider a note-taking service to be a different situation, similar to a photo hosting service. Costs are ongoing (and typically growing) so it's not reasonable to expect a one time payment.

As for the first case, both Adobe and Microsoft are thriving for forcing subscriptions, so it makes a lot of business sense. From their perspective it makes sense to dismiss the outrage. People that need the software will ultimately give in and those that are complaining the most, weren't delivering revenue anyway.

The important thing to understand is that both examples are industry standard, irreplaceable software. There are little to no serious alternatives. A startup with some very optional software can't afford this arrogance.

[vertis]

As I mentioned on a thread, one-time purchases are a lie we tell ourselves anyway, and every version of Office or Photoshop (pre subscription). You still have to pay for the newest version with the support for new hardware/OS and features.

[latexr]

You do not have to pay for the newest version. I know plenty of people who are several versions behind on Adobe apps because they are enough for their needs and they cannot afford new ones. Those same people can’t afford the newest hardware and are fine with not upgrading their OS to be able to use their apps.

[vertis]

Right, it was a massive generalization. However, I highly doubt those people are using Windows 98 (insert other example), and they probably did at some point (depending on age, ecosystem etc).

They may well not be using the 'most current' version of the software, and I can think of a few pieces of software where that's been the case for me too. Either because I don't use it enough to justify the upgrade, or I actively object to being fleeced again for essentially the same product that's been "updated".

But eventually, if they want to continue doing the task they'll end up paying for a new version. Unless it's open source, it's always under the control of the product creator, and their incentives are always going to be on extracting money, and indeed they need to, to continue supporting the software.

In the Apple Ecosystem, the move to M1 Macs is an example that will force people to pay for upgrades.

Buying it once and riding it as long as possible is undoubtly cheaper than subscriptions, however it's still got a lifespan that eventually requires the next payment.

[_7jf7]

> But eventually, if they want to continue doing the task they'll end up paying for a new version.

Freehand[1] has been discontinued for almost two decades, and ten years ago I was still able to use it to great effect. Heck, if I wanted to use it today I probably could, thanks to Wine[2].

> however it's still got a lifespan that eventually requires the next payment.

Unless you wait so long that a competitor arises or you stop having the need. I never paid for Adobe Creative Cloud and Affinity[3] came along without subscriptions. One could also conceivably do without Microsoft Office updates so long that Open Office catches up to the needed features and surpasses it.

Note I do tend to pay for new versions of software I use. But I have no quarrel with stopping if they no longer provide adequate value, like 1Password moving to subscription pricing to collect rent on a done product yet somehow still managing to make it inferior (Electron).

I continue to disagree with the premise that “one-time purchases are a lie we tell ourselves”. If that were the case companies would have continued as they were. They move to subscriptions precisely because it removes the customer’s choice to upgrade—you either keep paying or can’t even access your past files. And they can jack up the price or remove features at any time (see LastPass).

Though I can get behind the hybrid model of Perpetual Fallback Licenses[4].

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adobe_FreeHand

[2]: https://appdb.winehq.org/objectManager.php?sClass=version&iI...

[3]: https://affinity.serif.com/

[4]: https://github.com/vitorgalvao/perpetual-fallback-licenses

[vertis]

I almost mentioned competitors, I consider buying a competitors product to be an example in support of my argument, and open-source the exception. I too own a copy of Affinity, because I don't use those features enough to justify the rent-seeking that Adobe does.

I don't think we disagree as much as you think, I'm not arguing in favour of subscriptions. I'm simply pointing out that the majority of the companies that have avoided subscription models still have to make money and they do that by only releasing features in new versions of the software. Only supporting new platforms with new versions.

When it comes to technically competant users, there are usally alternatives that allow usage (as you suggest), but those aren't realistic for the majority of users.

Software creators must take in money to support themselves (or else work for free, as is the case with open-source). That can either be in the form of subscriptions, paid upgrades, or donations.

Given the constant onward march of technology and platforms, eventually they'll get you (or their competitor will get you), and you'll open your wallet again.

[latexr]

I agree. Thank you for a pleasant discussion.