Tell HN: A Conversation Needs to Be Had over Subscription Software
This sort of began when we all got the impression that software should be free, or that we pay a low price once and get indefinite free upgrades.  Given that developers need to be paid, and resources cost money, there needs to be a way to rectify that gap between the consumer and maintainer.  At one point we did so by paying for an initial version of software, and then paying for updates.  Now that we don’t do that, but someone still needs a revenue stream to pay for the costs of maintaining and evolving software, the subscription model has emerged.  It’s really not that complicated.  Where it gets hostile is when you see a subscription model for something where the subscription doesn’t yield any evidence of effort from the provider.  For example, a subscription to software that never sees updates nor has infrastructure costs.  That’s just a money grab.<p>What confuses me is seeing this kind of question on the same forum where people often gripe about not being paid the 6 digit salary they expect to produce the software we use.  How do you achieve super cheap products made by people making super high pay?  Money doesn’t just materialize out of thin air to make that work.<p>PS: my comment comes off as advocating for the subscription model.  I personally hate it with a passion: I’d rather pay for upgrades/updates to code, and pay for resources metered by my usage.  My comment should be interpreted as understanding where the model comes from, not necessarily liking it.