I write civil engineering software [0] and am familiar with this kind of dongle. Yes, even today there are users who want this kind of dongle instead of, say, cloud-based validation. They feel secure only if they have something tangible in hand.
Since we sold (and still sell) perpetual licenses, it becomes a problem when a dongle breaks and replacement parts are no longer available. Not all users want to upgrade. Also, you may hate cloud licensing, but it is precisely cloud licensing that makes subscriptions possible and, therefore, recurring revenue—which, from a business point of view, is especially important in a field where regulations do not change very fast, because users have little incentive to upgrade.
Also, despite investing a lot of effort into programming the dongle, we can still usually find cracked versions floating online, even on legitimate platforms like Shopee or Lazada. You might think cracking dongles is fun and copy protection is evil, but without protection, our livelihood is affected. It’s not as if we have the legal resources to pursue pirates.
> You might think cracking dongles is fun and copy protection is evil, but without protection, our livelihood is affected.
I understand you might feel this way, but it seems to me customers are mostly business clients, who would are more inclined to spare the expense of purchasing said licenses, since they're not personally buying it themselves, and would want to have support and liability (i.e: Someone to hold liable for problems in said software.). In fact, having no copy protection would probably have saved you the problem you mentioned where a dongle breaks and replacement parts are no longer available; this is one of the talking points that anti-drm/copy protection people advocate for, software lost to time and unable to be archived when the entities who made such protections go out of business or no longer want to support older software.
> even on legitimate platforms like Shopee or Lazada.
On a slight tangent, but I personally don't find either platform legitimate (Better than say, wish[.]com or temu, but not as "legitimate" as other platforms, though I can't think of a single fully legitimate e-commerce platform). Shopee collects a ton of tracking information (Just turn on your adblocked, or inspect your network calls. It's even more than Amazon!), is full of intrusive ads, sketchy deals, and scammers. You yourself said you can easily find cracked versions of the dongle there, which doesn't speak well for the platform. And Lazada is owned by Alibaba Group, which speaks for itself. I'm not sure why consumers in South East Asian regions aren't more outspoken about this, since they seem to be the some of the more popular e-commerce platforms there.
>business clients, who would are more inclined to spare the expense of purchasing said licenses, since they're not personally buying it themselves, and would want to have support and liability (i.e: Someone to hold liable for problems in said software.)
This is a nice idea but the reality is that there's MANY corporate customers who are happy to get away with casual piracy. Sometimes it's a holdover from when the company was small enough that every business expense is realistically coming out of their own pocket, sometimes they're trying to obfuscate how much their department actually costs to the company at large.
You think individual consumers lie to themselves to justify software piracy? Corporate self-deception is a WHOLE new kettle of fish.
I can tell you that piracy in the corporate world was RAMPANT in the ‘90s. I made a nice sum of money back in the day as a freelance auditor for companies trying to get their legal ducks in a row. Productivity software like Lotus, WordPerfect, Word, Excel were just mass installed off one license because there was no product activation keys or any sort of license validation methods.
Dongles were pretty commonplace on your more expensive software products from mid 90s through the early 00s. If I was publishing software that was a >$1000 a license, I damn sure would have used them.
Even at a simple level, if it's between spending weeks going through purchasing or not asking too many questions and getting on with it. I can see a lot of people choosing option B.
Also don’t underestimate the stupidity of inexperienced employees in their mid 20s…
One found someone installed a cracked Adobe Photoshop on a work PC. Probably a stupid one/off task. We were not graphic artists. Not 100% sure who did it but it was in an area only a few people had access.
Yeah case in point - how many people actually pay for Visual Studio? You're supposed to if you're using it for commercial purposes but I don't think I've ever seen a commercial license used (though I don't do a lot of Windows work tbf).
VS is actually one of the cheaper tools in our stack; Unity (the game engine) is probably the most expensive one at the moment, and it's going to get much more so with their recent changes to licensing structure for embedded hardware.
For anything smaller than AAA, C# is just generally much more pleasant to work in than C++. That's Unity's edge. And Godot is the "new" kid on the block
I'd agree that between Unreal and Godot, Unity doesn't look very attractive right now. But inertia will carry them for a long time
Programming semantics is a large part of the equation, but it's a secondary part. Unity is just too damn EASY for spinning up a prototype and gluing other modules onto it. C# is a part of that but simple implementation is so much easier and powerful than other engines.
