[jchw]

Exactly! And I do, in fact, I will pay much more than that for a one-time software payment, and I have. However:

> If you have to make your tool a one-time cost, you might come to realize it's not really worth the amount of money you could've made by selling it for $5/mo, and that's a great illustration of just one reason why developers don't like subscriptions.

At $900, it's not so easy of a sell. edit: Especially because, do I own it?

> License for 3 activations

OK. What happens when the activation server goes down? For software I really own, there is no concern here.

[bombcar]

I’d love to see software escrow for companies like this - something as simple as “if we stop making the software or go bankrupt or otherwise make it unable to be used, we have the source code and friends escrowed with a company that will then release it under the AGPL.”

[kamarg]

I know of two companies that provide this. My experience is with software written for government entities by a third party. Every time we cut a new release, we would have to go through an escrow process to provide the services with a VM image that would allow our clients to build from source our entire software stack along with the ability to host the software either in house or in the cloud. It was a very expensive and time consuming processes and my ex-employer charged a fortune to any clients that wanted it.

https://nationalsoftwareescrow.com/what-is-software-escrow/

https://softwareresilience.nccgroup.com/software-escrow-serv...

[earthnail]

Unlikely that this will happen. Companies rarely go bankrupt, they often just float along. Even if it did release the source code, will you really go and make it compile? There's also a lot of credentials involved; for example for getting an app on the App Store, you not only need the source code but all the developer certificates. Releasing them would violate Apple's App Store T&C.

It's just not that simple in practice. Then again, that's not unique to software: imagine being a car company and looking for suppliers. You're not gonna rely on some new unknown company for components that you need in your long-term planning. But if you do, you pay them so that they can survive.

My main gripe with subs is that there's no central place to manage them and it's easy to forget how many you have. That is the one thing that Apple did well in the App Store.

[themerone]

I have expensive useless licenses from multiple defunct software vendors.

It's said that 20% of small businesses fail in their first year, and 50% in the first five.

[bombcar]

Central management and ease of cancelling is a huge factor - App Store subscriptions are painless and I'll do them without a second thought, everything else is hell and I avoid them as much as I can.

[gofreddygo]

Right... and an insurance company to cover for the escrow company going belly up.

[fragmede]

You're still proving rcconf's bigger point - don't sell tools to developers, because we suck to sell to. This leaves us with shitty free tools, or really expensive ones that tie us to our employers. Want to leave your job? I mean, sure, you can, but on top of needing to find a new job, you'll need to learn a completely different development environment. Which is just life, I suppose.