It's simple. I buy a computer and buy the software. This software is installed on this computer and will will work unless the computer is broken. When you bought a CASIO keyboard you do not expect it to stop working after 3 years because it's installed newest updates.

Of course CASIO is not connected to the internet, it won't allow me to steer it with my fancy phone app. So maybe, just maybe, connecting everything to the internet is a simple mistake?

I bought my Lightroom when it was possible and am using with my camera. Once I buy a new camera, it won't be supported in lightroom. And I won't be able to upgrade it because now they moved to the subscription model. And I make photos every 5 months let's say... And lightroom them even less often

Reaper’s “i’m going to stop you from using the software for six seconds with a sufficiently obtrusive, non-arrogant, guilt tripping message about being non-free and you should really purchase a license but you can keep using it and download new versions even if you don’t purchase a license” is absolutely genius and a good sort-of counter example to your covering ongoing costs point. at least it highlights the problem for me i guess. (edit: actually, it’s the same problem i guess that you allude to in your last sentence).

i’ve used repear for years on and off without paying anything. new updates come out all the time. fixes, new features etc. (every time i open Reaper I hang my head in shame for not having bought a license).

repear isn’t a profit optimised entity. i gather it is software created and maintained primarily for people to use. licenses cover costs.

adobe/microsoft are profit optimised entities. people using the software is secondary to them making money off it. subscriptions are there to make them profit, not to cover their costs.

While I do recognize those concerns I'll note that it is still a viable model and not just for indie devs. Look to the DAW world (Ableton, FL Studio, Bitwig, Logic, etc.) if you're ever curious about building a sustainable business model around a flat pricing structure.

> the software just runs on the constantly updated operating systems and platforms

Don't forget that VMs exists.

I don't mind paying the upgrade price when I need the newer version, but that should be an informed decision. These day, subscriptions are actual gatekeepers to features where when you cancel it, you lose access to the software "pro" features.

I understand where you're going with performance and feature updates, but what about security updates? Those are often flaws that were present at time of shipping.

If I buy a physical lock that's found to be easily opened with a toothpick once it's in the mass market, I'd expect a recall and it to be fixed. With software, it's even easier to deploy a fix.

There's an expectation that purchased software is usable. A server that's connected to the internet that can be compromised easily is no longer usable. Firms selling software applications have an obligation to provide security updates for the life of the product.

> These days developers have to invest significant time and effort into making sure the software just runs on the constantly updated operating systems and platforms — which costs money on an ongoing basis.

What’s different today?

The professionals who still use unstable platforms are forced to rent their tools, sharecropper style. What about professionals like me who made the leap to a stable platform? "Exact binary you downloaded" hasn't been in my toolbox for a long time now.

I don't know many people left who pay for their OS these days.

If you are actually using the software for important tasks, you don't update the OS. If you need something from a new OS, you buy another machine.

It's easy to keep your machines secured even if they are using a decades old OS. Businesses are still depending on a lot of old software and hardware, because it gets the job done with great efficiency.

A day later, as I'm reading the responses and looking at the negative points on my comment: I have to learn to avoid commenting in certain topics on HN. It seems that most people here want their software to be FREE, or at least sold for an inexpensive one-time fee, which I can understand. But they also have a certain model of running a software business in their minds, which is simply wrong.

My bet is that none of the commenters in this thread (full of mentions of sustainable development) actually run a full-time software business and make a living on it. I do. Which is why I understand why subscriptions make sense.

Time to settle on wine as portable API. Bloatware is custom drawn anyway, so a drawing context is all environment they need.