On the other hand, products that don't have subscription pricing are compelled to continue to add hot new features in a never-ending race of convincing their customers that they really should pay x dollars every 1-3 years for an upgrade.
That's not to mention that they have to deal with maintaining old versions of their products, and support costs that could easily exceed the LTV of a particular customer.
As a customer, I am often hesitant to shell out the big bucks for subscription software, especially because both Microsoft and Adobe have set up a pretty clear ceiling on what I consider to be worthwhile by charging $10/month for really really compelling product offerings (O365 Home for Microsoft, Photoshop & Lightroom for Adobe). So a "small"/less compelling app has to charge a good bit less for me to be willing to pay.
But in the long run, I'd rather pay, say, $20/year for a useful piece of software in perpetuity than $100 once every five years--because that way I always have the latest version and don't have to think about whether I really want to upgrade or not. And that aligns my incentives with those of the developer and reduces their support costs.
Over time, I imagine small software developers will figure out what a reasonable price is for subscriptions, and more software of any complexity will converge on this model. I, for one, don't especially mind.
That's not to mention that they have to deal with maintaining old versions of their products, and support costs that could easily exceed the LTV of a particular customer.
As a customer, I am often hesitant to shell out the big bucks for subscription software, especially because both Microsoft and Adobe have set up a pretty clear ceiling on what I consider to be worthwhile by charging $10/month for really really compelling product offerings (O365 Home for Microsoft, Photoshop & Lightroom for Adobe). So a "small"/less compelling app has to charge a good bit less for me to be willing to pay.
But in the long run, I'd rather pay, say, $20/year for a useful piece of software in perpetuity than $100 once every five years--because that way I always have the latest version and don't have to think about whether I really want to upgrade or not. And that aligns my incentives with those of the developer and reduces their support costs.
Over time, I imagine small software developers will figure out what a reasonable price is for subscriptions, and more software of any complexity will converge on this model. I, for one, don't especially mind.