- cross-posted to:
- piracy@lemmy.ml
- cross-posted to:
- piracy@lemmy.ml
The pirates are back - Anew study from the European Union’s Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) suggest that online piracy has increased for the first time in years. In fact, piracy rates have bee…::We analyze a new study where the EUIPO suggests online piracy is on the increase within the European Union.
I’m sure that economics is part of it. But I think the larger issue is the fact that you need 9 streaming services now just to see the shows you’d want. And then these streaming services are starting to remove the things people paid for. I set up a Plex server and just use that to watch things now.
And that’s only talking about streaming.
Everyone wants to be Netflix now: Microsoft Office? Monthly subscription. Adobe? Monthly subscription. A simple weather app? Monthly subscription. Cloud backup? Monthly subscription.
Fair enough for cloud storage as it costs real money to keep rust spinning. The rest not so much.
Yes, kinda. But take Windows for instance - the native backup tools got deprecated and are pretty much hidden, the systems constantly wants the user to use OneDrive.
So yes, it makes sense to pay for cloud storage - but many people didn’t even need it before, and now it’s another new expense.
eh, everyone should be using some form of cloud backup, with the small exception of like people with extreme privacy needs, and even then you have to get to a fraction of a fraction before the answer isn’t encrypted cloud backups.
That said, Win11 basically turning into an ad platform is gross as hell.
I think with quite a lot of software, monthly subs are really the best way to do it, and I think if you look at the history of things software is cheaper than it’s ever been. Aside from the obvious things that just cost monthly money to operate (cloud storage, even weather apps don’t keep working without servers) the reality is that we expect software to stay up to date and keep getting better. Aside from the fact that prior to sub fees for this type of software, the “one time” purchase cost used to be several orders of magnitude higher, and you would still basically end up “subscribing.” Meaning, you didn’t just buy Office in '95 for $300-$500 and keep using it until even 2005. MS would change a file format or upgrade a thing or something, and suddenly your $400 Office suite needed an upgrade, so you paid another $400 in '97.
People have never liked paying for software, but I think this is the most equitable, true model of the actual cost. I like it less with the bigger companies, but especially with smaller devs, the software I rely on I’m happy to pay a monthly sub on because I know that’s a much more stable model and will encourage the dev to keep the software up to date and releasing new features.
I think perpetual fallback licenses hit a decent middle ground. Pay a subscription to stay up to date, but have the option of stopping and retaining the current version. Of course, FOSS is better, but we have to take what we can get.
This is a good point.
I like how my music DAW (bitwig) does it. You buy your lifetime license with one year of updates. After the year is up you keep the latest version you have and it keeps working “forever”. If you decide you want another year of updates you get a discount. I usually don’t need new functions so I let it lapse, I bought the updates once because there was a function I wanted.
Well, we’ve been conditioned to expect that… Just because that’s how it’s been doesn’t mean it has to stay that way. It made sense in the past, applications were limited by the hardware’s technical capabilities, which kept improving over time - but we’ve reached a point where for the most part, the hardware is good enough to meet the needs of the software. That’s not saying it won’t continue to improve, but it’s not the limiting factor it once was. At some point, at least in theory, a product should be able to be “finished”, as in it has all the features it needs, possible exploits have been found and patched. Compare to buying tools - you don’t need to buy a new hammer every two years, well, maybe you do if you abuse the shit out of it and break it, but you don’t need to because of ongoing development in the techniques of building hammers.