Well, in contrast to a physical thing selling two copies is exactly as costly as selling one. I'd argue that that more than covers the cost of continued development.

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).

"Well, in contrast to a physical thing selling two copies is exactly as costly as selling one."

Statements like this ignore the costs of creating it in the first place.

No, they don't. Even if the costs of creation were extremely high, selling more copies wouldn't change these costs.

I happily subscribe to bunches of services. Some I don't even use, I'm just keeping the option open. Am I being ripped off? I don't think so.

Not everyone feels that way. Some services are worth it of course, but there are a lot of pretenders that have entered the picture who do not sell things worthy of a subscription. There is an older model of software as eternal, you finish the program and then move on to the next bigger and better program. At least then your old userbase doesn't get as shafted.

> not worthy [of your money]

It's easier to cancel a subscription than get a refund on a license.

But those are entirely different measures. Not worthy of a subscription does not mean not worthy of my money, it simply means it is not worthy of my money on a recurring basis. Perhaps I am one of those seemingly rare consumers that did not mind high one-off costs, even in my poorer years -- in the end you still own the thing, or at least it's bits. Subscriptions net nothing over the long term and their recurring spikes will eat people to death.

Well, I didn't mean to say that people buying subscriptions are being ripped off.

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.

Isn't that the other way around? If I buy a license and I find a bug a year later, there's no guarantee of a fix. If I am subscribing, I can threaten to cancel.

It was a direct response to the parent.

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.

Good point. I guess your stance will depend on how troublesome the bug or feature request is.

You're merely ripping yourself off sounds like :)

I completely agree with you. I was a user of Balsamiq mock-up tool. But since they moved on to subscription model I stopped using it.

Balsamic mockups desktop is still a single 99 USD purchase. Maybe you thinking of the other versions?