[HN Gopher] Consumer software is expected to be next fast-growin... ___________________________________________________________________ Consumer software is expected to be next fast-growing segment (1994) Author : 1970-01-01 Score : 62 points Date : 2023-07-21 13:46 UTC (1 days ago) (HTM) web link (www.csmonitor.com) (TXT) w3m dump (www.csmonitor.com) | RcouF1uZ4gsC wrote: | Honestly this model of selling the consumer software in exchange | for money that runs on their computer seems better than providing | the software that only runs on the company's servers in exchange | for data and ads. | haunter wrote: | Aren't most video games still following this rule? | cjs_ac wrote: | Given the rise of free-to-play-pay-to-win games, | microtransactions and DLCs, no. | zer8k wrote: | I agree. SaaS was supposed to be a model that was highly | beneficial for vendors selling to corporations. Once it | penetrated the consumer market it became death by 1,000 cuts. | Now everyone's life is loaded down subscriptions for things | that 20 years ago would've been bought once. I miss the days of | owning software. I guess I can be thankful it pushed me towards | open source. | rightbyte wrote: | Ye. On my phone I used some half-bad text editor, Acode, to | view a patch I meeded to review on the fly. It shows ads and | does an ad popup when you try to exit. | | Like, Google does not let you search their app store and | filter by cost or spyware. It is hopeless to find some good | utility tool without knowing its exact name. | | A simple text-editor should be free. I don't want to give | some dev reccuring revenue to unlock Notepad level features. | mfashby wrote: | Try f droid store, all the apps there are required to be | open source so there's fewer spy/malware. Or look for apps | by secuso on the play store. Fwiw acode on f-droid doesn't | seem to have ads. | | I strongly agree it shouldn't be this hard to find simple | stuff. | heattemp99 wrote: | Saas is also a way of combating piracy imo. | zer8k wrote: | It also greatly exacerbates piracy. I'd be willing to bet | movies, music, and certain software like CAD are seeing | unprecedented levels of piracy after SaaS. Especially when | SaaS enables companies like Netflix to betray their | consumers. | sbuk wrote: | Professional-level 'CAD' has _always_ been susceptible to | piracy as it has always been criminally expensive. Music | services are at about the right price, and if anything | offer pretty good value when one considers that album | prices were reaching the $20 mark. | cratermoon wrote: | It is, with the downside that if the company goes out of | business, the buyer is out of luck. See, e.g. VanMoof | antupis wrote: | Saas in hardware is kinda stupid if you cannot offer some | real benefits eg game pass. | 0max wrote: | Playstation Plus with the streaming package really | changed my view on gaming once I got fiber optic piped | into my building. The hardware fan doesn't spin up when I | stream Ghosts of Tsushima instead of playing locally, | essentially turning my PS4 into a thin client for Sony's | services. | | RIP Gamestop | carlosjobim wrote: | At least on Apple systems, I have always found paid good apps | at fair prices for all my needs. | JimtheCoder wrote: | Maybe with Gen AI potentially lowering the cost of software | development, it will be economically viable to go back to the | "pay once and own" model... | xp84 wrote: | I don't really care where it runs, or if it's one-time purchase | vs subscription. It's just the "paying indirectly for 'free' | software products" vs "paying for software" that I care about. | 3cats-in-a-coat wrote: | ...in exchange for data and ads, and money. | | That's the trick though, SaaS just keeps you hostage to the | vendor and they can extract more value out of you. There are | only two ways out of this: | | 1. The Internet becomes dangerous and unreliable for some | reason, and we need to go back to treating software as a | product for sale, rather than service for rent. | | 2. Regulation. | | Neither way is great. It suggests distress in the system and | forcing behaviors which are not natural to it. On the other | hand, what's natural to this system we've created is apparently | massive centralization in the hands of corporations, and | whenever anything in this network of dependencies breaks, the | whole thing falls apart like a house of cards. | dec0dedab0de wrote: | The third way out is to simply not participate. If something | is SaaS only I pretend it doesn't exist. | JumpCrisscross wrote: | > _SaaS just keeps you hostage to the vendor and they can | extract more value out of you_ | | It was also a solution to the problem of updates. You can't | pay for continuous improvement with a traditional software | product. | zer8k wrote: | I never had problem paying a company for patches. | | The problem companies had would be someone buying their | software and then never buying updates. That's a product | problem not a system problem. SaaS keeps the consumer | captive in a permanent rental situation. The "it gives the | customers a better experience" non-sense is false. One of | the best