Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by d0mine 683 days ago
Amortized over 10 years of lifetime usage, it is just $4.13 per month-- less than Netflix "standard with Ads" subscription.
1 comments

With today's employee turnover you'd lose an incredible amount of money not doing a subscription. Even Netflix Premium would be cheaper.
Pretty sure most software were licensed per seat, not individual persons. The employee walks, but the seat remains.
In practice, though, you need to upgrade to stay current. For software that people use as a daily driver, subscriptions are not obviously more expensive in general.
that's where we disagree: you don't usually need to stay current. as long as it does the job, it's current enough. if there's new features available that would add value to the business, then you have a business case to buy a new license. 95% of software update haven't really added any value since the early 00s.
I'm not sure I want to work at a company that nickels and dimes purchases to the degree that I'm running unsupported 20 year old software because someone in procurement doesn't think I need an upgrade unless I write up a business case for it. I assume they're equally cheap in many other ways.
He didn't say "unsupported." He said no new features. I assume he meant "still fixing bugs."
and that's why we ended up with agile and alpha crapware released every week, breaking functionality that used to work and moving everything useful around until you can't find it.