Personally, as a polygot developer who works a lot in both Visual Studio with ReSharper and IntelliJ, this is an overall cost savings for me and simplifies things a lot. Instead of paying my $99/yr to renew IntelliJ, and another $129/yr to upgrade ReSharper - I can switch to the $149/yr 'everything included` plan and get a couple tools I don't already have (CLion being a big one).

If you're the kind of person who doesn't maintain their existing S&M subscription then it will end up costing you more, but typically this will break even for people that do regularly maintain them.

EDIT: Am I honestly getting downvoted because I'm not hopping aboard the wold-is-ending-because-subscriptions-are-bad circlejerk? I expect this kind of behavior on Reddit, not HN.

It's not like I'm telling anyone "you're wrong" for not liking the changes, but I certainly hope I'm allowed to state my opinion too.

This is a short-sighted view. JetBrains now controls pricing, and the relationship itself is coercive.

This means that you have no control over pricing, and that JetBrains doesn't need to worry about whether you'll renew year-to-year if they don't produce upgrades that make your renewal worthwhile.

Long-term mutually beneficial economic relationships are rarely built on top of coercive models that give one party such an enormous advantage.

I am having trouble understanding this viewpoint. For my position, I buy PyCharm Professional license, paying about $50 for each one year license. I plan to keep buying that license every year to get upgrades. To me, I end up paying the same price every year. If I want to try a tool for a month I can pay a few dollars for it, then let it go. To me, that's an advantage.

I am curious about "JetBrains now controls pricing". Haven't they always? If they raised their price outrageously for yearly upgrade model, they would lose customers, so that's true of new and old system. I have control of whether I pay their price or not, but they get to control the price, as always.

I understand to some degree that losing access to a tool is an inconvenience, but it doesn't strike me as a terrible burden. It's all just a view into the code, there's nothing irreplaceable about it. So renting compared to having guaranteed permanent access is a loss, but it doesn't seem that awful - but that's very different person to person.

Anyway, I am legitimately curious to hear more about this viewpoint. I kind of get it but don't have the strong visceral reaction to it as many others on here. Is it a use case difference, of people who skip upgrades versus those who don't and pay every year? Or is it fundamentally a philosophical stance on own versus rent?

If you are on the subscription and jetbrains sudenly hikes the price beyond your pain point, then you lose the tool completly, you cant even run the out of date versions. Under the old scheme you could just stop paying the upgrade and not get any new versions, but still carry on using the product.

> If you are on the subscription and jetbrains sudenly hikes the price beyond your pain point

Certainly a reasonable concern, it'd be nice if they implemented some kind of pricing guarantee. It sure wouldn't alleviate the concerns of everyone, but I think it'd go a long way towards showing goodwill.

> JetBrains doesn't need to worry about whether you'll renew year-to-year if they don't produce upgrades that make your renewal worthwhile.

Sure they do: the languages JetBrains IDEs support are also supported by other IDEs, free and paid. If your renewal doesn't leave you in a better position than the other alternatives on the market, you'll leave for some other tool.

This is a very good explanation of why this is bad for consumers.

"I can switch to the $149/yr 'everything included` plan and get a couple tools I don't already have"

I bet you think cable TV is a bargain too considering the literally thousands of channels you receive...

I'd prefer to pay for what I need... and keep it. And update when I feel I need to.

Really?

> I bet you think cable TV is a bargain too considering the literally thousands of channels you receive...

Why are you putting words in my mouth? I explicitly do not pay for cable because it is outrageously expensive and I watch a fraction of what I am forced to pay for.

I already pay more for these tools I use than I would be paying under the new plan, and I've been looking at buying CLion too. This is a net savings for me, personally.

I think you are being a little naive about this.

I am sure (much like the cable company does with "introductory" rates) that JetBrains was careful to set an initial price point that makes this a competitive offer.

The problem (as better stated elsewhere) is that the relationship is changed going forward. If they decide to raise the rates you are now left with the decision to continue at a less advantageous rate or have no product at all.

In addition, you assume that a major release per year is an inevitability. There may very well be no compelling reason to update... but it won't matter in this instance because you will pay no matter what.

teacup50 did a better job describing this...

> If they decide to raise the rates you are now left with the decision to continue at a less advantageous rate or have no product at all.

I'm not left with any such decision, they have explicitly stated in their FAQ that the 'existing customer' rates will continue indefinitely as long as the subscription is maintained. Sure, this means if I cancel I lose my special pricing, I'm not blind, but I don't see it happening.

> In addition, you assume that a major release per year is an inevitability.

I don't assume any such thing. I do not renew my licenses every year solely for the purpose of getting major new releases, point versions of current releases are part of the S&M as well, and getting left without bugfixes or support is not an option.

I see this is turning into a conspiracy theory )

Fortunately, there's a little thing called competition that prevents raising rates at will without facing the consequences, and JetBrains is no exception: we're no monopoly.

I'm sure different product teams here at JetBrains will adapt to the new model in a different way. My hope is that the change will contribute to a focus switch from a race to provide new features to ensuring better stability, performance and UX.

It doesn't take a conspiracy. Humans follow their incentives.

Customers are incentivized to keep ponying up for a subscription, because the alternative is a costly transition to other tools.

JetBrains, like any other business, is incentivized to maximize profits and minimize costs.

Customers assign value to avoiding costly disruption. That means that JetBrains is incentivized to lower costs by reducing the amount of value they otherwise provide to customers.

This is the very definition of "rent-seeking" behavior, and it's scummy.

"Fortunately, there's a little thing called competition that prevents raising rates at will without facing the consequences, and JetBrains is no exception: we're no monopoly."

Should add this to the press release. Would make me feel lucky to be a customer...

That's an odd interpretation of snuxoll's meaning. Presumably he likes getting access to tools he can usefully use, not "thousands of channels" he doesn't care about. He gets more tools that benfit him for less than he is currently paying. So I'm going with the assumption snuxoll meant that and he's not saying "I'm impressed by shiny things".

You're right. Probably not fair response.

But I reject the idea that getting more of something I don't want makes this any more palatable.