case studies on this is Jetbrains. Sublime Text is | still around too. It works. It just doesn't sell very well | to SV shareholders. | | It'd be a lot easier if they just said "we're greedy | assholes". Since that's what it actually is. Software had | to be made right the first time when released on CD. | Updates were paid and it was okay because they were usually | major improvements. There's been a whole lot of propaganda | made to make SaaS seem like a net win for the consumer but | this is by-and-large not the case. | JumpCrisscross wrote: | > _I never had problem paying a company for patches_ | | But you had to decide to pay. Many did not. Those are | transaction costs. As is downloading and installing | software, something software running on a server and | delivered through a browser doesn't require. Those | ongoing costs must be paid for with ads or subscription | revenue. | | > _Software had to be made right the first time when | released on CD_ | | But it never was. Particularly in a networked world. | Perfect is the enemy of good. | | SaaS isn't a fit for all products. Some software can be | written once and never updated. Most cannot, and for | that, SaaS is a better business model fit. | 3cats-in-a-coat wrote: | > But you had to decide to pay. Many did not. | | Many did not, when the updates did not provide value. The | false belief you seem to rely on here is that if | companies get regular stream of revenue, they'll be | compelled to work on updates. Why? They get the revenue | anyway, they don't have to work on updates. They can in | fact stop completely working on updates, except to match | competitors, when their products get popular. But even | that's not much of a problem when you have a closed file | format, like say Adobe does with PSD. | zer8k wrote: | I can tell you having worked at a majority SaaS-type of | companies my entire career the amount of "updates" we put | out is as frequent, or less, than the previous model. | Despite working in the industry (it's impossible to avoid | as you likely know) I encourage nearly _everyone_ I know | to find other options before paying for software | subscriptions. | | It's about money. It's not about updates. It's taking | away ownership from people in order to be able to drive | up profits. Consider how normal software sales works. | It's the same way. You lease enterprise-grade software to | a company. Every year, as if by magic, something comes up | and "prices need to increase". They just hacked off a | zero or two and adapted this price model to the consumer. | I fail to see how SaaS is not another variation of | "Embrace, extend, extinguish" where the entrapment phase | of extinguish is taken to it's natural conclusion: no | ownership. Worse, you pay 5, 10, 20 times as much over | time. Many companies capitalize on the subscription being | priced such that you forget about it. Also known as the | gym model. | | The only acceptable SaaS model to me is JetBrain's. You | pay a subscription and at the end of that term you _own_ | that version of the software _permanently_. You may | continue to pay (because you find the product valuable) | but you are not required to. At the end, you still _own_ | what you paid for. The truth is, SaaS provides very | little value to people for what they pay. | | An example: in 5 years you would've paid for a copy of | AutoCAD inventor in full + some just leasing the worse | Fusion360 over the same time period. If you are a sucker | and buy into Inventor's SaaS pricing you would've paid | for 5-8 copies at the previous model in the same time | period. That type of capture is called theft in other | modalities. 9/10 people would've never needed to pay for | all the extra crap they saddle on in order to make the | price seem "reasonable". They exist solely because the | can _extort_ (not capitalize) on the moat they have. | | One day we'll look at this model of owning nothing as one | of the greatest failings of our society. It's probably an | unpopular opinion here at HN but SaaS is an awful anti- | consumer model. We can hope that somehow we define what | "providing sufficient utility" means and start cracking | down on this. | JumpCrisscross wrote: | > _It 's about money. It's not about updates. _ | | It can be both. There is an ideological purity one tends | towards when designing any system. Often times, that | aesthetic sense of an engineer is right. Frequently, it's | orthogonal to what customers need. SaaS isn't a fit in | every case. But it's far from a universal money grab. | 3cats-in-a-coat wrote: | As a counterpoint, subscription means you pay even if the | updates are subpar. So in fact subscription encourages lack | of updates. Would you work hard if your boss can't fire | you? | | With the traditional system the vendor has to work hard to | put up an update that's worth it, and then you pay for it. | | Adobe were clearly struggling to provide good updates to | their software for years, creators were always kidding they | just keep tweaking the UI skin because they're out of | ideas, so there's no point buying the new updates. So when | Adobe went