Why I Hate Software as a Service

One of the many pernicious trends in digital culture these days is that of subscription payments for applications. As a dabbler in data analysis, game design, and digital art, this trend has been increasingly rearing its ugly head. Most of the commercial game development IDEs — Unity 3D and Construct, for example — have switched over to this model, with a great deal of wailing and gnashing of teeth on the part of users.

One benefit of a subscription model, we are told, is that it more effectively funds development. Programmers get a constant revenue stream to provide for maintenance and new features, as opposed to the less predictable route in traditional paid-for upgrades. The other major benefit that more often gets bandied about by companies is that by paying smaller amounts each month, users spread the pain out rather than having to shell out a large investment of cash all at once. “It’s cheaper, like X cups of coffee per month!” we’re told.

The problem for me is that this per-month payment system takes away control from the user. In the old days, if I decided that Wattle-and-Daub PictureStore version 53.7 lacked compelling features, or made unwanted changes to the program, to persuade me to part with the equivalent of a down-payment on a car, I could simply not pay them and continue to use version 53.6 until the heat-death of the universe instead. Now, however, if I purchase — well, who am I really kidding, I should say rent — an application, I have no more say in the upgrade process. It’s simply done whether I want it or not. The major problem here is if I decide I don’t want to keep getting upgrades and cease to rent the program, I’m not just opting out of upgrades, I’m opting out of using the program ever again. In a way, it feels like extortion. And frankly, once a company has you locked in in perpetuity with their product, what guarantee do you actually have that you’ll receive regular updates to justify the rental fee?

Granted, yes, legally we don’t own software when we hand over money for it, we only own a license to use the software instead — it’s the developer who actually owns to application. This, however, sounds kind of like the tone-deaf response to people complaining about their democratic freedoms being stepped on by an increasingly authoritarian government — “it’s not a democracy, it’s a republic.” That may be technically true, but it doesn’t mean you have to be a jerk. This sort of response basically misses the point.

Obviously, I’m thinking about Adobe, Unity 3d, and other heavy-hitters in their respective fields. These are all arguably great programs, but should we willingly sell ourselves to — what appears to me, anyway — be a naked cash-grab? I may be able to afford to rent one or two of these applications for my own use, but I’d much rather give my money to developers who respect me as a person, and recognize my autonomy as a user. In response, I’ve made a concerted effort to rid myself of software that has switched to rental schemes (buh-bye, Adobe!), and instead purchase software (licenses, natch) that at least provides a single-payment option.