@wasi
There has been so much confusion over the word 'subscription' here, and many people have got quite upset over it, so much so that I now regret that we ever called it that. It's just a name. The release model is pretty much the same whichever way round. Our current model is better for the user, in fact - it's more generous than 'paid upgrades' for a variety of reasons. My apologies in advance but here follows a long missive on the subject, hopefully the last from me.
The blunt reality is that, since the 'subscription' is buying the right to download new versions and keep them forever rather than the right to run those versions on your computer (which I think would be a horrible model, just to be clear), there is absolutely no functional difference between a 'paid upgrade' and what we are calling a 'subscription'. The 'paid upgrade' pricing model provides no more assurances or advantages to a user than the one we have adopted and in fact has some downsides in the release pattern that we've adopted and which quite a few of our users seem to enjoy. Let's compare the two different labels to be clear:
'paid upgrade'
1 - you get to download the version that is currently released and as you put so well, the version whose features are advertised and understood
2 - you get to download minor upgrades and bug fixes, right up 'till the company decides 'enough of that, we need more money' at which point a major version number bump is announced and you have the option to buy or upgrade to that. Subsequent bug fixes are at the whim of the vendor and are often not backported from later versions (which is quite understandable, sometimes this is really hard)
3 - you have to trust the vendor not to simply produce a 'major version number' change at some point, for new features or later operating system compatibility that you do not consider worth the money. This trust is usually misplaced.
4 - the pricing model is quite inflexible, you have to pay the price for the major version if you want it or, if you already own the version below, sometimes a fixed upgrade fee
5 - you do not get access to early versions of new software since to give you such access would devalue the final release, particularly in the later parts of an open release cycle when the software is nearly finished testing
6 - you do not usually get software support for the life of that version, it is often limited to a much smaller time unless you pay a regular 'support fee'.
'subscription'
1 - you can immediately download the current, advertised stable version when you subscribe.
2 - you get (time limited) access to any and all upgrades (major version, minor version, whatever) and bug fixes that come along. In the worst case this gives you (if you buy the full price version) a year of updates to whatever version you bought - this will, in any normal software companies lifecycle, be as much as you ever get, if not more, in terms of OS compatibility and significant bugfixes for a 'paid upgrade'
3 - pricing is more flexible, discounted software is simple as it reflects a difference in access time to improvements and this can be arbitrarily shortened to make things more affordable (hence our 6 month subs at not much more than half price, an option that would simply not be possible in a 'paid upgrade' model)
4 - we provide support for that period
5 - access to experimental and early new software versions is included and does not have to be restricted in any way
The important thing to remember in all this is that the version numbering of released versions is almost entirely arbitrary and quite often decided by the marketing department / CEO in most software companies - it's not a technical decision despite the fact it looks that way. This is not my first software company, I have run a number and I can tell you that one of the primary deciders of when to make a version number change is not 'how many new features do we have in this' it's 'how long has it been since the last major version upgrade?' which is code for 'how long since we taxed our users last?'. A chargeable major version number upgrade then often receives some 'dressing up' with easy to implement features to make the thing look better, but that's how it works. Everyone does this - the paid upgrade model with it's often very arbitrary nature just moves the reality a little way away from you to make it more palatable. On the way it breaks a number of nice things, in particular the ability to offer everyone running support and access to pre stable versions. It also causes companies to 'save up' cool new stuff for a major version upgrade, which just keeps them from you for longer.
So, to summarise, if you want a 'paid upgrade' pricing model all you actually have to do is this:
- ignore the word 'subscription' everywhere you see it on our website
- wait for a stable release with advertised features
- buy a 12 months sub (don't take advantage of the cheaper, shorter option)
- download the latest version and stick with the bugfix upgrades to that particular version
- don't download any subsequent versions with significant new features (we'll usually backport bugfixes into a version while's it's practical to do so, so you'll have exactly the same experience as a 'paid upgrade' if you do this)
- don't try new software versions in development
- keep an eye on the newer versions, and when the difference in features gets to the point where you think they're worthwhile, repeat
If you do this as far as I can see you'll have exactly the same experience as buying a 'paid upgrade', just not quite as good.
If you think that there would be much value beyond the 12 months in a paid upgrade model, btw, I beg to differ - by that point in any well run company the new features development has long been focused on a newer, chargeable version. And, as I'm sure you will have noticed, driven by basic economics most companies are releasing major upgrades at increasingly short intervals. I take your point about knowing you're 'on board for 2.X' for a fixed price, but that is a seriously arbitrary distinction, all it would mean in practice is that , just like many vendors, we'd save up a bunch of features in development over the next year (which consequently you wouldn't get to use), then update the major version number next April when we fold them in and charge you for the upgrade. It's just the same, just not a nice for all the players and more work for us, which doesn't exactly seem like a win to me.
John
UK
