←back to thread

Affinity Studio now free

(www.affinity.studio)
1199 points dagmx | 4 comments | | HN request time: 0.001s | source
Show context
nirava ◴[] No.45763101[source]
This is a deletion.

- they're completely stopping all updates to v2; even image trace won't be coming to it. You might have paid for perpetual access to it 2 months ago, but it has completely stopped. As the world moves on (new chips, new OS features, just general software movement) this will increasingly feel like a second-class experience.

- the new "free" software is a sales funnel into the paid subscription, and will also increasingly have that "second-class" feeling as new pro-only things are added to it. it is also practically guaranteed to feed your work into AI unless you buy pro sometime in the next 5 years

In short, something secure, top class, the "best the company offers" product doesn't exist anymore. What was once there isn't.

replies(9): >>45763725 #>>45763760 #>>45763929 #>>45764353 #>>45764429 #>>45764558 #>>45764913 #>>45765719 #>>45770848 #
ezfe ◴[] No.45764353[source]
Isn't this EXACTLY what subscriptions fix, though? That you can stop paying if the product stops getting updates.

Everyone wanted a one time license, you aren't allowed to complain when that one-time licensed product stops getting updates.

Note: I own a license to V2 of the Serif suite.

replies(10): >>45764406 #>>45764616 #>>45764628 #>>45765067 #>>45765620 #>>45766210 #>>45769201 #>>45769885 #>>45772049 #>>45775101 #
1. paulhebert ◴[] No.45764406[source]
I’d prefer to have them release a new version every X years and let me buy that for a fixed cost. (This is how Adobe used to work)
replies(1): >>45764904 #
2. ezfe ◴[] No.45764904[source]
You can't have your cake (one time payments) and eat it too (software gets perpetual updates).

Perpetual licenses with 1 year of updates is a good middle ground, but they have said that the v2 suite will get maintenance updates for some period of time so even that type of license would not have changed this conversation.

replies(2): >>45765578 #>>45765779 #
3. paulhebert ◴[] No.45765578[source]
Sure. I get that. My ideal scenario is that existing versions get security patches and critical bug fixes but you have to upgrade for new features.

But I realize that’s less lucrative and not how modern software tends to work

4. zenware ◴[] No.45765779[source]
Except that you can, because every software company did this for decades… Want to upgrade to a new version of our product? That’s another one time fee for that version.

If you squint, this looks a lot like a subscription model, but with extra steps. Why it’s different is because those extra steps actually matter.

They matter to the people who aren’t subjected to subscription dark-patterns to keep them from unsubscribing for just a little bit longer. They matter to the product, development, and sales teams who know they actually have to produce and deliver something meaningful if they want repeat customers. The matter to the accounting teams on all sides of the transaction, in particular because subscription revenue or expenses can always be counted as “recurring” and this has implications on cash flow which itself can impact many things.

The pitch has always been “we grow with you, this is a win-win”, implying that perpetual license fees are actually good for you to pay. Ostensibly because keeping your supplier in business keeps you in business, but in reality it was totally possible for a software supplier to go out of business and for their customers to continue operating without issue for 5, 10, even 15+ years, before even considering finding a replacement software.

And despite the pitch seeming so sweet, the literature on why you want your software business to operate on a subscription model was always about gaining an advantage over your customers, however marginal it may be, and now the data has borne out that the advantage is stark.