undefined | Better HN

0 pointsxenophon11y ago0 comments

When you buy software for a fixed price, you've just bought a depreciating asset (relative to upgrades) with no way to adjust spend and fine-tune your ROI based on anticipated or unanticipated changes to your usage.

What I'm trying to say is that your "return" from this product is obviously contingent on how much you use it/what you make with it. If you have 95% confidence that you'll produce enough to net a positive ROI over and above the fixed price, then yeah it's more convenient to buy it once. But especially for a new product like this, I much prefer a subscription model because I have more control over my costs and I can't yet anticipate my true benefit. It's a win-win: software maker gets to push frequent updates and ensure a constantly improving experience, and user gets to check-in frequently and re-consider if they're not getting enough value.

0 comments

fit2rule11y ago

So you can buy this software for 24.99, and then after a month of use, decide not to use it - cancel your subscription - and the software then becomes useless to you. You've just lost 24.99 and end up with nothing to show for it.

If you buy this software for 299.00, you can use it for a month and then decide its not for you - you've lost 299, but you've still got the software on your system, and can change your mind 3 months later, if you need to, and still have a valid, working tool.

I dunno, I just don't like the idea of having to be beholden to a company, every month, for the right to use a developer tool that I'd be happier having a permanent installation of .. it reeks of the trappings of a walled garden, and even if the bells and whistles are worth the hassle, the politics of the situation just rubs me up the wrong way.

I'd be much happier buying a tool I'm going to use, at my own discretion either regularly, irregularly, or not at all (my choice), than have to ask permission to use it every month. Its the asking-of-permission, expressed as a subscription model, which is the core of my disinterest.

(I've signed up for a 14-day trial, anyway, because the tool interests me enough to warrant further investigation, but unless I find some serious bells and whistles, I'm quite sure I'll be throwing it away after the trial..)

xenophonOP11y ago

In your example, you've just paid for 3 unnecessary months of use between when you "decided it wasn't for you" and "changed your mind." In a subscription model, you'd just resubscribe.

I can understand your unease given how subscriptions have been abused by unscrupulous parties in the past, but there's much less friction in cancellation these days. Ultimately I'm just finding it hard to understand why you'd deliberately create a fixed cost for yourself. I'd rather have the ability to consume a product when I need, and pay for that and no more.

fit2rule11y ago

I'd rather have a fixed cost than a continuing cost. Why is it better to be paying for a tool every month rather than to own the tool, outright? I'm not seeing the argument for having to keep paying for a tool that you'd be using, if you choose to use it?

If your argument is that the subscription model allows uncertain developers to get involved, I would argue that tools like this should be purchased by those who are certain they are going to use them. Otherwise, the only benefit is to the tool-maker - and that's the case here. The subscription model only really benefits the producer of the product - not the user, who is ultimately only able to keep using the tool as long as they are paying for it, on a regular basis. Meh. No thanks!

1 more reply

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse

0 pointsxenophon11y ago0 comments

0 comments

fit2rule11y ago

xenophonOP11y ago

In your example, you've just paid for 3 unnecessary months of use between when you "decided it wasn't for you" and "changed your mind." In a subscription model, you'd just resubscribe.

fit2rule11y ago

1 more reply

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse