I really do appreciate the classic software pricing.
It could be a higher fee, or more frequent but I'm really tired of all the Recurring costs!
The danger of the one-off model is that it sometimes creates the wrong incentives. Features and even bug fixes get pushed into newer versions, which may even delay their release until there's enough of them to justify a new version.
A good example of this going awry is the RAW file processing for Photoshop (pre-subscription). Newer cameras would get added to new versions of the Camera Raw plugin but you needed a new version of Photoshop to use the newer Camera Raw versions.
I honestly don't mind the subscription model and I think Jetbrains has about the best one of all: you get constant acess to upgrades. When you choose to stop subscribing, that simply locks in the latest version you can use (ie you don't lose access entirely).
The problem is many companies price subscriptions wrong. They say "our software costs $600 so we should charge $50/month". Because, you know, recouping that cost in a year is somehow reasonable.
I can't say I recognize that wrong incentives in real life and I've yet to find a single piece of software that I'm willing to pay a subscription for.
It all comes down to business ethics, are you trying to rip off your customers? Most can't afford to piss off their paying users so they play nice (and I hope that is not the only reason they are being reasonable).
Statements like this ignore the costs of creating it in the first place.
It's easier to cancel a subscription than get a refund on a license.
But rather that companies that don't offer subscriptions can't game on features and bug-fixes just to fish for upgrade fees before people feel (rightly so) ripped off. There is an implicit agreement on the support provided and if the company fails to deliver that people won't play along.
Also, if you loose access when you stop subscribing that is actually much harder to do compared to not paying for an upgrade if you "own" a license of the software.
Software is something that needs to be continuously developed and maintained. Charging a one-time fee is a fundamentally unsustainable approach. We all have to face reality and start paying for software as a subscription.
Now, that will likely end the bubble of "I can buy 100 apps, most of which I'll never use", which we have been in for the last 20 years or so. But perhaps the few apps that people will pay for will become better as a result. I'm hoping for it.
Not always. Sometimes software is "done" and warrants no further changes or maintenance. I have run into this issue with mobile apps that worked perfectly to my satisfaction until the authors decided to "redesign" or "improve" it. I think subscription is a valid use case for customers who want active maintenance, but it should be opt-in. I detest the forced-subscription model that JetBrains attempted ("Didn't pay the latest subscription? We'll brick the application you've installed and are running on your hardware").
They never attempted that. You were always able to use the version you paid for, even if you stopped your subscription.
Oh, but they did[1]. You might have missed the initial drama as it transpired because of their quick U-turn (to their credit). I have reason to doubt the subscription plans they published which clearly stated that failure to keep up with the subscription would lead to bricked IDEs. JetBrains only backtracked[2] after receiving sustained pushback. There were HN posts for the initial bricking plan[3] and the backtrack[4].
1. http://bytecrafter.blogspot.com/2015/09/how-jetbrains-lost-y...
2. https://blog.jetbrains.com/blog/2015/09/18/final-update-on-t...
Charging a one time fee works just fine for lots of folks out there making software. It's especially good for anyone who's doing it in their spare time as they don't have to provide updates for every little niggle someone may find. Some offer a subscription alongside the one-off model, which is the best of both worlds if the developer(s) are continuously working on it. Others ask you to purchase the major upgrades but give minor upgrades for free.
There are lots of payment models out there, and the developers should pick what works for both them and their customers. There's no way most of my colleagues who have a license would have purchased sublime if it was a rolling cost, so that model seems to be working in their favor right now, at least for single developer purchases.
ST3 is continuously improved. They are developers. They eat. They have families. Just like you receive a salary, because the software you work on, probably is never done. Why would anyone feel entitled to improvements for a flat rate? Is that not greedy?
So, this leaves me of two minds about a hypothetical subscription model. If it meant that ST's developers had an ongoing income that allowed them to work full-time on the project, set a regular release schedule, and be more open with communication, it would be worth it. But if users had been asked to pay, say, $49 a year for the last five years with ST3 on an "um, they pop up once a year to say they're still working on it, I guess" schedule, I'm pretty confident it would have gone over even more poorly than what actually happened.
You already paid by buying a faster computer. Some don't want to upgrade their computer; in this case, sublime is well worth its price.
Assuming 4hs net per day, 20 days/month, 12 months .. thats 960 hours/year
And that's assuming that you spent all those 4 hours _entirely_ on your text editor; no cli, no browser, no nothing.. only text editor.
I'd say that on avg we should be doing ~200 hours per year.. Are there any study about this?
Obviously not everyone will be using their editor more than half the time, but many do. And many often use their editor outside of work too.
It's a way better deal (and arguably a better tool) than what you get with Sublime.
Speak for yourself.
People who don't have no says whatsoever in this particular subthread discussion.
So no, he doesn't speak for the people who use ST.
The generalization that implies that the OP is a person who codes for a living is far from "completely unwarranted".
No reason to tell everyone about it.
If someone comments: "It's not much to pay $70 for something you use professionally, and get value out of it everyday etc" -- it only adds noise to chime in "I don't use it professionally" or "I don't use it everyday".
It's a conditional sentence (even if implicit). If one is not on that category, then yes, obviously the argument doesn't apply to them.
But the issue you talk about is where major version upgrades come in. Sublime text could cease all development tomorrow and not pay another cent towards development, should people have to continue to pay to keep using it? If new major feature are requested then that is grounds for charging and upgrade fee, otherwise I don't see why people should pay.
I'm worried about using the hosted version of KeeWeb, also it doesn't seems as practical as a standalone app. But I'll definitely try to host myself (or use locally on the phone?) and give a try. Thanks.
I'm not flaming, I genuinely want to know. I've tried Gedit, Atom, VS Code, Notepad++ and I fail to see what Sublime offers over those to justify the price.
It's better than Gedit in every way, it's way faster and more lightweight than Atom and VS Code, and it has a far better plugin ecosystem and functionality than Notepad++.
I'd pay triple the price.
Now you've got me wondering why editor speed is actually a thing.
Of course the extent to which this happens is the whole reason there are different editors. If all you want to do is write text with zero features, then speed isn't an issue at all and you can just write directly in your terminal to a single file with pico or something.
[0] https://code.visualstudio.com/blogs/2017/02/08/syntax-highli...
I was troubleshooting something with a colleague who was using Atom, and every time he opened a new file, it'd take somewhere between 1 and 2 seconds before the syntax highlighting was applied. As someone who's in and out of files all day, that'd drive me bananas.
An editor is not as simple as displaying lines of text a la Notepad, different editors optimize for different use cases.
2. http://blog.atom.io/2017/06/22/a-new-approach-to-text-render...
I don't want to see freezes for 2-3 seconds for some GC run, I don't want the letters to appear several 100ms after I've typed, I don't want to wait minutes for it to parse a large-ish file or update the autocomplete suggestions.
Not sure about the first.
I care about speed because I like to use "large" files. I prefer a few large files to many small files.
edit: not sure I correctly understood the parent
Thing is, same is true for any other good IDE, of which there are plenty.
Personally, it always blows my mind that people don't use VIM :) if they actually spent 5-20hours learning VIM correctly they would not touch these inferior pretty looking UIs
For file-inefficient environments (e.g. Java/Android -- 79 files for a "hello world" Android app!) I have to grudgingly use an IDE because I have no idea how to update the 78 other manifest/gradle/workspace/resource/etc. files based on the 1 file I change and the IDE takes care of the magic, as much as I hate that way of working.
There are some really great vim plugins for Sublime Text, including one that uses NeoVim. For me, Sublime Text is basically Vim with an nice UI and some IDE features built in. And Goto Anything. I wouldn't want to live without Goto Anything.
e.g. Goto anything you can use the Ctrl-P plugin.
{ "keys": ["j", "k"], "args": {"key": "<esc>"}, "context": [{ "key": "setting.actual_intercept", "operand": true }], "command": "actual_keypress" },
On the backend, it's using NeoVim... So it's literally just vim. You can even use vim plugins. There really shouldn't be any missing features.
Bret Viktor's oft-quoted "Inventing on Principle" talk touches on this subject where a lot of research has shown that bimodal editors are worse. While I can't argue for how true that statement is, it's certainly been my experience. I always find it jarring to think I'm in command mode but I'm actually in edit mode or vice versa. Any vim user has had the experience of pasting text in command mode. I just absolutely hate bimodal editors.
Additionally, staunch vim (and emacs) users I know seem to spend an inordinate amount of time screwing around with plugins to get some pale version of behaviour you get out the box on any halfway decent IDE or even text editor.
I feel the same way about learning yet another series of keyboard shortcuts for, say, tmux/screen.
You could argue the mouse is slower. I'm not sure if this actually holds up to empirical measurement (or at least not to the degree that's claimed) but the point is, the barrier for entry is so much lower. You can just click around and find things. If you find yourself doing something a lot, you can find out what the keyboard shortcut is.
Thus you don't need to spend 50 hours upfront on a GUI editor.
5 shortcuts is a paltry investment for a pretty sweet gain.
And unlike an IDE, this can be readily available on any machine you SSH into. Which is also what makes VIM so handy.
But I'd like to say that I cannot honestly recall an instance where I was in normal mode and ended up pasting something -- I assume you mean Ctrl-V-ing and having the paste interpreted as commands? -- once I got used to it after leaving Sublime Text, which I'd say took me a couple of weeks of hating myself. It's a matter of how much effort one thinks it makes sense to put into learning the editor, but IME there is a significant payoff, even if it is hard-won.
I'm not sure if it's harder for some people to internalize (which is by no means a value judgment; it's why Emacs/ST/Atom/whatever exist and are powerful) but once that is done, one never gets confused about what mode you're in simply because one is almost never in insert mode! "Probabilistically" speaking, you are in insert mode for 0 time. ;)
In any case, I don't hate non-bimodal editors, just hope that the subset of those using them who have not seen Vim for what it is yet do so quickly. (And, of course, there are those who are genuinely repulsed by modal editing, and that's fine!)
I can't speak to "inordinate amount of time screwing around with plugins": I have a plugin for each language I use, and perhaps four or five others. The rest of my init.vim (I use Neovim) is about ... 30 lines long? It's my experience that most (Neo)vi(m) users use little of the power of plain vi -- I know that because I myself was like that for almost three or four years after I started using Vim. (This is ignoring, e.g. large Java projects, where IDE-style code navigation is basically a requirement if you want to get anything done.) But there is definitely a culture where a customized-to-the-hilt editor is seen as something to be proud of, and why shouldn't it? It's what you "live in", isn't it? :)
It is slower, and does hold up to empirical measurement. Yes, if you want 'ease of onboarding', then vim is not for you. It's a powerful tool for professionals, and like a lot of such tools, it requires some training. No-one ever complains that Photoshop requires training, yet a brand new user to Photoshop is completely befuddled and it takes a long time before they're proficient.
I think this is a really good analogy to using pro-level text editing tools (e.g. Emacs or Vi). A mouse is great for poking around menus and operating sliders in a new or unfamiliar program, but Emacs and especially Vim are so fast to use without a mouse that it pains me to watch other programmers editing while using one.
ST is a fine editor, and I use IntelliJ for Java, but I've already spent the time (years) learning Emacs. Is it worth it for me to start over? No. I use IntelliJ for Java programming, but I use only its basic Emacs keybindings and the mouse for everything else (befuddled like I am in Photoshop).
I will often use sed or other CLI tools to parse through giant files (1GB+), but sublime only takes a short bit to load in a pretty hefty file, or a do regex search across entire projects with multiple-GB of files, and it works natively on Mac and Windows, so even when I'm forced to work on something on my Windows 10 laptop, I can be productive.
Well worth whatever I paid for it 4 years ago.
And it's fast, it's small, and it's got a lot of packages. What more do you want?
And the excellent Python plugin API, which has made the plugin ecosystem so vibrant. Here's one I wrote, https://github.com/kylebebak/Requester, an HTTP client that goes toe to toe with Paw and Postman on features and outdoes them on usability.
I couldn't have have written something like this for any other editor, or any other platform.
Not to mention if you hit ctrl-f and search for something in the file. Another lock-up for a few minutes while it tries to figure out highlighting. This is something I've reported to them. I have never considered Sublime to be a good handler of large files.
I am not even talking about adding some special features, just enable people to pay more than the normal price and perhaps just add a nice 'Thanks for your extra support' badge to the 'Info' menu.
If there was a subscription available that offered some amount of extra features, I probably wouldn't have purchased anything at all.
(Some pretty great replies too – thanks!)
I'm not a ST dev, I have no financial interests in ST becoming more expensive or changing to a (for the company) more lucrative business model. I have tried alternative editors, anything from vi and emacs to VSCode and Atom, but nothing hits the marks for me as ST does. It has – in my opinion – great UX, its speed and efficiency is unmatched in the GUI editor space, and my favorite feature: it has rock solid buffer persistence.
I can't tell how many times ST has saved me from system crashes and just me being an idiot and restarting everything before saving anything, or removing a file but ST keeping a buffer. I've come to rely on this, and it's rock solid. Not once in the years since I started using it (I believe I bought my first license in 2012) have I encountered a situation where ST lost my data. I've never experienced this with any other editor (I'm sure vi and emacs can do this, but in years of trying, I can't come to grips with their UX – they're just not for me) and this feature alone has paid for the price of admission for me, many many times over.
In short – I don't care that there are FOSS alternatives. I don't care that there are alternatives that are "better" by some measure. Until they can match these three things, in increasing order of importance, they will never compete with ST for me:
- Great UX
- Speed and efficieny
- Rock solid buffer persistance, even for unsaved files
Someone in this thread suggested I buy licenses and donate to a local high school. I'm going to seriously look into this as a viable way to both support the company producing ST, as well as hopefully enabling kids to learn programming, or write novels, or whatever they want to do with the software.
I started with Textmate during the Rails craze and transitioned to Sublime due to the portability of themes etc. I think I'm still using my 10 year old TM theme.
Thank you for the continued dedication to this project.
Here is the screenshot: https://i.imgur.com/JvDEBk7.png
Here is the theme: http://fl-mwhalen-dev.s3.amazonaws.com/Made%20of%20Code.tmTh...
I'd entertain such a model as OP to ensure the ongoing viability of the app.
I'm in a situation where if I had $10 or $80 extra, I would use it to buy baby supplies, not software. Many others are in the same situation, or worse (thinking of those in developing countries where $80 represent a week's worth of savings).
I just wanted to put these points across since a single price probably may not well serve all user classes and the developer/company.
That isn't necessarily bad; it's a great editor and I've been happy to pay for all versions of it.
But if I am paying an ongoing, continual fee, I expect rapid delivery of updates and new features. I pay for an IDE from JetBrains, and they deliver solid incremental improvements and bug fixes, continuously. So I feel the continual fee is acceptable.
Sublime Text is known for going on hiatus for months at a stretch, with no or negligible updates. That would irritate me as a paying subscriber to the software; it doesn't bug me when I pay a lump sum for the big milestone releases.
I feel ST could have a checkbox during checkout to add an additional $50 or something in that range. "I'd like to be a supporter for an extra $50". I'm pretty sure I would opt-in to that, but maybe I'm just saying that now because there isn't such an option....
I rely so much on sublime for my day to day work and I fear the $80 or whatever I paid for it whenever ago is too cheap for the amount of value I'm getting out of it, and I'd hate to see this magnificent piece of software fall by the wayside because of an unsustainable business model.
Of course, if the business is perfectly sustainable then you know, carry on as you where.