> 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.
Re:Firefox on the Brink?
by charcircuit on Tuesday December 05, 2023 @12:24PM
(#38533922)
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.
Re:Firefox on the Brink?
by charcircuit on Tuesday December 05, 2023 @03:24PM
(#38536448)
>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.
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.