I feel like this is trivially resolved by selling a subscription to those additional services (e.g. for product updates or support agreements).

I'm just imagining a scenario where I build something with a subscription library and then 5 years down the line they get acquired by some private equity firm and increase the subscription cost by a factor of ten. Now I'm faced with a choice of either paying license ransom or losing the ability to use all of my own original software and creative effort.

Your approach doesn't allow the vendor to reach the critical mass required to keep a product updated and evolving. I for one appreciate products that evolve and improve.

Something like Qt or Photoshop does not need to “reach critical mass” - they actually did already do that while using a simpler licensing model. Which proves the “everything is SaaS” model is not necessary, but rather another way to extract more money from customers.

This is true, but I think people have forgotten just how expensive software was a generation ago. Photoshop in the pre-Cloud days was a $600+ program depending on where you got it, with upgrade pricing in the $150–200 range. Today, you can get a "Photography" Creative Cloud subscription with Photoshop and Lightroom for $120/year.

I'm not in love with "everything is SaaS," but I recognize that a lot of software businesses really want recurring revenue rather than a rush of orders -- many of which are lower-priced upgrades -- when new releases come out, then a trickle until the next for-pay release (which a subset of your existing customers won't upgrade to). And, in an era where a lot of people have come to see upfront prices of $99+ for applications as outrageously high -- and worse, have been trained by app stores to expect free upgrades indefinitely -- the old model may just not be sustainable.

> rather another way to extract more money from customers

This is just cynical!

The fact that numerous software projects with different pricing or licensing models exist that have reached critical mass and evolve and improve over time proves your point is factually incorrect.

Products grew and evolved perfectly fine under the old regime of perpetual licensing and paying for a new release

> I for one appreciate products that evolve and improve.

And I do not. Software updates are a huge pain in the ass for almost no benefit to me

A problem I see as an outsider is that perpetual licenses where one pays when upgrading encourages companies to stay on the older version (which may have exploitable bugs) to avoid shelling out again. It has to be added to the budget when needed. Subscriptions don’t have that problem as the company can update without paying anything new and can keep the payments in the budget as a recurring expense.

Both sides have their benefits, so to say one is worse than the other seems not right. It’d be nice if there was an option on which model you chose (for example, $5k/seat for perpetual single version or $300/month/seat for subscription), but alas, that’s not available.

> And I do not. Software updates are a huge pain in the ass for almost no benefit to me

Ah, but there is a benefit that you just don’t see: bug and security fixes. Your boss isn’t going to be happy if your company is hacked because your IT department didn’t want to spend effort updating (assuming that’s in the budget).

This obviously ignores 0-days, but there’s not much a downstream user can do there.

My problem is that subscriptions have crossed over into the consumer space to become a tax on whatever it is you use the software for.

Take photoshop... I'm not a professional graphic artist, and I have need for PS maybe once a year at most. Depending on the importance of that need and my desire to own the software it might justify a onetime purchase. But with their subscription model it just isn't worth it.

One of the things I liked about the old model was it put professional tools into the hands of amateurs if they were willing to save up their money. Now, instead, you pay a yearly tax that is not insignificant for no real gain

Oh absolutely. If one didn’t need the fancy new features of Adobe CS6, they could stay on CS5 as long as they wanted. But with CC, it’s a monthly fee regardless of if you use it at all that month.

But the flipside is that $10/month is a lot easier to stomach for most of the general public than a one time cost of $300+.

It’s why there’s monthly payment plans for everything expensive. $40/month for a (24 month) lease-to-own phone is a lot easier to budget for than a one time $900+tax purchase. But when I go to BestBuy or wherever, I have the option to choose the payment plan or upfront. Not with software.

Problem is Adobe's minimum contract length is a year. The monthly price quote is that price divided into months. After a year or two you could have afforded to outright buy it under the old regime.

They do have a monthly version which is a bit more expensive than the yearly-pay-monthly one they show. It’s hidden behind a click or two, but it’s there on the plan page. I know, because I considered it before choosing the yearly contract.

But yes, with subscriptions, it would be cheaper to buy it outright, but not everyone has that luxury. We can argue all day about whether people need Photoshop or whatever, but the best option (IMO) is to allow subscription and purchasing and let the user choose. Then those who can afford the $300+ up front can spend that while those with little disposable income can spend $10/month.

If there is no development, then the distributed software isn't using any of those new features and fixes.

They might come up with new features but I would need to reforge my pan in order to get them. If I don't need those features (wouldn't have bought the pan in the first place if I needed the features) then there's no need to do all that.

Judging by the FAQ, there's no commitment to 'evolve new features' or even 'receive fixes' in the licence. So the frying pan analogy is more accurate - one could end up paying again and again for no service at all.

While the FAQ says 'Maintenance is included', they phrase that as 'access to the latest version' and 'support'. That doesn't place any legal obligation on Qt to fix bugs.

Qt can leave Qt6 to rot, never update, and still get money from subscriptions. Or Qt could be busy with Qt7, and in order to receive said fixes one has to significantly invest and port the application.

Access to support means even less - they could automatically close all tickets and still techinically comply.

> But does that frying pan evolve new features or fixes while you have it and use it in your restaurant? Do you make requests to the manufacturer to make the handle bigger/smaller on the frying pan you own and use?

No, but neither does the version of Qt in the already compiled and being distributed software, and yet even if no more development is done and no new version of Qt is used, it sounds like the licensing fee still applies.

Does the frying pan go back and time and re-cook all the food using the new-fangled super important features? I don't see why the cost of new features must be borne by existing applications that don't necessarily benefit from it. Just imagine a product that is largely in maintenance mode, that QT license is just sucking money without value.

You're welcome to argue QT saves more time than its license costs, but I didn't find that to be the case. Also cmake sucks, no bazel support, lame. I have found the QT value proposition questionable at best and have largely abandoned it. YMMV.

Well, if the frying pan has bugs, customers are entitled to bug fixes, for free, from a legal PoV. After all, these are bugs ie. problems in the program.

New features, sure, ask money for that, fair enough.

Which is why I would be OK with Qt 6 having a new license model, as long as all bugs fixed in 6 are backported to previous stable (at least) ie. 5.x, without 5.x getting relicensed.

What country are you from where bug fixes are guaranteed to be free forever? I am not aware of any country in the Americas or Europe that guarantees that unless said company enters a contractual agreement to provide you with bug fixes for free forever?

Security and reliability fixes should be free for consumers in EU. Else the product is not compliant to law (warranty lasts longer than 2 years contrary to popular belief). That law does not get enforced is unfortunate.

Then when not offer a perpetual fallback license? If you want to ship your product with version 6.1 and don't want to pay more for 6.2, so long as you paid for 6 months of 6.1 you should be able to use it (without support) for as long as you want.

Works for JetBrains.

They only offered that as an olive branch to all the people that disliked the perpetual licensing scheme. I don't hold a lot of hope for more widespread adoption as the beancounters most likely perceive it as leaving money on the table.