Comment Rental models vs. paid support (Score 2) 191
Want to hasten your own decline for consumers? Try foisting a subscription model on them and then acting like it's not the consumer who owns the computer.
I'd like to believe that, but unfortunately a significant fraction of the customer base for software appears to be quite happy paying up. Adobe show no remorse over moving to subscription-only with Creative Cloud. Games companies show no remorse about requiring always-online DRM schemes, and little sympathy even when the servers fall over and people can't play their new game on Christmas morning. I assume the amount of money they're making from the people who still pay up outweighs the amount they've lost in customers choosing not to buy (rent?) their new software on those terms.
I hope -- and expect -- that this situation will change in time, as the reality of paying or being literally shut off sinks in, and as people get tired of having forced upgrades they didn't want or need that sometimes make things worse than they were before.
Personally, I would never voluntarily rely on software for anything important where it stopped working completely if I stopped paying. This is the so-called "rental model" for software sales, and can be very customer-hostile -- stop paying and you actually lose something you had before.
However, some software -- particularly system software -- naturally becomes less useful over time unless it receives updates to ensure compatibility with newer things and to protect against newer security and privacy risks. So, my take is that big software companies like Microsoft are missing a huge opportunity right now. I would happily pay a reasonable recurring fee to a software company in return for ongoing compatibility and security fixes, if that meant I could keep using the version of software I actually liked and found useful indefinitely, without having to buy into "upgrades" that might break something. Some of the big names have taken some steps in this direction with various corporate licensing schemes, but these are usually the preserve of big business customers, while smaller businesses and private customers are stuck with off-the-shelf, upgrade-when-it-runs-out software.
There's no commercial need for turkeys like Windows 8 to be rushed out if you have a decent product in Windows 7 and your customers are willing to pay you real money to maintain it for the long term. And as a customer, given some reasonable and clearly stated initial period of support with a software purchase, I don't think it's unreasonable to then provide some more money to the developers in return for ongoing support after that time. After all, software doesn't magically grow on trees, and I'd rather pay them for working on something I value than have them to try force/trick me into paying them for something that isn't really what I want.