subscription-only, they did it under the | pretense they'll be able to ship new exciting features | every month. And of course... in retrospect they didn't. In | fact their updates are even more minor than before. | zuppy wrote: | how is that a problem for the consumer? just provide paid | updates for the next major version. who wants it, pays for | it. | | i give the example of Path Finder, which is a Finder | replacement for mac. there's not much to improve there, | after a while it became bloated. they went with | subscriptions after many years of owning the software (and | rolled back that later with an alternative after the | backslash). | | i don't use anything that came in the last few years, | except the compatibility with the latest os. maybe it's | time to stop this madness and try to make every software do | anything and extract money from the consumer for things | that are really not needed (yes, i understand this is my | opinion but i bet you all have a similar example). | zer8k wrote: | > maybe it's time to stop this madness and try to make | every software do anything and extract money from the | consumer for things that are really not needed | | Or put on your entrepreneur cap and realize this is an | opportunity. | 3cats-in-a-coat wrote: | It's not, because if you try to fight an empire that has | billions under its belt, you'll find out you can't | compete. They're lazy when not provoked, but can get | vicious when you show up. | | It's kind of like a lion. Sleeps most of the time. But | don't get in its way. | HWR_14 wrote: | If you cannot convince people to buy v2, then clearly the | updates aren't worth the cost of making them. | | Except for security upgrades, I feel like most software | rapidly hits a point where the upgrades aren't worth it. | cratermoon wrote: | This model still exists, somewhat. One factor that worked | against it, from the standpoint of the software companies, was | that there was no effective way to prevent copying and sharing | (aka 'piracy'). Software companies put a lot of money and | effort into trying to stop it, but every technical scheme was | eventually cracked. The elaborate schemes that involved having | a physical copy of the game's packaging annoyed users. Some | schemes were downright abusive[1]. | | Even with modern DRM, the cost, complexity, and inability to | completely lock down software installed on a device under the | control of the user puts some companies off. | | So now we have software as a service, paid for with the user's | attention (ads) or we have software that just stops working if | the company's servers can't be reached. (Looking at you, | VanMoof). | | 1 | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copy_protection#Notable_payloa... | flangola7 wrote: | I don't want companies to be able to lock down a user's | device. That isn't a business model that should be | legitimized or allowed. | cratermoon wrote: | > I don't want companies to be able to lock down a user's | device | | Neither do I, thus the cautionary tale of VanMoof. Software | is now everywhere, in everything from your toaster to the | electric grid. As a result, right-to-repair means right to | reprogram. The owner needs to be able to fix bugs, change | performance parameters, replace things that break. When my | dad was working on cars, that meant put in a new | carburetor, adjust the timing, clean the points - all | physical parts. It's different today. | ghaff wrote: | Also, if you wanted on-prem software, open source | alternatives increasingly became an option. (As in the case | of office suites, SaaS also allows for some collaboration and | other options that couldn't really be done with desktop | software installs. I never want to go back to mailing around | copies of files and merging changes again. | samsquire wrote: | From the 2000s onwards (given my age) I remember permanent | licenced software being very expensive and out of reach: | Photoshop, Visual Studio, Macromedia Flash, Visual Basic. | | > ``You're going to see an economic model where software | companies become giant incubators for good ideas,'' he says, | likening it to the record business, which takes the creative | product of an artist and markets it. | | I feel the big tech companies should be expanding into many | markets by their sheer programming prowess and complexity | budgets/capacity. They should try run the cost of complexity to | zero and make complexity a commodity. | | Maybe I'm in a bubble but I don't see much new desktop software. | | I feel it is difficult to get people in the world to pay for | digital things. PS10 for an iOS APP??? | | What software am I actually willing to pay for? Probably software | that earns me something. I bought Sublime Text a long time ago | but nowadays I just use notepad++ or IntelliJ or VS Code rarely. | I bought Typora, a markdown editor because I write a lot of | markdown. | | The same problem also applies to the web. What websites would you | pay for? | | Would you pay $3 for a HN subscription? What about digital | magazines? Are there any newspapers that are actually worth it, | that enhance your life? | | EDIT: