[recursivenature]

Completely understand the comments around valuation of a recurring revenue business and ongoing maintenance. Those are all true and accurate.

I've also been thinking about this from an ecosystem standpoint that it is now very difficult to develop a software product that is not SaaS.

If everyone else is SaaS, and you are not, your business will be:

- Valued lower than equivalent revenue SaaS businesses, because revenue is lumpy and comparatively unpredictable

- Have greater difficulty raising capital, because investors aren't used to valuing non-SaaS businesses any more

- Have greater difficulty hiring engineers, as they know the next job they have will likely be SaaS related

- Slower sales cycle due to higher upfront price required (IE - Doesn't automatically fit on an employee card for land and expand)

- Higher customer acquisition costs, as most customers, other than those on HN, are used to the subscription model and prices, and would encounter sticker shock at the high prices required to make a one time purchase work

[TAForObvReasons]

> most customers, other than those on HN, are used to the subscription model and prices, and would encounter sticker shock at the high prices required to make a one time purchase work

This one has basically come full circle last year. [1] Many "customers, other than those on HN" have been burned by subscriptions in the past and are rightfully using pricing models assuming a 10x service spike in the future. We've found it easier to sell one-time units for $25000 than subscriptions of $250/mo

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28372532

[asdff]

I don't get it. It used to be software licenses were being sold for like $10 or $20 dollars. Now $.99 a month is somehow more palatable than $20 for life? I don't believe it. I think perhaps organizations got too large in their bureaucracy. Times were probably leaner for the business folk when software were sold for $10 and $20 or even $120 dollars for Adobe products.

All that being said, it stands to reason you could structure your business to be lean enough to ask for $10 or $20 or $120 licenses again, because it worked fine a decade ago, and nothing significantly changed to make it not work now other than all the sexier corporate real estate these companies have invested into across the US and expanding administrations.

You could take a share of that profit from license sales after paying your immediate overhead to set up some sort of trust that can pay out maintainers for that software long into the future. It can even be structured to outlast the development company if done correctly.

[lotsofpulp]

I know a lot of small business owners love SaaS that reduce their IT department to someone who can buy a new iPad and log into the apps again.

Payroll, POS, inventory, backup, etc and the owners can keep track of everything remotely. Setup a backup mobile internet solution, and your biggest IT problem becomes regional loss of electricity.

Nothing for employees or others to steal, nothing to spend on tech support labor, and being up and running again is just a matter of replacing the iPad.

[Gigachad]

It’s also very easy to justify. As long as the product generates more value than it’s monthly price, it doesn’t matter what it costs. And it’s so low risk since you can cancel any time.

[pleas4nt0ne]

So we have settled on one model that VCs understand and manufactured consent to be ruled by that model by relying on VCs

So much for being risk takers and disruptors. Sounds a whole lot like the opposite.

What’s old is new again. Why do we continue to value people who do not do real work but, like a preacher, latch onto a meme that has others work for them?