Note: I'm not defending the practice (if you dig in my comment history, you'll see pretty incendiary stuff against SaaS abuse very recently), I'm just saying that it's what business naturally tends like - in the same way it naturally tends towards paying people as little as possible, exploiting them, etc etc. This is what the market becomes when left to its own devices. If we don't like it, we need to proactively intervene in law.
I’m happy to pay for a new version if my current version stops working. OS or browser update broke the app? I’ll pay for the new version.
But they are trying to force me to pay every month, therefore they remove my ability to use the app at all unless I pay for their cloud storage which I neither need nor want.
You don't only get compatibility with X with the new version but all that as well.
They should not pay them, they should use one of the numerous alternatives.
Side note: Daring Fireball has had some discussion recently about 1Password moving to enterprise for employee password management and adopting the SaaS model in order to make this transition, alienating current client base in the process. A ballsy move!
Written by someone who - probably - doesn't understand how complex software is to write/update/expand/maintain
And the case have previously been that such development is largely paid for by new users.
The answer is that it makes it harder to justify perpetual revenue streams then.
For software the initial costs are big, but after that it can be pretty low maintenance or at least costing much less to develop new features when the foundation is set.
When you start to think about recurring expenses that's when you have to find a way to justify those expenses. And that is usually by adding bloat and unnecessary features that those that already bought it might not even want.
So now you have to pay for features that you don't want to keep using the features that you've already bought? Tough sell...