> ore importantly, subscriptions are immoral because the end result is robbing users of any sense of ownership. And as a software developer, you no longer feel compelled to innovate, to improve, in order to convince users to upgrade. I for one hate renting things, I prefer ownership.
Sure as long as you also accept that you are not owed bug fixes it updates. If you however believe that with system upgrades you should get corresponding app upgrades, then it starts to sound more like a service. I like subscription because I want developers to treat this as a service: support, fixes, features, etc.
> Sure as long as you also accept that you are not owed bug fixes it updates.
"Bug fixes" and "updates" are both too broad. If a feature is broken enough that an advertised feature of the software doesn't work, or in the case of something criminally negligent on the developer's part, I'd consider myself entitled to an update to fix the issue. Either that or a refund for whatever amount I paid for the app (or potentially damages, if I could prove them negligent).
New features and functional changes should be available as an upgrade, perhaps with a discount over buying a new copy of the software.
I'd expect the app not to break over minor OS updates, but major versions changes are always a less predictable.
> I'd consider myself entitled to an update to fix the issue. Either that or a refund
If a company publishes an app and then goes out of business, and then years later the platform shifts out from under that app such that it no longer works, do you feel like you deserve a refund? If so, who do you expect to pay? The platform gave your money to the developer; the developer ceased to exist. Neither one has "your" money any more.
I'm not talking about years later. I'm talking about an immediately obvious shortcoming that manifests on the platform supported by the product at the time of purchase.
If I buy it and they're out of business 5 minutes later, then I guess I should've been paying more attention to who I give my money to.
I think you've got it backwards. Adobe supported running CS6 on various platforms. The platforms weren't (and aren't) the ones doing the support.
At this point, no one supports CS6. The fact that you can use it on some particular desktop platform is partially a consequence of their past support, and partially because the platform hasn't "shifted out from under" the application yet.
> At this point, no one supports CS6. The fact that you can use it on some particular desktop platform is partially a consequence of their past support, and partially because the platform hasn't "shifted out from under" the application yet.
I don't think that reflects reality. I would suggest taking a look at the internals of AppKit and other critical paths, you'll discover they are very aware of the applications linking into them.
Sure as long as you also accept that you are not owed bug fixes it updates. If you however believe that with system upgrades you should get corresponding app upgrades, then it starts to sound more like a service. I like subscription because I want developers to treat this as a service: support, fixes, features, etc.