[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.

[vertis]

Likewise