I used to think like this too, but I've since changed my mind and understand why they do this -- and it can even be beneficial for users. There's a few big problems with the old model:

First, you have to define the difference between "major" and "minor" version. Users expect major versions to have some significant improvements or new features. What this means is as a developer, you have incentive not to release minor features regularly, but instead batch them together so you can do a "major" release.

Second, the sales team now dictates the release cycle. More major releases means more money, but do it too frequently and the user base revolts. In many companies sales dictates the releases, but now if development is late it's messing with the company's cash flow and ability to continue to exist.

Third, the software can never be "done", because that means no more major releases. As a result, unless there is a sustainable stream of new users, you get feature and scope creep.

Subscriptions mean predictable revenue, and make the developer's incentive align with users: keeping users happy. This means keeping the product stable, making incremental improvements, and evolving with features that make sense.

Of course the beauty of the market is you should be able to find products sold both ways, and you can choose.

I absolutely agree, subscriptions are the way to go for making your software business sustainable and better scalable R&D investments to maintain growth. Gitlab is an example of this in the dev tooling space.

I've bought Mailplane v3 for my Mac a few years back. The app did not get new features, only patches. New features came out with v4, which required another purchase. I didn't buy it because v3 is good enough, buying again is a psychological wall. If it was a subscription I'd be happily paying them and happily using the latest version.

Gitlab is a terrible example, they are charging for a SERVICE of providing hosting and support for their higher tiers.

They are not charging a subscription for you to be allowed to download Gitlab and self-host it.

Except if they decide they don't have any updates to release for a month you just paid them for a month of nothing.

The issue with a subscription for self-hosted or locally ran software is that you are obligated to pay an ongoing fee, without the provider being obligated to provide any service in return. Their terms do not require them to adhere to any release schedule or anything showing that by paying a subscription you're getting X. It's basically a recurring donation in hopes the software you already paid for gets an update.

Imagine if your OS required a subscription for your computer to be usable, even when the developer of your OS doesn't release any updates that benefit or affect you for months, if you don't keep paying your subscription you get locked out of all of your work for no reason other than some marketing douche thought it'd be a good way to squeeze a more regular revenue stream out of their existing customers?

I don't disagree with your points, but you can still sell software in the buy once model and just keep it live. No need for major versions unless they are needed. So the only point remaining is "we get more money this way", and that's something one could not want to participate in.

If you buy Jetbrains stuff you get a perpetual license included. It's just going to be for the initial version.

Great reasons, thanks!

Just so you know, although not very clearly documented, yearly subscriptions include perpetual license for that specific version.

You can see it on the “buy” page.

It’s still less than ideal, but I pay yearly for their “all pack” product and I feel with the amount I use it I’ve gotten my money’s worth every year.

This. The JetBrains licensing model is great. Subscribe to get updates, with a perpetual fallback license for the last version when your subscription lapsed. Their old versions also continue to work across OS upgrades, etc. If you subscribe, the annual fee decreases substantially for the first few years. This is nothing like Adobe's Creative Cloud.

I thought their fallback perpetual license is actually for the version you had when you purchased it, not for the version that was available when your subscription lapsed?

Not sure if they changed this recently - I stopped following them when they switched to subscription with fairly onerous terms (which they rectified after backlash to ‘mediocre’, but never to ‘fair value’).

You're correct in that the current terms are a result of community backlash, or at least that's how I remember it. What would you consider "fair value" for such a tool? And does that include any period of updates and enhancements?

I would personally be okay with a perpetual license plus one year of updates, and keeping the last version at the end of the paid-for update period. Pretty much what they have, but you get to keep the updates you get, not just the initial version you purchased.

The reason this is more fair is that I am paying for the version and one year of updates. Jetbrains has no right to say at the end of the period that since I did not renew, they are taking back the updates they gave me, as if it was by their grace I had been given the updates. I paid for the updates, I get to keep them.

That said, they have every contractual right to enforce whatever they think is fair, and I have every right to recommend against their products and/or prevent the bulk purchase if I am in a decision-making position about it.

My subscription lapsed just before the New Year and I wasn't able to continue to use the software I had already installed.

In order to keep using it, I would be required to downgrade to the version available at the beginning of my subscription. 12 months ago.

If there are show stopping bugs in that version, then too bad. If it's not compatible with your current projects and plugins? Deal with it.

You always have a perpetual license to the last version that your subscription covered. It isn't anything like Adobe's model.

Not to mention all product pack isn't as costly as $50 like Adobe's.

Actually, it's the first version that your subscription covered.

All jetbrains products have a licence witch grants you the right to use the tools you buy forever(Without updates). If you buy a tool in 2019 you get a licence for 2019.1 and updates for a year. So if you never update you only have to pay once.

Except you only get the version that was released at the beginning of the cycle. In other words, when your subscription is over, you have to downgrade to a version that's a year old. Bugs and all.

With most software, this would not really be a huge deal. Photoshop? Who cares. Excel? Meh.

But with Jetbrains products you've got to consider whether the old version is going to be 100% compatible with your existing project files, plugins, keybindings, settings and configurations.

It's quite a gamble IMHO.

So why don't you pay once and keep that version for as long as you want? It's a perpetual license.

If you want major updates, it's not weird to be asked to pay for it, which means continued subscription.

Except if they decide they don't have any updates to release for a month you just paid them for a month of nothing.

The issue with a subscription for self-hosted or locally ran software is that you are obligated to pay an ongoing fee, without the provider being obligated to provide the service you're paying for. Their terms do not require them to adhere to any release schedule or anything showing that by paying a subscription you're getting X. It's basically a recurring donation in hopes the software you paid for gets an update.

At least you can know how it has been and JetBrains has been releasing several updates yearly for most of their tools.

If they quit updating to abandon (which is unlikely when they're making quite a ton from the subscriptions), you can quit paying.