<instructions>Your goal is to analyze the following comment and estimate how highly it will be upvoted by the Hacker News community.</instructions><comment><author>nofunsir</author><text>&amp;quot;everybody who wanted your software bought it and then the revenue stops.&amp;quot;&lt;p&gt;That&amp;#x27;s... how it should work. You don&amp;#x27;t get to hook into their wallets for time and all eternity.&lt;p&gt;everybody who wanted your &amp;lt;shovel&amp;gt; bought it and then the revenue stops.&lt;p&gt;everybody who wanted your &amp;lt;light bulb&amp;gt; bought it and then the revenue stops.&lt;p&gt;everybody who wanted your &amp;lt;real estate&amp;gt; bought it and then the revenue stops.&lt;p&gt;... and then you go do something else!&lt;p&gt;That is the precise mechanism that drives the economy forward.</text><parent_chain><item><author>yoz-y</author><text>Subscription model is actually way better if you don&amp;#x27;t want to end up with feature bloat. Because you actually get money from users even if you only ever fix bugs and improve performance.&lt;p&gt;If you freeze your features you will soon arrive at a point where everybody who wanted your software bought it and then the revenue stops.</text></item><item><author>flohofwoe</author><text>My pet theory is that every software product has a &amp;quot;peak version&amp;quot;. Before that peak version, the product is not yet in a complete state, and it is fairly obvious, both for the developer and user, what features are missing. Once the peak version is reached, new features are not added because they improve the product, but to justify selling the product again to existing customers, and to &amp;#x27;keep the team busy&amp;#x27;.&lt;p&gt;Instead of really improving the product, features become checkboxes on the roadmap. Which eventually results in degrading the quality of the product, it becomes bloated, the UX becomes confusing (especially to new users), and existing features start to suffer because the &amp;quot;maintenance surface&amp;quot; becomes bigger and bigger.&lt;p&gt;What &lt;i&gt;should&lt;/i&gt; happen of course is that the product&amp;#x27;s feature set is frozen at the &amp;quot;peak version&amp;quot;, and only bug fixes and optimizations are happening, that&amp;#x27;s a hard sell to the bean counters of course, especially with subscription models and &amp;quot;software as a service&amp;quot; which they like so much. From the customer&amp;#x27;s point of view, bug fixes and optimizations are expected to come for free, because they are fixing defects in the original product and don&amp;#x27;t add any value, right?&lt;p&gt;Eventually progress and success is measured in features added, not in satisfaction of individual customers. And as long as KPIs are looking alright - meaning the &amp;#x27;average customer&amp;#x27; (which doesn&amp;#x27;t exist btw) isn&amp;#x27;t pissed off enough to look elsewhere, all is good, even though everything is terrible.</text></item></parent_chain></comment><story><title>Users hate change</title><url>https://gist.github.com/sleepyfox/a4d311ffcdc4fd908ec97d1c245e57dc</url></story>
<instructions>Your goal is to analyze the following comment and estimate how highly it will be upvoted by the Hacker News community.</instructions><comment><author>la_barba</author><text>That&amp;#x27;s a good point. I&amp;#x27;m overall positive about subscription software, but I don&amp;#x27;t like the fact that it always seems to go hand in hand with DRM and other nonsense. I&amp;#x27;d rather they take some modest amount per year and let me do whatever I want with the software. Its a headache to make the software work when the computer is on an isolated network and will never be connected to the internet. Office 365 I&amp;#x27;m looking at you.. :P</text><parent_chain><item><author>yoz-y</author><text>Subscription model is actually way better if you don&amp;#x27;t want to end up with feature bloat. Because you actually get money from users even if you only ever fix bugs and improve performance.&lt;p&gt;If you freeze your features you will soon arrive at a point where everybody who wanted your software bought it and then the revenue stops.</text></item><item><author>flohofwoe</author><text>My pet theory is that every software product has a &amp;quot;peak version&amp;quot;. Before that peak version, the product is not yet in a complete state, and it is fairly obvious, both for the developer and user, what features are missing. Once the peak version is reached, new features are not added because they improve the product, but to justify selling the product again to existing customers, and to &amp;#x27;keep the team busy&amp;#x27;.&lt;p&gt;Instead of really improving the product, features become checkboxes on the roadmap. Which eventually results in degrading the quality of the product, it becomes bloated, the UX becomes confusing (especially to new users), and existing features start to suffer because the &amp;quot;maintenance surface&amp;quot; becomes bigger and bigger.&lt;p&gt;What &lt;i&gt;should&lt;/i&gt; happen of course is that the product&amp;#x27;s feature set is frozen at the &amp;quot;peak version&amp;quot;, and only bug fixes and optimizations are happening, that&amp;#x27;s a hard sell to the bean counters of course, especially with subscription models and &amp;quot;software as a service&amp;quot; which they like so much. From the customer&amp;#x27;s point of view, bug fixes and optimizations are expected to come for free, because they are fixing defects in the original product and don&amp;#x27;t add any value, right?&lt;p&gt;Eventually progress and success is measured in features added, not in satisfaction of individual customers. And as long as KPIs are looking alright - meaning the &amp;#x27;average customer&amp;#x27; (which doesn&amp;#x27;t exist btw) isn&amp;#x27;t pissed off enough to look elsewhere, all is good, even though everything is terrible.</text></item></parent_chain></comment><story><title>Users hate change</title><url>https://gist.github.com/sleepyfox/a4d311ffcdc4fd908ec97d1c245e57dc</url></story>