[blinzy]

I'm not saying it's impossible to sell software with one-time payment model, I'm saying it's noticeably harder. There's always going to be companies that make do with such business models, but what's the ratio of successful companies with one-time payment out of all companies that have tried that? How does that compare with companies that go for subscription model (or ad-supported model)?

And are there any behemoths (i.e., hugely profitable companies) that do one-time payment software? Because as far as I know Microsoft would have been one of the few or only such cases (and obviously it only applies to a subset of their products, many others are using other business models) and they are also moving towards a subscription model, e.g., for Office, which considering they probably have a legion of financial analysts, accountants, etc. I assume they have done their due diligence to figure out it's worth it.

[yakubin]

Adobe used to be such a behemoth. They didn't switch to subscriptions due to unprofitability. They just wanted more and more. Same with Microsoft. They're a behemoth switching to subscriptions now. But that's not because they're running low on money. And most games are still one-time payment today. So you can count Ubisoft, EA etc. Of course there are other sources of payment for them than just the nominal price of the game, but most gamers only pay for the game and ignore everything else.

Besides, I don't think I want a market dominated by behemoths. If popularity of one-time payment model would lead to a market dominated by <25 person companies with an odd behemoth here and there, then I'm in.

Also, most software companies today are startups which exist only thanks to investor money. It's hard to say what a customer-driven market would look like. Although maybe recession is going to clear this up.