On Thu, 30 Apr 2015 10:08:11 +0100, scott wrote:

>>>>> 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.

Of course I *can* do the math on this.  I work for a software company 
that recently did the math and made the change from perpetual to 
subscription.

>> 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.

A lot of SaaS implementations use a continuous release process, which 
means that you are (by definition) always on the latest version.

Jim

-- 
"I learned long ago, never to wrestle with a pig. You get dirty, and 
besides, the pig likes it." - George Bernard Shaw

Post a reply to this message