thread: Pay per use?
View Single Post
Old 19th May 2009 | Show parent
Lives for gear
I can see where some might find that an attractive economic model, but I usually like to own most everything that I consider using: don't lease cars (buy good quality used vehicles); own a home, don't rent; purchase all software I use, so that I can reload it whenever I choose, on whatever system I own at that time.

Generally speaking I don't like the subscription model, except where it applies to an obvious close-ended value for what I am purchasing (magazines, financial newsletter advice, satellite radio, etc.). Maybe that isn't an accurate analogy, but I find that the majority of companies these days tend to focus on subscriber retention, at the expense of re-investment in their product quality & infrastructure. IMO companies who rely on a captive subscriber base (for ex., cable tv & cellphone carriers) are almost never reasonable to deal with, and they often operate far outside of most reasonable people's expectation, of what constitutes good customer service and product quality.

Not saying it absolutely couldn't fly -- I could see it working in the specific context of a company who truly values it's customer base and as a rule, always treats the customer with respect (there are a few: iZ technologies, Lynx, plus others listed in other threads). But all one need do is look at the many examples of dissatisfied software user threads that exist on GS (one plug-in developer comes immediately to mind ... rhymes with graves) to see where I'm coming from.

of course, ymmv