This goes out the window for polished end products but that's a different argument... but by then the ship has often already sailed and you're already using Unity.
A few of those Unity store Assets are Copyright submarines. Where the original rights holders work was slightly tweaked to avoid detection for royalty fees in some jurisdictions.
Those assets end up being a liability later after publishing, can get your content DMCA flagged, and a firm sued (you will 100% lose in court if you don't settle.)
The Unity store does not prevent this issue, and kit bashing fun became dangerous to a publisher on the platform. It was impossible to determine what is safe with the new LLM tools, so the board banned the platform and engine.
Firms do make this mistake everyday, or just license generic Reallusion content. =3
"There is a bear in the woods. For some people, the bear is easy to see. Others don't see it at all. Some people say the bear is tame. Others say it's vicious and dangerous. Since no one can really be sure who's right, isn't it smart to be as strong as the bear? If there is a bear." (Hal Riney)
In the late 90s/early 00s, I worked at a company that bought a single license of Visual Studio + MSDN and shared it with every single employee. In those days, MSDN shipped binders full of CDs with every Microsoft product, and we had 56k modems; it was hard to pirate. I don't think that company ever seriously considered buying a license for each person. There was no copy protection so they just went nuts. That MSDN copy of Windows NT Server 4 went on our server, too.
This was true of all software they used, but MSDN was the most expensive and blatant. If it didn't have copy protection, they weren't buying more than one copy.
We were a software company. Our own software shipped with a Sentinel SuperPro protection dongle. I guess they assumed their customers were just as unscrupulous as them. Probably right.
Every employer I've worked for since then has actually purchased the proper licenses. Is it because the industry started using online activation and it wasn't so easy to copy any more? I've got a sneaky feeling.
> In the late 90s/early 00s, I worked at a company that bought a single license of Visual Studio + MSDN and shared it with every single employee.
During roughly the same time period I worked for a company with similar practices. When a director realised what was going on, and the implications for personal liability, I was given the job of physically securing the MSDN CD binder, and tracking installations.
This resulted in everyone hating me, to the extent of my having stand-up, public arguments with people who felt they absolutely needed Visual J++, or whatever. Eventually I told the business that I wasn't prepared to be their gatekeeper anymore. I suspect practices lapsed back to what they'd been before, but its been a while.
Yeah, there is a reason why Adobe, Autodesk, Oracle, IBM, etc., are notorious for weirdly draconian and idiotic-sounding licensing enforcement. Many corporate managers show very little sympathy to the concept of IP laws if they did understand superiority of laws over convenience in the first place.
> who would are more inclined to spare the expense of purchasing said licenses, since they're not personally buying it themselves
They often need to "purchase" the license themselves in the sense of convincing someone higher up to buy it - so they're spending their time, which is still a sort of expense.
Also, piracy in companies is often just honest people who are in a bit of a hurry and need this software running on some other PC right now, or just want their colleague to give it a quick go (but then they end up using it all the time). Copy protection helps keep those honest people honest.
> it seems to me customers are mostly business clients, who would are more inclined to spare the expense of purchasing said licenses, since they're not personally buying it themselves, and would want to have support and liability
Trust the people whose paychecks depend on it, it was extremely common. I knew multiple people at different companies who had endless stories about customers buying a couple of copies for a large department to “share”, and they expected the vendor to support everything because it was “business critical”. This was also a problem for things like student licenses where people would expect enterprise-level support despite the massively-discounted copy they had clearly stating it was only for educational usage.
This has a lot of negative aspects for preservation, downtime due to issues with licensing, challenges around virtualization or hardware replacement, etc. so I don’t love the situation we ended up in but it’s entirely understandable given how pervasive theft was – there were a ton of small businesses which ran entirely on bootlegged software. Software developers have high leverage but if you aren’t in a mainstream market you’re not going to get over the threshold where you’re no longer worried about making payroll.
> I understand you might feel this way, but it seems to me...
I always thought that selling B2B. Then I started checking and it was much worse than I expected. Big corporates were mostly fine but small to medium sized business were pretty bad. Also Asia was much worse than Europe and the US.
You’re using “spare” incorrectly. It means to avoid. “Spare the expense” means to avoid having to pay for the license. Which seems to be the opposite of what you are saying.
“Spare the money” is probably what you mean. That is to part with the money, to avoid having it, for example by spending it. Or by giving it away - As in “can you spare a dime.” The is the inverse of sparing the expense, just as an expense is the inverse of money.
