I kinda hate to be that guy but there was a whole store at the mall called Babbage's that sold consumer software. Sure, half was games but there was still plenty of other stuff.
Even ignoring games, have you ever seen the contents of a PC World cover CD? It's all over the map: there was consumer software for every conceivable reason and purpose. Commercial, shareware, PD, and open source were all alive and well - in rude health, in fact - in 1999.
Going further back, I remember the 80s. Even the little market town I lived in had at least half a dozen different places you could buy software, and the mail order scene for software, and weird hardware devices paired with software, was very much alive and well. I'd go as far as to say that, budget games aside, mail order was my default mechanism for buying computer software until well into the 90s when online became more prevalent.
Chevrolet, of all companies, used to literally distribute a program that was effectively a virtual and deeply pixellated car showroom to consumers in 1987: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I89vPzhpNNA.
Consumer software back in the day was widespread, diverse, weird, and wonderful. Going back into the 70s and early 80s, much of the early innovation in consumer software for personal computers, came from the very consumers - the hackers, hobbyists, and tinkerers - who bought them.
Remarks like "Consumer software barely existed just 20 years ago" simply come off as out of touch and ignorant of history, which has the effect of undermining the credibility of any other point the piece is trying to make (especially as an opener - WTH?).
Maybe the term is better understood in terms of amount of "offered software then vs. now"?
Perhaps the author is referring to the rise consumer-facing SaaS (Software as a Service).
And this was after the days of
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_Home
were quite over.
1password for example is only $3 USD a month. I don't understand why you would stop loving 1password because of a $3 subscription.
A software that is subscription based means your computer system seen as a whole will stop working at some point in the future if you don't remember to take a specific action (like updating the payment method or some such). It means uncertainty, it basically means you can only guarantee your system will work as-is for the next month. The more software of this kind you have, the more complex your system becomes to maintain in a given state and it burdens your mind.
I think it's fine for software you only intend to use for a few weeks/months at a time, or for software where you always want to be on the bleeding edge of tech, but for things as low level as a password manager? You want something really stable. It should also not update itself. So if we are not interested in updates what's the point of paying monthly?
Subscriptions do have some advantages for the customer: they often come with a free trial, and if you later on decide that they're not worth the value, you can (hopefully, easily) cancel; whereas getting a refund for a one-off big purchase might be more tricky, or even impossible; your resale ability might also be limited. The subscription model also helps align incentives: the developer must continue providing good value, or risk losing subscribers.
But on the other hand: people want to own things they pay for.
It costs about 200 quid, or you get a licence for it free with basically any of their cameras or edit controllers.
Once you've paid for it, you own that copy, and so far in any of their releases your key will work with all the updates. Version 18 is about to drop, and still even a key for 14 or 15 will work just fine.
I get that they make their money from selling hardware and Adobe don't, but less than a year of licence fees for Premiere would pay for a copy of Resolve. If you waited 18 months you'd be able to afford the Speed Editor package and then you'd get a cute wee edit controller with a proper jog/shuttle wheel and proper clicky buttons with your licence.
The 27 quid a month for a Premiere licence would be one of my larger monthly outgoings.
But software has effectively zero marginal cost. Meaning normal competition and the free market just don't work.
Say a company makes some software that costs them a million dollars to make. They figure their best chance of making a profit is by pricing it at $100, and selling at least 10,000 copies.
Now another company decides to compete as well. It costs them a million dollars as well to develop their competing product, which we can imagine is every bit as good and serves the exact same need.
But they figure their best chance of making a profit is to sell it for $10. Sure, they make less per copy, but the lower price should allow them to sell a lot more. So they'll need to sell at least 100,000 copies.
That's bad. There is no reasonable way of saying how much value a single copy has. It's not like making, say, a bicycle where the bulk of the price is to cover the marginal cost.... i.e. the cost of making one more bicycle.
Anyone developing software must realize that they could be massively undercut by competition. It's just not a stable model.
Does anyone remember when Apple's WebObjects product was reduced in price from $200,000 to $699? Then a year later, bundled with the operating system?
To the point of the original article, smaller companies have a hard time competing due to less reach. That's missing. If I run Disney and can reach 4 billion people, and your 5-person shop can reach 50,000 people, I can either price my product 5 orders of magnitude lower than you, or invest an extra 5 orders of magnitude into development.
That's expensive. If I want to comply with Khazak tax laws, provide support there, and reach distribution channels there, I probably want to pay for an office there. That office might have four people, regardless of whether we sell 1 product or 100 products.
A lot of what app stores do is provide that kind of reach to all businesses, driving pricing down.
Personally, I'm a big fan of government grant funding for free software. It seems like the OS, office suite, video editor, and similar tools ought to have a baseline versions available to anyone for free.
The second company might think there is a market for 100k users, and price accordingly at $10, but only sell 10k copies and go out of business.
Now, however, people see the product as only being worth the lower price point of $10, and won't pay $100 for it anymore. So company A can only sell 1000 copies at $100, and also goes out of business.
tl;dr: If the product is free, you are the product.
I used to contribute to a GPL licensed program which is apparently doing pretty well in its industry these days and is just free. They pay developers a living wage and have a plug-in ecosystem which also generates income for people to develop them (I assume, don’t know if people live off plug-in income).
So a revised statement would be "If the product is free, some users are the product.", as many users aren't easily manipulated and therefore don't become products.
I'd say not only it existed, but it existed more than today, if you exclude games.
Eg, things that used to be for sale, and aren't really much of a thing anymore: various system tools like Norton Utilities, desktop toys that did junk like animated cursors in Windows 3.1, file compression tools, disk compression tools (Stacker), replacements for the Windows program manager, special purpose tools (PawSense is a funny one), memory managers (QEMM), PartitionMagic, Web browsers (Netscape was a packaged, paid product), mail clients (Eudora), possibly antiviruses (it's my impression that these days Windows Defender does the job)
The likes of DOS and Windows 3.1 were barren of almost all functionality out of the box compared to a modern system. If you wanted to get something done legally, you had to buy a bunch of stuff. And then often times you'd want a bunch of misc tools on top.
These days pretty much all of that has been absorbed into the OS, or has perfectly good free alternatives, or is functionally obsolete and not really a concept anymore.
