>>>> And if they were clever they would put something in the license of the
>>>> $10/month version that prevented the huge companies using it, thus
>>>> keeping the 10 people paying $1.2 million at the same time :-)
>>>
>>> I would be surprised if they did, actually - in the long run, the
>>> monthly subscription would generally net them more than a perpetual
>>> license would.
>>
>> There's a lot of $10's in $1.2m :-)
>
> Yes, but that's the beauty of subscription pricing - it builds because
> you have recurring revenue.
>
> $120 per year per user.  Over the long haul, that can net you more than a
> perpetual license - and from a business standpoint, the revenue stream is
> more predictable, which makes the business more stable.

And there's still a lot of $120's in $1.2m. Even if a company has 100 
developers all needing a license, that's 100 years until you get to 
£1.2m in revenue. Which is why I would be surprised there is nothing in 
the £10/month version that prevents large companies (who are 
willing/able to pay $1.2m straight off) from using it.

> With a subscription - particularly in a SaaS environment - you always
> have your customers on the latest version -

Only if you force them to upgrade, I imagine many companies wouldn't be 
too happy about that.

Post a reply to this message