This is not a subscription to use the browser. You can always build it from source and use for free, as designed.

This is a commitment to support the development, because the development should be oingoing. Not Netflix-style, but Patreon-style.

(Also see how JetBrains handles "subscriptions" to their closed-source software. Once you've paid, the version is forever yours. Updates are bought with some additional sums if desired.)

I hate the "subscriptionification" of everything as much as anybody, but there is a cost to ongoing updates to software. Especially on something like a browser, where both standards and exceptional behavior contrary to the standards change rapidly.

Maybe we could go back to where people paid once and could pay separately for support?

> I want the return of good old days when people could pay once for their software and use it in perpetuity.

This simply does not exist for any software that is internet connected.

All my software is that. My monthly subscription is 0$.

I remember the forced obsolescence. There were a few good software packages but many would frequently force you to upgrade from version 12.31 to 13.0 which isn't backward compatible i.e., "This software doesn't run on Windows XP"

At least with Microsoft, they are fanatics about backwards compatibility. It is pretty rare for something designed for an OS prior to Windows XP to not run on current Windows OS versions.

Of all the types of software where you should be ok paying a subscription, browsers are the ones where should be most ok with it. Browsers, more than anything else, need constant updates because they're by far the biggest and juiciest attack surface for hackers, and also web devs will just stop supporting you if you're not on top of the treadmill of browser standard updates.

It's not feasible at all to call a browser "done" and leave it alone, so if you want one that's independent from adtech, a subscription is kind of your only option.

subscription is a significantly fairer revenue model for software which undergoes regular upgrades and has support, which is most software nowadays.

It makes sure that people who continue to use continue to pay. Upfront charges are often either too low with long term users free-riding or too high, in case the project is abandoned. Subscription makes it much more likely to price products correctly.

> subscription is a significantly fairer revenue model for software which undergoes regular upgrades and has support

I could not disagree more. Subscriptions for software are a deeply unfair approach. Great for the companies, of course, but not for users.

A more fair approach is to charge for upgrades and support instead. At least that way, users only pay if/when they choose to obtain additional value.

This model gets implemented, and then the comments section is littered with "I prefer when I didn't need to pay for software upgrades and backward compatibility!"

Yeah, people can get irrational about such things (like ignoring that they're only paying when they choose to rather than paying every month automatically).

But the solution to this is to offer both forms, as several companies do.

Leaving nonpaying users on old versions on browsers with security issues and who will no longer support the latest web standards will be bad for the web.

How would it be bad for the web?

If users want to stay on an old version, why shouldn't they be allowed to? Sure, there may be additional security considerations or missing functionality, but there's nothing wrong with a user making that choice.

>How would it be bad for the web?

It results in users having a broken experience or sites being very conservative in what features they use.

I mean yes, but I read that more as "patronizing." I.e. how many patrons (of some sort) Mozilla would need.