1

Licensing — it’s one of those things that can make or break a project budget and set the tone for vendor relationships. In one corner, we have subscription-based licensing, offering continuous updates, predictable costs, and access to the latest features. In the other, perpetual licensing lets you “set it and forget it” with a one-time buy that avoids recurring fees and sometimes keeps the CFO smiling.

We know there’s no one-size-fits-all solution, so we’re curious: Which licensing model do you prefer for your organization? Cast your vote in the poll below and share your thoughts in the comments.

Subscription vs. Perpetual Licensing: Which do you prefer?
  • Subscription-based licensing
  • Perpetual "buy once” licensing
  • It depends (tell us why in the comments!)
0 voters

A similar poll was conducted in 2019, and I’m interested to see how preferences have evolved over the years, especially considering the changes in the IT industry since then.

17 Spice ups
2

If it something I’m going to use once or if it is for a project with a definitive “end”, then subscription. If I’m going to use it for years, then a perpetual license. For example, I need to map my network once, so some spiffy network mapper I can subscribe to until the project is complete is what I want. On the other hand, my server will be in place for 5-7 years so I want a perpetual license that can be a capital expense rather than an operating expense. (Who am I kidding, it’ll be 7-10 years if I’m lucky before I get approval to upgrade it.)

27 Spice ups
3

After reading Tim-Smith’s response, I changed my vote to “It depends”.

Although to be accurate, it’s more like, “Perpetual, except in limited circumstances” Subscription makes sense to me for things like Anti-Spam service, after all, it’s a service.

However, for OSs and office suites, I do not like subscription at all. I clearly remember a time when I was actually very excited to put my money down for a new OS or office suite. When the industry magazines/websites started talking about the new features, I was literally in a “Please, take my money!” mode.

Unfortunately, I see the subscription model for OSs and office suites as a clear admission that the software has more or less reached a plateau. Developers are no longer able to offer enough compelling features to excite and motivate people to spend money for new versions. Their solution is move people into subscriptions. Small regular payments that stay below the threshold which would trigger further analysis and may even stay out of focused awareness.

I might suspect myself of being overly cynical, but Googling forgotten subscriptions, tells me that the subscribe and forget phenomenon is real.

PS. I know many of the stories in the results focus on unused subscriptions which are different than OSs and possibly different than office suites. But if we aren’t doing regular cost/benefit analysis on something we don’t even use at all, how much analysis are we doing on something we use regularly or occasionally?

23 Spice ups
4

I forget until it hits the bank.

9 Spice ups
5

A few years ago we migrated from perpetual MS Office to O-365 to much fanfare. We didn’t have to worry about updates and if users broke their laptop nothing was lost. Then M$ started adding features, but quietly also started removing some features. Among those we lost was pivot tables in Excel, which we relied on heavily. The workaround was O-365 allows a local download of the app, which included pivot tables but also negated the very reason we went to SaaS. I voted for perpetual licensing because we found that chasing the list of what Microsoft offered and broke caused far more work for IT and the users. Also, many of our users worked in remote areas with limited or no connectivity, so SaaS solutions didn’t fit the business model that we were directed to use because the SaaS cost was lower. One other issue was when recovering a deleted account in O-365 the emails were stripped of directory structure and placed in a flat file, unlike an archived ,pst. Aside from the loss of continuity of features and connectivity the concept of subscription service is great, but the reality is never disclosed in the fine print and felt like we were “bait-and-switched”. Caveat Emptor.

23 Spice ups
6

Pivot tables are still in 365. I’m running the current build and I still have them.

image
image319×261 8.74 KB

image
image502×380 41.1 KB
10 Spice ups
7

Pivot tables are absolutely still around. I’m pretty sure the entire world would revolt if those were done away with!

For me, I chose “it depends”. I go for perpetual licenses for the packages our users really don’t care if they’re on the latest greatest version or for those that simply don’t offer a crazy amount of enhancements and feature updates year over year. These are also used by the fewest number of users. An example of this is one of the CAD packages used by our small group of engineers. The vendor doesn’t even release a new version every year, and the product works just fine “as is”, so I’ll buy perpetual and then just buy the upgraded version every 5 years or so. For mainstream products everyone uses and that the vendor is constantly introducing new features and updates like M365, I’ll go subscription.

7 Spice ups
8

I still have pivot tables as well - I can’t imagine that such an integral feature would ever be removed.

I tend to think that it was end users that drove the subscription model - the number of businesses that I’ve seen that would purchase (or borrow) one copy of Office and install it on every computer with the rationale that if that wasn’t legit then it shouldn’t work. Well, guess what. I recall Autodesk was one of the first to phone home for AutoCAD and the shock and dismay amongst architectural and construction firms in my area when they found out they couldn’t just install it everywhere.

8 Spice ups
9

I can tell you that if you ever worked anywhere that occasionally had issues getting bills out the door on time, perpetual is the way to go for them.

