N/A App developers changing to subscription model after selling lifetime.

FORANE

FORANE

En-Route
Joined
Mar 7, 2013
Messages
4,457
Location
TN
Display Name
FORANE
Home Airfield
0a9
Once again an app I previously purchased was disabled by update. Of course upon opening the app I was greeted with an offer to pay a recurring fee for the privilege of continuing to use the app that I already owned. This kind of thing really ticks me off. It shouldn't be allowed. It should be prosecuted as theft. Of course in a country that makes one go through a long and costly eviction of "squatters" rather than immediately remove and arrest them as the trespassers they are, what should I expect.

I'm not going to name the app this time, nor name the aviation app last time this occurred. It's just a sad commentary on the current state of things and reflects yet another sign of the moral decline we're experiencing.
 
With small exception, no application (and I ran software companies for nearly 30 years) licenses software WITH UPDATES in perpetuity. My copy of Microsoft Office 2000 likely still runs but it is way behind the times 25 years later.

Yes, it's disheartening that things are going to subscription models, but at least it gets you updates. What is more irksome is the SAAS model for a lot of things. At least the most intensive stuff I'm using is a hybrid model (Microsoft, Adobe).
 
you want updates and upgrades but don't want to pay for devs? if you want to grow anything you need to feed it.

As long as they don't stop your old app access then you really can't complain... you got what you paid for.
 
midlifeflyer said:
Are you able to continue to use the non-updated app?
Click to expand...
no
pfarber said:
you want updates and upgrades but don't want to pay for devs? if you want to grow anything you need to feed it.

As long as they don't stop your old app access then you really can't complain... you got what you paid for.
Click to expand...
Access to the old app was removed with the update of both my referenced apps. In one case, the most recent one, I had previously backed up my apps prior to changing phones. I was able to delete the new version and reinstall a working old version.
 
flyingron said:
With small exception, no application (and I ran software companies for nearly 30 years) licenses software WITH UPDATES in perpetuity. My copy of Microsoft Office 2000 likely still runs but it is way behind the times 25 years later.

Yes, it's disheartening that things are going to subscription models, but at least it gets you updates. What is more irksome is the SAAS model for a lot of things. At least the most intensive stuff I'm using is a hybrid model (Microsoft, Adobe).
Click to expand...
Back in 2001 when I went to business school, our professors insisted that our ideas included subscription options as that was the future of how we would sell things...
 
The software development life cycle:
* recruit true believers (old way: beta testers who work for free; new way: customers who pay for the privilege and now think they're shareholders)
* develop product until it becomes a good acquisition target
* c-suite hits the silk, product pivots

Eventually you figure out that software has a beginning, a middle, and an end. Surf the wave while you can and don't get tied down too much, because there will be another one coming. Or, eventually, you may realize that the only winning move is not to play, and get off the treadmill entirely.

similar business models: "if elected, I promise XYZ", "just the tip", "i will gladly pay you in the afterlife for a hamburger today", etc.
 
Subscriptions are fine so long as I see continuous improvement/benefit. I pay for a few software subscriptions that irk me as there are long standing, unresolved bugs and minimal few new features which I don't really need. I feel I'm being forced to pay for nothing. I took my wife to dinner on Mother's day. The service was horrible. B/c we were a party of 6, 20% gratuity was automatically added. Made me feel the same way.
 
Actually, it's a refinement. Our software package was $6K plus you paid $600/yr maintenance to get the updates. But we could have probably priced it at at $1200/yr straight subscription. Because a good chunk of our software was classified, people were pretty beholden to get the maintenance anyhow.
 
flyingron said:
Actually, it's a refinement. Our software package was $6K plus you paid $600/yr maintenance to get the updates. But we could have probably priced it at at $1200/yr straight subscription. Because a good chunk of our software was classified, people were pretty beholden to get the maintenance anyhow.
Click to expand...
That's fine, I have no problem with that as long as the "maintenance" wasn't a surprise introduced after having sold the product. Oh and not only do we now have a surprise maintenance fee, but we're disabling the software you purchased unless you pay the ransom, er I mean, maintenance...
 
FORANE said:
no

Access to the old app was removed with the update of both my referenced apps. In one case, the most recent one, I had previously backed up my apps prior to changing phones. I was able to delete the new version and reinstall a working old version.
Click to expand...
So you got exactly what you paid for.

You are not being deprived of anything.... you just want updates/upgrades that you are not paying for.

I'm going to say with 10000000% confidence that the license said that this could happen.

You reinstalled the version *that you paid for* and can use it freely. Where is the foul?

I know FlyQ did this... sold lifetime subscriptions and just last year ended it... but like you, they let the old software alone... still can get database updates but new features are not in the produce line.
 
pfarber said:
You are not being deprived of anything.... you just want updates/upgrades that you are not paying for.
Click to expand...
Not even remotely the same thing.

I paid for Office 2007. I don't care about upgrades, I'm perfectly happy with the feature set. M$ forces an upgrade to 365 as part of their once a week windows updates, then tells me I have to pay a monthly subscription. I have to download a pirated version of 2007 to continue using it.

