I understand :-) I am not even arguing that the subscription price is not worth it - it might very well be.
I do however disagree with charging for this kind of software (which to me is only a local client, since I do not use or care about their backend service) via a subscription, on principle.
I'm aware that from a purely financial point of view, this is not a rational argument to make. In fact, it gets more irrational because if I could pay for updates every time, I might end up accepting a scheme where I pay more in total over the lifetime of the product - depending on whether I pay for every major version, and how high each update is priced - and I would not be dissatisfied with that.
But it's not purely a financial argument, it's about the choice of what to pay for, and what not. Being able to evaluate each version on its own merits. Paying for the syncing feature separately (in my case: Dropbox).
Basically, this kind of subscription removes freedom of choice from the customer side, which is why I am ideologically opposed to it even when it works out cheaper in the end for me.
As an aside: I find the word "subscription" to be disingenuous for these, and only use it because it has come to be used by convention. Traditionally "subscriptions" in terms of physical goods meant you retain ownership of anything you received before cancelling. Cancel a magazine, you don't need to mail back all your old copies. I tend to think of software or media "subscriptions" as "renting access", not as "subscribing", and mostly avoid them.
> I tend to think of software or media "subscriptions" as "renting access", not as "subscribing", and mostly avoid them.
This is a huge point - they're rentals, not subscriptions.
I blame cable TV "subscriptions"; in theory you can record cable programs and keep them forever (like a real subscription) but with internet TV "subscriptions" they make it very hard to do so. TiVo with a cable card will happily record HBO or Disney Channel, but it won't record HBO Max or Disney+.
Software, video streaming and game "subscriptions" should really be called rentals, because you lose access after you stop paying rent.
Apple could choose to implement actual subscriptions in their App Store. Basically you would get updates as long as you keep paying the subscription fee. Practically this would still be a rental though since Apple breaks its APIs every year.
I do however disagree with charging for this kind of software (which to me is only a local client, since I do not use or care about their backend service) via a subscription, on principle.
I'm aware that from a purely financial point of view, this is not a rational argument to make. In fact, it gets more irrational because if I could pay for updates every time, I might end up accepting a scheme where I pay more in total over the lifetime of the product - depending on whether I pay for every major version, and how high each update is priced - and I would not be dissatisfied with that.
But it's not purely a financial argument, it's about the choice of what to pay for, and what not. Being able to evaluate each version on its own merits. Paying for the syncing feature separately (in my case: Dropbox).
Basically, this kind of subscription removes freedom of choice from the customer side, which is why I am ideologically opposed to it even when it works out cheaper in the end for me.
As an aside: I find the word "subscription" to be disingenuous for these, and only use it because it has come to be used by convention. Traditionally "subscriptions" in terms of physical goods meant you retain ownership of anything you received before cancelling. Cancel a magazine, you don't need to mail back all your old copies. I tend to think of software or media "subscriptions" as "renting access", not as "subscribing", and mostly avoid them.