9 Spice ups
10

There are advantages of both. Perpetual software will get you software that you can use but it may never change.

The beauty of subscription models is the developers have a constant stream of income which allows them to constantly improve the product. Does it always make it better? Nope. But at least patching is faster?

7 Spice ups
11

you pay for operating systems?

7 Spice ups
12

This line of reasoning is exactly why I went with “perpetual” rather than “it depends” as my choice.

The few things that I am willing to purchase as a subscription are precisely because I need the ongoing service as a service. If it is software that is static, except for security fixes, it makes no sense to me to pay over and over for the same thing. For OSes, desktop applications, etc., especially those that are quite mature (looking at you, Microsoft, for almost everything I use of yours), it makes no sense to me to license it.

Anti-virus, spam filtering services, various security services that depend on regular updates to data, are more reasonably licensed.

One could argue that security patching is a service and should be paid in an ongoing fashion, I suppose. And maybe that makes sense after a reasonable amount of time. When a manufacturer ceases to provide service updates for an older piece of software, I have usually upgraded to a more recent version that still has support. What I have not done, and will not for as long as I can, is to be coerced into “upgrading” to an essentially identical product that is supported, but only under a software subscription model.

TeamViewer has already lost me as a customer because they made this switch in pricing models. Microsoft may well do so down the road, both for their Office line (which I love) and for their OSes.

FWIW, the other way that software vendors have lost me as a customer is when they took a perfectly good, often excellent, local app and moved it into a browser or in some other way tied it to online connectivity when it isn’t required for any other reason than their convenience.

9 Spice ups
13

I despise Subscription model. All it does is drive up your cost. Sure may be cheaper, wow only x $$ a month, but it sure doesn’t stay that way long.
It should be called LOAN SHARK MODEL. That more accurately describes it.

20 Spice ups
14

I guess I would only find that beautiful from a developer’s perspective. Certainly, lots of software companies made perfectly suitable profits and steadily improved their software when they were selling them only under a perpetual licensing model.

I suspect that part of the problem is the maturity of a lot of software. What, really, does Word need added to it that justifies an upgrade at this point? I still use Word 2016 and while I use more features than anyone else around here, I still barely scratch the surface of what it can do. When it goes EOL I will have a decision to make. Historically, that decision has always been to go with the then-current perpetually licensed version. Maybe not an upgrade schedule that MS would really want, as I usually have skipped one version on average, but it did keep me a customer. If there is no locally installable perpetually licensed version, then I will look elsewhere.

4 Spice ups
15

I’ll counter the security patching in that software should be secure by design and not in a constant state of finding vulnerabilities.

5 Spice ups
16

Personally I prefer perpetual - however, in the office I’m thinking subscription is probably the better way to go …

Gaahhhh I hear you cry - yes, but if it is on subscription then the upgrade is already paid for and that new feature you want is already available, rather than “yes, I can do that for you, but we need to upgrade everything at a cost first” …

4 Spice ups
17

This comes down to a mindset - IMO.

I think this is something that should be much more important than many give credit for.

MS is a great example here - MS feels the need to continually mess with Windows in an effort to convince people to move to the new version. They likely do this primarily because it is sold as a perpetual license, and the only way they get more money is by selling the next version. MS has a team who’s job it is to create fixes/updates for security and non-security issues in Windows, those teams aren’t cheap - and frankly, I wish there was a way to make these teams WAY more important to MS than they currently are.

I assume MS makes money on Windows (though at this point, perhaps not, and it’s just a loss leader) - but of course they primarily invest in areas of the company that make them LOTS of money, which Windows doesn’t really do - hell Office probably doesn’t really either (though I’m sure many would argue that Office does make them lots of money through M365).
I stopped paying for MS products for features ages ago - Windows and office rarely add a feature I find very significant - and frankly - that’s good! and why don’t they? because they’ve been gleaming that cube for 20+ years. At this point, I want them to stop with features and really start with security! Hell - just start over with a whole new product focusing on security and compatibility, and in that order.

3 Spice ups
18

yeah, this is huge - forcing company/people to pay for this makes them much more likely to remain up to date and moving forward instead of being stuck on 20 year old junk!.

3 Spice ups
19

We hope that’s how it works and I’m sure in some cases it does. I’m equally sure in other cases, the constant stream of income satisfies the shareholders, and reduces motivation for improvement.

In a rapidly evolving new field, with lots of choices, this could work out great. If the provider of a subscription stopped innovating, a solution could be to switch to another subscription provider. Competition would inspire continuous improvement.

In a mature field, like OSs and office suites, where companies are heavily invested in a particular ecosystem, switching to competing subscription may not be realistic. In those cases, I see subscriptions as securing revenue streams to make investors happy.

4 Spice ups
20

So which category do the perpetual license with support subscriptions fall under? Those seem to be disappearing, but you still run into them. I would say I prefer that to pure subscription.

3 Spice ups