The honestly of clients, even businesses, is...questionable. I have an acquaintance who sells a very expensive software suite that is absolutely needed in a particular industry. Price for a perpetual license is 6 digits.
The big boys in the industry won't risk problems, and anyway, that's a small price for them. However, the many smaller companies? They may absolutely need the software, but that's a substantial price for them. If they can get a cracked version online, they do.
And the cracked versions? They are made by companies out of legal reach: Russia, Belarus, Pakistan, India. They crack the software, and either put it online for free, or even have the cheek to sell it for a reduced price.
I've told my friend/acquaintance that he really needs to put the software in the cloud, accessible only via browser. However, this would be a massive undertaking, so he hasn't done it (yet).
> Yes, even today there are users who want this kind of dongle instead of, say, cloud-based validation. They feel secure only if they have something tangible in hand.
In my experience this continues to this day due to people who require drawing on air-gapped computers, because the drawings/simulations they work on are highly sensitive (nuclear, military, and other sensitive infrastructure).
But I'm sure there are also old-fashioned people who like the portability/sovereignty of not having to rely on a third-party license server as you suggest.
Hardware dongles are incredibly rare now. Even on airgapped machines, you'll see a local Flex license server running. This is especially true when you have a small network of multiple machines that may require the use of a network license. Dongles are just too delicate, they get lost or break. Or you end up with overzealous security software that decides to block anything that isn't a mouse or keyboard. There are plenty of modern day solutions for a transferable license.
In my small corner of technology (AV) I regularly use three products with physical USB license keys: Crestron VC-4, Scala Digital Signage, and Dataton Watchout. Two of them have a "virtual license key" option that costs extra, intended for use with a VM. I wish they were more rare...
> from a business point of view, is especially important in a field where regulations do not change very fast, because users have little incentive to upgrade.
Why should users upgrade or keep paying you when they already bought what they need and don't need anything else?
1. Physical dongle tends to break, and when it does, they expect us to give them replacing parts
2. They do expect bug fixes-- especially calculation bug fixes-- as the bugs are discovered. It's hard to leave their production critical apps broken like that once you know that the bugs can cause monetary or even life loss.
> They do expect bug fixes-- especially calculation bug fixes-- as the bugs are discovered.
Maybe I'm the weird one to expect reasonably bug-free software, and if a bug is found, an eventual bugfix "for free"? ESPECIALLY if they cause monetary or life loss!
A bug means the developer did not do their job. Let's not pretend this is OK.
I'd argue software isn't even special in this regard either. If your battery burns down someone's house you better recall all units and replace them with better ones. If you feel that is a reasonable thing to expect your industry, insurance is the solution to that. If anything, your job is easier as a software engineer given that you can deploy fixes remotely and immediately, not harder. Expecting people to pay a subscription as if this is somehow the only solution to a novel problem doesn't make sense, as I see it.
Wanting to say in business makes sense, bug fixes make sense.
But the actual dongle... look, something like that should have a 30+ year warranty. There should be a plan for how to replace it a couple times before making the initial sale.
They actually have this solved with iLok... You can move the license to new dongles at will. And they have a relatively inexpensive annual service where they'll issue you temporary licenses for what was on the ilok while you ship it back the defective dongle to them. Mostly used for DAW software and plugins, but apparently a few other things have used it for licensing.
If my car’s brakes have a design flaw and don’t stop my car reliably, I don’t expect to have to keep paying for my car to get them fixed. The manufacturer’s warranty covers that, and bugs in your software fall into the same bucket.
Honestly, if they never need anything more from the developer, a perpetual license and never spending another dime seems fine. However, in modern times, OS vendors (especially one named after fruit) tend to break a ton of APIs and change rules with every "major release," meaning developers have to invest a ton of effort to at minimum meet all those new requirements every year (!) or else the app will at best look out of place, more likely look totally screwed up and exhibit sudden "bugs" due to the unexpected OS changes, or at worst, crash.
Then users are suddenly all over the developer to provide an update "so I can use this on Tahoe" or whatever, and unless the application is in its honeymoon period where new sales suffice to keep money flowing, the developer is gonna need recurring revenue in order to do recurring development.
Right, but then you're providing tangible value to the customer and thus it's warranted to charge again.
