A well reasoned argument of support for the ever increasing movement to subscription software.

However, I can't accept that this move: "puts the power back in our hands" or that it balances "the needs of developers and businesses and the demands of users like us." - at least not if , "like us" includes the majority of average personal purchasers, as opposed to business users or those with high disposable incomes.

I certainly agree that developers of worthwhile & properly working software ought to receive reasonable reward for their efforts but I don't agree that this necessitates only a subscription model for purchase.

Many of the better and more useful applications are, in any case, produced by large corporations and their move to subscriptions has put their products out of reach of many average income earners or low and fixed income people such as myself.

I have always been an early adopter and was a purchaser of much software when it first became available. At that time it was also provided on a tangible physical format that could be readily stored and re-installed or moved to another machine virtually at will.

Today, downloading and installing software is often laborious and tedious and not infrequently fraught with problems. In addition, much is, in my view, certainly over-priced and *not* supported as well as your article suggests.

So, whilst I accept that there are some 'small' independent developers who may lack adequate reward for their efforts, let's face it, in reality the subscription move is basically driven by greed, i.e. it is adopted because it swells the coffers of companies that already make huge profits.

... thank you for the article, anyway. It is always good to see issues raised, even if one has a difference of opinion with those raising them. ☮️