That's closer to what is happening here.
 
AV8R_87 said:
Not even remotely the same thing.

I paid for Office 2007. I don't care about upgrades, I'm perfectly happy with the feature set. M$ forces an upgrade to 365 as part of their once a week windows updates, then tells me I have to pay a monthly subscription. I have to download a pirated version of 2007 to continue using it.

That's closer to what is happening here.
Click to expand...
I agree. I have the discs for both Office 2010 and Acrobat 8, which worked fine on the last laptop but wouldn’t load on the new one because the authentication code is no longer usable, apparently. I updated the old laptop to Win 11 and both work fine on there but can’t be updated since there’s no longer support - but at least they still work. I ended up buying a digital copy of Office non-subscription (from Costco) so at least I don’t have to pay the ongoing subscription. As for Acrobat, the free one as well as Office doing PDFs meets the need.
 
AV8R_87 said:
Not even remotely the same thing.

I paid for Office 2007. I don't care about upgrades, I'm perfectly happy with the feature set. M$ forces an upgrade to 365 as part of their once a week windows updates, then tells me I have to pay a monthly subscription. I have to download a pirated version of 2007 to continue using it.

That's closer to what is happening here.
Click to expand...
I set the network connection to metered, and MS doesn't hound me for updates. Still running legit 2007 on 5 computers here at the office.
 
pfarber said:
So you got exactly what you paid for.

You are not being deprived of anything.... you just want updates/upgrades that you are not paying for.

I'm going to say with 10000000% confidence that the license said that this could happen.

You reinstalled the version *that you paid for* and can use it freely. Where is the foul?

I know FlyQ did this... sold lifetime subscriptions and just last year ended it... but like you, they let the old software alone... still can get database updates but new features are not in the produce line.
Click to expand...
Wrong. The only reason I was able to install the old version is because I had backed up an old version before switching phones. I had an app backup tool to accomplish that. Had I not done that I would be SOL. The app update disabled my old version and offered no path to roll back for existing users. Same with the aviation app I bought long ago, except in that case I didn't have a backup stored.

Oh and neither description of the update divulged the real action of the update; just improvements and the like...yeah right. Why would that be the case if they didn't have something to hide? It's kind of like: We have to pass the bill so you can find out what’s in it.

It's no different than me selling you a product then at some point later telling you that you need to pay me recurring fees or I will come and break it. It's no different than a shakedown in my opinion. Discontinuing support while allowing someone to continue using an unsupported product is very different than taking action to break the product unless a ransom is paid.
 
Quickbooks has absolutely mastered the skill of going from "you own the program you bought" to a blood-letting Revenue Stream Generation. Same with my in-house lab equipment.
To transfer all 5000 clients' data and retrain all the staff, get any new program installed and connected to all workstations is a burden few want to tackle. There would be downtime and confusion, errors for months.
QB jacks their prices up constantly, with a steady deterioration in function and customer support.
 
What is the phrase tilting at windmills?

SW does not run in perpetuity. By its very nature it lives within an ecosystem; and that ecosystem changes. For the activation aspect, you can thank all the SW pirates that required companies to implement activation systems.

The older model where companies did large upgrades every three years and hoped consumers bought a copy, left companies with massive support headaches, security problems, and largely chasing their tails. The subscription model encourages what is called evergreen software, this significantly reduces testing headaches. Just a few years ago software was required to test against multiple versions IE 10 and 11; with 10 in multiple compatibility modes; then add in multiple versions of Firefox and Chrome... All told; we were often testing against close to 30 browser versions. Now, we test against Edge, Chrome and Firefox latest release only.
Back when I developed software that was deployed on individual workstations; I had to deal with installation and support headaches across multiple versions of Windows. Now, most of the client software I install only supports Windows 11 evergreen state. Even device drivers have gone this way.

Subscription is the answer companies came up with due to consumers effectively not holding up their end of the bargain.

Tim
 
tspear said:
For the activation aspect, you can thank all the SW pirates that required companies to implement activation systems.
Click to expand...
I'm sorry, but this is wrong.
Piracy still exists, but paying users are a lot more aggravated. And pay a lot more, on a monthly basis. For stuff they might not be using enough to warrant the subscription.
Case in point: I still have a copy of AutoCAD 2005. I only use it a couple times a year to open old drawings. No way I'm paying Autodesk a monthly fee for that.
 
AV8R_87 said:
I'm sorry, but this is wrong.
Piracy still exists, but paying users are a lot more aggravated. And pay a lot more, on a monthly basis. For stuff they might not be using enough to warrant the subscription.
Case in point: I still have a copy of AutoCAD 2005. I only use it a couple times a year to open old drawings. No way I'm paying Autodesk a monthly fee for that.
Click to expand...

What is wrong about my statement? License management, which became activation systems, were designed and developed directly in response to SW piracy. Way back when, I consulted to multiple agencies and multiple SW companies on how address license servers on air gapped networks.

Note: Activation and license management are separate from subscription models. Modern subscription models may depend on license management; but that is not the reason license management exists.

