That said, my father was using a copy of Office 2003 that stopped working. I mean, being able to stay on the same software can't be guaranteed in this day in age. I'm hearing in this thread that they did, and that does suck. But it just seems odd given all the other expenses we put up with.Īs for updates, if they don't take away features, that should be fine. I hate to play the "but you guys have iPhones!" card, but $3 to $5 a month shouldn't be that big of a deal? If you can't justify an extra $90 to $150 a year for the rest of your life, then fair enough. I use these daily and they are worth every penny.Ĭlick to expand.If it's a matter of cost, then that shouldn't be an issue. Adobe Photography 1TB (which is excellent) If the software is quality, I fully support subscriptions. I get it's expensive, but good things don't come for free. Nobody sees the true cost of developing software unless you do it yourself. Rent, hardware, infrastructure, marketing, etc.that'll easily wipe out the other $200k if you are lucky, so now you are literally breaking even. Not so bad.īut guess what, you have costs to pay. Not bad but then you have to take into account wages.(quality devs are expensive, so knock off at least $300,000). A small software house may sell 100k copies of their software a year, so that's just $500,000 a year. You've literally given a company just $5 a year for what is a quality product. You pay $40 and you're happy with that over the next 8 years. Traditional software models don't work for small software houses and this is a problem that subscriptions resolve. Users nowadays demand much more and that's expensive. I get your point, but then every year you will then buy the new version, so you're doing the same.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |