There is no one-size-fits-all solution here. The subscription model is almost a no-brainer for any application that you rely on for sustaining your line of business, personal livelihood, or for some folks, their personal well being. The subscription model should imply a continuing business relationship between the software developer and the customer. As part of the subscription cost the developer should be expected to maintain the application in good working order and to quickly respond to any functional shortcomings and security issues discovered in the software. I also believe that subscribers should be compensated for disruptions in availability caused by the provider, e.g., if OneDrive, Google Drive, or iCloud goes offline for an hour affected users should be issued a rebate or some form of compensation.
The only reason I bring a nit-picky detail up, like what happens to users when they lose access to their subscription, is because the people on both sides of software purchases and subscriptions haven't really been truthful to one another. For many years users purchased one-time licenses for software applications only to discover that the developer couldn't really afford to maintain the application properly, or that one-time meant one year or one version, or any number of mismatches between expectations and reality on either side. If you want to really peel back the onion, read the wordy EULA, at which point you as a user will realize that all of your expectations of a common sense agreement between the buyer and seller are vapor and buyers essentially have no legal rights at all. If I have to read a six page EULA to figure out what my rights are as a
software buyer/licensee or subscriber, I know I'm getting screwed, and it's happening in a
cloud of word chaff for special effect.
What I'd like to see are simple, common sense, and transparent agreements along the line or at least the size of Apple's "nutrition labels" for software purchases and subscriptions that tell you exactly what you're getting for what you're paying, whether one time or monthly payments. No more 5000 word EULAs, just a "this is what you get for your payment" spelled out up-front. The fact that so many applications that were once sold under a single payment model have suddenly transitioned to subscriptions with no apparent changes in the relationship (other than paying constantly), coupled with the lack of clarity in how apps are presented both online (direct download) and in App stores, e.g., terms like "Free Download" and "In-App Purchases" make it very clear to me that we're still playing smoke & mirrors with how software sales are being conducted. Same deal with "Free" software that isn't really free when you're paying with your privacy or spam tolerance.
Looking for Apple to take the lead on a move to the "No More BS" model of software sales, leases, and distribution.
Agreed on most points. But I’d point out that software is a lot more complex and unknowable than a commodity like toilet tissue. The user agreement for toilet tissue could be written rather briefly and is, in fact, not necessary at all. It’s implied in the product’s entire purpose. If there’s a defect it’s readily apparent and obvious. Not so with software. There could be a defect that crops up a decade down the road (remember the Y2K issues?) and the financial ability of a software business might have changed drastically over that time. Without license agreements that cover fitness for use expectations and the like, a software business could be devastated by responsibility to remedy some incompatibility or issue that crops up long after a product has essentially become obsolete. And so it becomes a slippery slope to cover all contingencies within the license agreement document.
When I think of the subscription model versus what we’ve had for 40 years prior, I try to think in terms of first principals. If neither existed and you had to invent a software sales, distribution and support model from scratch, but knowing what we know about the two models, which would make most sense? The subscription model seems a cleaner and more fair approach in this context. Like any utility, you pay as you consume, and you can stop paying if you find the deal is no longer of value to you. Should there be some protections around migrating data and perhaps a period during which you could continue to use the software after cancelling for maintenance of the data you previously generated with it? I’d say yes, and that would be a nice innovation to add to the model; you can continue use in some limited manner to maintain and read and potentially edit the data/documents/files you created while your subscription was active, but not create new after cancellation. Perhaps also a means to place your subscription on hold the way Florida snowbirds can, for one period per year, place their car insurance on hold to reflect times when they are out of state. In short, an appropriately designed subscription model has the better chance, in my opinion, of delivering value to both the publisher and the consumer, versus a pay upfront plus occasional upgrades transaction between a customer and a business. The subscription model creates a mutually beneficial ongoing relationship whereas the transactional model is lopsided, initially in favor of the business, inspiring all that convoluted license agreement detail in hopes it doesn’t eventually flip to become unfavorable to the business. It’s an artificial relationship, doomed to disappoint.
Comments
the model; you can continue use in some limited manner to maintain and read and potentially edit the data/documents/files you created while your subscription was active, but not create new after cancellation. Perhaps also a means to place your subscription on hold the way Florida snowbirds can, for one period per year, place their car insurance on hold to reflect times when they are out of state. In short, an appropriately designed subscription model has the better chance, in my opinion, of delivering value to both the publisher and the consumer, versus a pay upfront plus occasional upgrades transaction between a customer and a business. The subscription model creates a mutually beneficial ongoing relationship whereas the transactional model is lopsided, initially in favor of the business, inspiring all that convoluted license agreement detail in hopes it doesn’t eventually flip to become unfavorable to the business. It’s an artificial relationship, doomed to disappoint.