Tim
 
tspear said:
What is wrong about my statement? License management, which became activation systems, were designed and developed directly in response to SW piracy.
Click to expand...
I did mix activation/license management with subscriptions, because one did morph into the other.

Talking about license management: a very famous CAD software from a well-known French company was installed on lots of student computers (we're not talking about student licensing here), despite their best efforts to prevent it. While actual companies with licensed versions had regular dropouts due to license server issues, or issues with the hardware keys.
Windows is still heavily pirated, despite all the hurdles thrown at it, which inconvenience the honest power user, experimenting with hardware changes and OS reinstalls more than it inconveniences the pirate.

The subscription model is turning computer usage back to the 70s, where all you had was a dumb terminal connected to the mainframe. That will prevent a lot of piracy, but at the cost of owning nothing, software-wise.

I recently rediscovered an 8-bit machine that I had last used probably three decades ago, if not more. Found a few software tapes as well, most of which still loaded. None if this activation required subscription-based throwaway software will be useable three decades from now. And I have a problem with that.
 
tspear said:
All told; we were often testing against close to 30 browser versions. Now, we test against Edge, Chrome and Firefox latest release only.
Click to expand...
So perhaps this is naive, but surely coding to standards would make something compatible on any browser which adheres to those standards, right? I recall a dark time when many (especially government) sites seemed to not only be coded for a specific browser, but a specific *version* of that browser. I still run into that occasionally and I could never figure out whether it was people writing non-adherent code (presumably for ease/convenience) or whether the browsers themselves were not appropriately parsing things (again, presumably, for some ease/convenience).

My current major complaint is organizations (looking at you, FAA) which require "digitally signed documents" but the form is either just a scan of a paper form or (worse, somehow) is fillable but has no block for a digital signature. I had this with a Change of Address form for my aircraft. Totally fillable except the signature block, which has no signature capability. So I had to screw around with Adobe Acrobat 9.0 (which came with my scanner years ago and somehow still works) to insert a signature block so I could sign with my government CAC.

Kind of amazing that I can still use that version of Acrobat, given that Adobe is a black hole of pure evil when it comes to fees and subscriptions.
 
@AV8R_87

I disagree, but it is more a matter of semantics. Subscription depends on licensing engines. Subscription was developed largely to address a few very specific issues:
1. Multi version support, both the software itself and the environment in which it runs. e.g. Concept of evergreen software. This has become very critical in the age of cyber security threats.
2. Spread out the revenue for the company instead of boom/bust cycles. This helps solve significant tax, expense, and investment issues.
3. Smaller and more frequent releases reduce risks for the consumer and the company.

In terms of pirated software, I develop SaaS solutions now (FinTech) so I do not pay attention to the topic except from a business news perspective. MS, Adobe and others have said over the years that pirated software continues to be an issue, but economic loss from it has significantly declined. BWTHDIK?

Tim
 
AvNavCom said:
So perhaps this is naive, but surely coding to standards would make something compatible on any browser which adheres to those standards, right? ...
Click to expand...

Ah, the browser that adheres to standards. aka a unicorn

It seems that every browser has its own little tweaks to make it “better”, “faster”, “neater”
 
AvNavCom said:
So perhaps this is naive, but surely coding to standards would make something compatible on any browser which adheres to those standards, right? I recall a dark time when many (especially government) sites seemed to not only be coded for a specific browser, but a specific *version* of that browser. I still run into that occasionally and I could never figure out whether it was people writing non-adherent code (presumably for ease/convenience) or whether the browsers themselves were not appropriately parsing things (again, presumably, for some ease/convenience).
Click to expand...

There was no standards. Even now standards are changing fairly fast. For example, applications which are attempting to stay WCAG compliant. WCAG guidelines is an area of technology which was highly underdeveloped for decades and now is starting to go mainstream (largely forced by governments), and the ripple effects outside of tech to marketing and others is fascinating to watch. Especially the contrast requirements I have seen **** off a number of people in marketing :D
Or think of applications which have a "responsive" design and need to work on everything from a cell phone, tablet to an ultrawide 49in wrap around monitor.

AvNavCom said:
My current major complaint is organizations (looking at you, FAA) which require "digitally signed documents" but the form is either just a scan of a paper form or (worse, somehow) is fillable but has no block for a digital signature. I had this with a Change of Address form for my aircraft. Totally fillable except the signature block, which has no signature capability. So I had to screw around with Adobe Acrobat 9.0 (which came with my scanner years ago and somehow still works) to insert a signature block so I could sign with my government CAC.

Kind of amazing that I can still use that version of Acrobat, given that Adobe is a black hole of pure evil when it comes to fees and subscriptions.
Click to expand...

Digital signatures is a very vague area and many people/organizations do not understand it. I am not that current anymore, but I was a founder of a company and a technical lead for the largest implementation of PKI in the world for a number of years. I learned a lot about digital signatures, and how very few people actually understand them. Including the FAA :D

As for Adobe 9. This was very likely a simple PDF which stands for portable document format. The core design of this format is over twenty years old. Only if the FAA was using some new PDF feature added recently would you have had issues. An example is the latest versions of PDF include a new DRM section which supports from cipher methods.

Tim
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top