>I somehow dislike having to finance a software company to allow it to resolve bugs in its code, through my subscription! Integrity and morals have little to do with business. Laws control business practices. A company with a good product should last longer than a company that delivers garbage. That last statement is not always true, as you may know. Knowing how to stay in business is more important than having a good product or service.

I agree with you here, but at the same time I can see the advantage to this model.

Let me give you an example. I have a fairly complex FoxPro product - Web Connection - and it's very difficult to put out a major new version unless I lock down for a half a year and add major new features. Then add beta testing and finally out comes a new product.

This sort of arrangement is difficult for a software company especially a small one to work with. The subscription model makes it possible to more easily make adjustments as time goes by. It also encourages continued updates because if the developer stops people are likely to drop off the subscription.

It's a good way to keep products that are mature going and supported IMHO. To the customer a lower subscription fee often is also more incentive than a fairly big chunk of the original purchase price in an upgrade.

That being said, I never went that route, because I too have reservations about having to pay for software continually. Managing the renewal process is a hassle both for the client and for the company - it's much easier to sell a copy once.


It is a valid model, but it requires some definite fine tuning to get the price points right and don't even think about it if you don't have a good plan for managing the subscriptions...


+++ Rick ---