[nonethewiser]

SAAS pays for continued development and support. One upfront license fee returns us to the Microsoft Office 13, 15, 20 etc. world. Marginal differences, little to no support, and new releases for the sake of new revenue. SAAS is far better aligned to customer and business interests.

[cool_dude85]

In other words, the developer has to produce a worthwhile feature to charge me for it? I don't have to pay for Office 20 when it's the same as Office 13 which I already own?

Sign me up.

[zlg_codes]

Which interests are those, and how is a subscription better than a one-time purchase?

I smell dishonesty. SaaS is aligned solely to the business's interest. They control the code, they control whether you even access it after paying, etc. The customer gets no rights or considerations, so it's a one-sided transaction.

Just like Netflix and friends. I only do one subscription service and it's to play online with my niece and nephew. The rest of the subscription world can suck it, they want rent for Internet-bound software that spies and tells on you so they can sell data on top of your subscription.

Business cannot get software sales correct. Game makers did back in the 80s, 90s, and 00s before DLC became a thing.

One purchase, one perpetual license, no phoning home. Too hard to do for the modern commercial developer, it seems.

So, which interests of mine would a SaaS satisfy?