it just occurred to me that the web IS a digital magazine. | But I meant publications. | | I feel if you want something to stay around then the market has | to support its costs at a bare minimum. If you only charge | lifetime licences/permanent licences traditional software then | the software has a lifespan because the company can only support | it while their costs are covered. SaaS is the outcome of web | technology, browser technology and business needs. | | I just don't like the duplication of effort, every SaaS has to | implement authorisation and authentication, backup, security | measures, billing, subscriptions, user management, account | management, an Android app, an iOS app, dashboards and maybe a | desktop client. It's such a waste of effort. | | What about a SaaS dashboard SaaS, where all your SaaS are mangaed | from one place? | | Edit: Saas As Code? | 2OEH8eoCRo0 wrote: | > PS10 for an iOS APP??? | | PS10 is outrageous when AAA video games start at $70. | | > Are there any newspapers that are actually worth it, that | enhance your life? | | New Yorker, Economist, The Atlantic, NYT are all fantastic- I | order print editions and don't install their apps on my phone. | mch82 wrote: | Core services like identity, subscription management, payment, | and backup seem to be emerging as the role of the operating | system on modern devices. | mrweasel wrote: | > I feel it is difficult to get people in the world to pay for | digital things. PS10 for an iOS APP??? | | It very much seems like developers have stopped trying. The app | store for the iPhone/iPad is broken and I blame in-app | purchases and subscriptions. I feel that Apple should be VERY | restrictive about what is allowed to be an in-app purchase or | subscription. | | Try browsing the apps available, especially for children, it's | all free, with in app purchases or in-app subscriptions. I was | trying to find a coloring app on the iPad, there's like one | that's reasonably priced. It's free for 5 - 10 coloring pages | then you pay $5 - $6 to unlock everything. Completely | reasonable in my mind. The rest: $30 per year as a | subscription... well, now I'm not buying anything, that's not | something that should be a subscription. | | I really want the app stores to start very clearly advertising | that the in-app purchase is an unreasonably priced subscription | and preferably require that the price to unlock an every | feature. Most of all I want in-app purchase and subscriptions | to go away. | | My life already have plenty of subscriptions, I refuse to sign | up for more. I have four streaming subscriptions, two news | sites, online storage, password managers, internet, phones, | service contracts for my car... Just F-ing stop and let me pay | up front for things that REALLY doesn't need to be | subscriptions because I can't deal with anymore. | Kye wrote: | Procreate (one time purchase) + pictures of real coloring | books might work. You can also get PDF coloring books and | load them as layers. As far as I know Procreate has nothing | in it that should cause problems. It can access the file | browser, but that might be controllable in parental control | settings. | lotsofpulp wrote: | I have not searched for a single app outside of Apple Arcade | in many years. | CSMastermind wrote: | For those who weren't alive at the time it's probably hard to | understand what an inflection point Windows 95 was. | | Both in terms of the number of homes with computers in them and | what those computers were able to do things skyrocketed. | | The software business went from primarily being targeted at | businesses, schools, and hobbyists to being targeted at | mainstream consumers in a once ever opportunity to establish a | brand name with people who have literally never purchased | anything in this class before. | | It was the most dramatic shift certainly that I've seen in my | life with the adoption of the internet being second and the | adoption of mobile phones being third. | | It's been more than a decade since we've seen anything like those | shifts. The 2010s feel a lot like the 1980s to me. Lots of | progress, lots of it incremental, but no inflection point. I do | wonder if AI will be the next big paradigm shift like Windows 95, | the internet, and the iPhone. | georgeecollins wrote: | Or, how hard it is to predict future markets. I remember when I | started making games (on CD-ROMS!) and I met a guy who had a | "multimedia" company. It sounds so funny now. He felt that soon | their would be huge stores, like record stores(!) that had | aisles and aisles of CD-ROMs for every need and interest. It | didn't sound unreasonable at the time. And now I can't even | explain to my kids what record store were like when I was a | kid. | mistrial9 wrote: | Windows 95 was years behind the state-of-the-art on the day | "Chicago" shipped. The technical choice of the backslash for | file system paths, and hiding the real disk contents from the | user view, caused years of headaches. The architectural design | choices for extensibility ended up as a swiss-cheese | architecture for malware. MSFT-chairman literally