On the face of it, yearly subscriptions for software aren't fundamentally different from yearly paid updates. In theory the customer pays the same and gets the same. The difference with subs is that the burden is on the customer to cancel rather than on the company to retain them
(I should add that there *is* a major difference between these models if the software actually stops working when the subscription ends, but assuming that the customer simply stops getting updates and the old version continues to work until it succumbs to bitrot, the above holds)
The main argument in favor of subscriptions is that the developer is no longer under pressure to add useless features in order to make updates seem more attractive. That's true to a point, but they are also less incentivised to add useful features - or do anything at all.
The appeal (for developers) of the subscription model is based on the principle that users require a push to change the status quo. With upgrade pricing, they need to be pushed to upgrade (and many won't). But with subscription pricing they need a push *not* to (and many won't).
In other words, as a developer you don't need to make your new version so great that users want to upgrade - it just has to not be terrible enough to make them cancel. I can see why this appeals to devs, but I think it would be disingenuous to say that it's beneficial to users.
More sneaky though is the fact that subscriptions also take advantage of the possibility that users will forget to cancel if they stop using the software. It's rare that people know when they've used an app for the last time, so chances are they may overpay by a cycle or two.
That's not a flaw in the subscription model - it's a feature. It's a deliberate, plausibly-deniable scam to get users to pay for software they no longer use, or use rarely enough that it's not worth paying for every version.
Subscriptions have some benefits, but if you were to sit down and try to design a software subscription model with user friendliness as the primary goal you would end up with a very different system than what we have. That's how you can tell that was never the goal.
For example, an obvious way to make subscriptions less user-hostile would be if they only auto-renewed when the user opens the app. Didn't open the app for a whole billing cycle? Then you don't pay.
Have you seen developers using or advocating for such a model? Me either.
Have you seen developers using or advocating for such a model? Me either.
When I see developers building subscription models that are designed to prevent users from overpaying instead of designed to maximise the chance of that happening, I'll believe this is about sustainability. Right now it just looks like a cynical money grab, and I hope it fails.