saw himself | as the new savior. glad you see this as important? | petemill wrote: | Important in terms of adoption. | function_seven wrote: | None of your assessment matters regarding how big a deal it | actually was. My mom didn't give a damn about backslashes and | my dad had zero use for seeing hidden files. The "state of | the art" in 1995 was for nerds doing nerd stuff, Windows 95 | was for regular people who couldn't afford a Macintosh. | canucker2016 wrote: | I fail to see how a minor choice such as what character to | use as path separator has to do with being state of the art. | | https://www.os2museum.com/wp/why-does-windows-really-use- | bac... does a deep dive into the reasons for the choice, | which seems more to do with backwards compatibility with DOS | 1.0. | | Win95 wasn't built on a base that had security in mind. And | when the Win95 feature set was created, the world wide web | wasn't in that list. TCP/IP wasn't either iirc. Dialup access | was the main onramp to the internet. MSN was supposed to be | Microsoft's main way to get users on to the internet (to | fight against AOL). | | If you don't have internet access, where is your malware | coming from? | | Floppies? No wifi to attack your printers. | | Much easier to deal with a strange poisonous floppy the few | times that you are given one than the 24/7 defenses needed | when your box is ON the internet. | | Well, Win95 was hobbled with the MSDOS base which was mainly | concerned with CP/M familiarity when first designed. That's | why Microsoft was working on windowsNT. | hackzzz wrote: | [flagged] | axpy906 wrote: | I think AI finally is at point where it is. It's peak hype | right now but there is definitely a difference between | knowledge workers that use it and one's that don't. It's only | going to grow wider in the coming years. | packetlost wrote: | > there is definitely a difference between knowledge workers | that use it and one's that don't | | [citation needed] | | I tried out Copilot for months and didn't get much value out | of it. The majority of my time and effort is not writing | code, which is about the only thing an LLM can generate semi- | useful output for. It's not more useful than a tailored | search engine experience and it doesn't replace deep dives | into text books, code, and white papers. Where are you seeing | major benefits? | kimixa wrote: | We've also done some initial experiments, and seen no | improvements in productivity, and the comments from the | people using it were rather negative. | | Maybe it's sector dependent? Maybe systems programming | doesn't have enough reference materials for them to learn | from? | | Certainly not the "Clearly obvious difference" some people | seem to be claiming to see in some places online. | packetlost wrote: | The latency is distracting for me tbh. That's something I | think could be fixed by running local models, but the | quality of output is just not there. | | Maybe if you're slinging HTML and JS all day it helps | more | ben_w wrote: | My experiments with 3.5 say that it does the easy 80% | solution that takes 20% of my time. | | The advantage, that actually is a game changer[0], is | that it can do languages I can't. I'm an iOS dev, I've | _technically_ been paid to write JavaScript at various | points, but the best of that was about 20 years ago and | just before jQuery got popular. | | ChatGPT lets me turn my ideas for JavaScript projects | into things that _almost_ work and are usually close | enough for me to fix -- turning me from an iOS dev into a | JS project manager. | | Likewise Stable Diffusion: I've done some game artwork | when I tried self employed for a bit, SD can act like a | mostly amazing artist that does a few bits (mostly hands) | like it was temporarily high on LSD, and I can just | highlight those messed up regions and say "do again five | times", and the actual images get to me faster than a | real human would notice a message on slack or email or | whatever, let alone be able to actually attempt a fix. | | As for music... I actually made a procedural music | generator back then (for the games while self-employed), | and while neither the music nor the generator is going to | win any awards, the output was sufficient for the games | it went with. All the various new music AI are way better | than what I did. | | [0] and now I realise the cliche; _ugh_ | pydry wrote: | I've watched people who claim it is a game changer try to | use it and I can see routinely leading them down rabbit | holes in real time which they struggle to get out of. | | Meanwhile, the stuff it is good at filling in - it was | never that hard to google it and copy and paste it in the | first place. | | I've seen this like 20 times in tech before. We're peak | hype cycle for LLMs and the trough of disillusionment has | yet to set in. During peak hype cycle for any tech a lot | of people defer to the crowd's excitable opinion, | disbelieve the evidence in front of their own eyes and | express a level of optimism over future developments that | is ludicrous. | dasil003 wrote: | It's early days on the product applications, but the | fundamental power is being able to find correlations and | connections across a huge corpus and output a large variety | of rough ideas that can then be selected and polished by | humans. It doesn't replace human expertise and creativity, | but it will chip away at the bottom where many jobs are | essentially rote tasks with very little human-level | judgement needed, and more apropos to the GP, it will | provide an increasingly powerful assist to human experts | who learn how to harness it. | packetlost wrote: | I don't see how that's a better position than general | automation, which software has been chipping away at the | bottom rung of for decades. Most jobs outside of mass | produced SEO Buzzfeed garbage are not about generating | large amounts of believable sounding prose. I could see | it chipping away at the bottom rung of customer support, | but that very quickly turns into work where real | decisions have to be made and an 80% correct output is | not acceptable. I'd be extremely surprised if any half | serious company lets an LLM decide whether a refund | should be processed or rejected, for example. | lordnacho wrote: | Main benefit is it does boilerplate really well. You type a | few letters and then hit tab, and now your test case is | done. | | I did this as late as yesterday. Type in a case, type in a | variant of the case that is more or less symmetric, it | fills in what you would have typed. Or you add a member to | your object, thus requiring it to be tested. It figures out | that you need to check this new thing in all your tests. | | Other thing it does well is syntax. Some weird c++ template | parameter thing, it does it for you. Little things like | "what's that thing that makes the sort go the other way" it | will know, and save you a minute of googling. | | What there doesn't seem to be is an interface for that I've | found is any kind of refactoring. That's still a form of | donkey work that a junior guy can do, but you'd think there | would be some way for the AI to suggest DRY candidates and | re-orgs. | valenterry wrote: | I find that to be true as well. | | It's just that boilerplate is usually an indication of a | bad design or a bad/verbose language. Both of it are | painpoints that should be fixed. | | But if that's not possible then Copilot is a good helper. | gumby wrote: | Looking at my phone and laptop, I have a lot of open source code, | some $0 apps, some $50-$100 apps, and a couple of annual | subscriptions for roughly $25/yr. | | It's interesting that those price points are sticky, like detents | on a slide. | smokel wrote: | In 1993 in high school economics, our teacher explained that | economics was based on scarcity. Even the most dimwitted | individual would have to conclude that something is horribly | wrong with economic models if governments would not soon make | exceptions for the software industry. | | Fast forward 30 years, and many software developers and startups | actually think that their skills are worth so much. Sigh? | indymike wrote: | > and many software developers and startups actually think that | their skills are worth so much. Sigh? | | Supply < Demand. | | That is why developers are paid well. When demand softens, or | supply increases even more, what developers are paid will | change. The difference between software developers and other | highly paid positions is that there is not enforced, artificial | scarcity, such as licenses, advanced education requirements or | required tests. | hker999 wrote: | Copying software that was built and saying there is no scarcity | is like saying you should be able to spend the millions of | dollars you made by copying a $100 bill multiple times on an | inkjet. | l33t233372 wrote: | Are you implying software isn't valuable? Because that's just a | non starter -- it obviously is. | smokel wrote: | No, I am implying that software reproduction is so easy, that | it is not a scarce good, and classical economical models are | a (very) bad fit. | | Custom software, or software for a small audience obviously | is scarce, but a word processor or operating system with | similar complexity that can be used by millions, if not | billions of users, should not cost more _in total_. | | Open source (free) software would not even be possible if it | were as scarce as, say, oil or apples. | thelastparadise wrote: | Sorry, I'm having trouble following along. Non sequitur? | | In what world is software comparable to apples or oil? We | need a different analogy. | the_only_law wrote: | > and many software developers and startups actually think that | their skills are worth so much. Sigh? | | Don't worry, the past year taught at least a few of us the hard | way. Unfortunately when I was younger, I drank a lot of the | industry kool aid. | dharmab wrote: | This is like saying books have no value because the cost of | distribution is near zero. | | Books cost money because quality authorship is scarce and | people are willing to pay for "ongoing support" (sequels and | future works) ___________________________________________________________________ (page generated 2023-07-22 23:00 UTC)