The fairest thing to do is when a customer buys the software, they're entitled to that exact version forever. Or maybe 1 year of updates and bug fixes if you're feeling nice. If they want the next version that supports the next OS, it's fair to charge some more.
This what IntelliJ does. When I buy their IDE I can use it forever, and then they offer discounts for renewing. Pricing seems reasonable even though I'm currently generating $0 from my software development so I keep paying.
> When a customer buys the software, they're entitled to that exact version forever
Sure. And if the audience is very broad that could be perpetually sustaining -- they're each year selling new licenses to people who just became old enough to want that type of software. You can see how a major IDE can afford to do that, right?
What it is really bad for is more niche software. This software often reaches its whole addressable audience in just a few years, and then revenue dips toward zero until the random occurrence of an OS breakage, which may take 1 year or 5 years. And some people even expect that "unbreaking" update to be free.
Obviously everyone has a right to refuse to buy under any business model other than a perpetual license if they wish. But I think that refusal to consider paying for subscription-based software under any circumstances greatly decreases the options that are going to be made at all, as the perpetual license model is absolutely unsustainable to all but the largest developers, and the apps with a very broad, naturally-replenishing audience. Everyone else will either quit or make ad-supported crap.
> Why should users upgrade or keep paying you when they already bought what they need and don't need anything else?
Because things evolve and inevitably, hardware dies, and you can't get a replacement.
With an old "dumb" piece of machinery, when something breaks you can either repair the broken part itself (i.e. weld it back together, re-wind motor coils), make a new part from scratch, have a new part be made from scratch by a machining shop, or you adapt a new but not-fitting part. It can be a shitload of work, but theoretically, there is no limits.
With anything involving electronics - ranging from very simple circuitry to highly complex computer controls - the situation is much, much different. With stuff based on "common" technology, aka a good old x86 computer with RS232/DB25 interfaces, virtualization plus an I/O board can go a long way ensuring at least the hardware doesn't die, but if it's anything based on, say, Windows CE and an old Hitachi CPU? Good fucking luck - either you find a donor machine or you have to recreate it, and good luck doing that without spec sheets detailing what exactly needs to be done in which timings for a specific action in the machine. If you're in really bad luck, even the manufacturer doesn't have the records any more, or the manufacturer has long since gone out of business (e.g. during the dotcom era crash).
And for stuff that's purely software... well, eventually you will not find people experienced enough to troubleshoot and fix issues, or make sure the software runs after any sort of change.
With the low cost & power of modern microcontrollers, instead of having the dongle act purely for licensing purposes you could offload some of your "secret sauce" to it (I assume your software does a lot of calculations with some hardcoded, industry-specific constants). This makes it somewhat crack-proof because cracking it would involve replicating your secret sauce - at which point they may as well just make and sell their own software instead of distributing cracks.
> which, from a business point of view, is especially important in a field where regulations do not change very fast, because users have little incentive to upgrade
This take is diametrically opposite to what end users need. In a world where "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" is perfectly fine for the end user, buying a one off license for a software seems much more sane then SaaS. SaaS is like a plague for end users.
I don't condone piracy, but I also don't condone SaaS.
In a perfect world, I would have agreed with you, even if it's diametrically opposite to my interest as a software developer cum business owner.
But in an imperfect world whereby our dependencies ( software components that we use) and platforms that we need to build/rely on ( like Civil 3D) do charge us on annual basis, and that some of users expect perpetual bug fixes from us, with or without a support contract of sorts, SaaS seems to only way to go for our sustainability.
There's gotta be better middle ground. Release something polished and only fix major bugs/vulnerabilities for free (because that's a liability). Minor bugs are accepted for a one off cost (I'm still using Microsoft 2016, e.g.).
We've all got to push back against these bloated saas models that don't bring tangible benefits to end users and serve only to pad company valuations. Make new versions of your software with features meaningful enough to encourage people to upgrade and outline support periods for existing software sales after they buy a one-time license. There's gotta be a better way. For everyone (except big tech CEOs).
Just charge for support, or if that is too harsh. If that is too harsh, charge for upgrades (but give point/minor bug fixes for the version they have for free).
This sounds good, but in the real world it leads to massively upset customers.
The problem exists from both sides of the coin. Firstly the bulk of customers don't purchase a support contract. So there is very little income to pay staff. So the "support" department has very few people. They're also not very good because low wages means staff turnover.
Then Betty phones with a problem. Significant time is spent explaining to Betty that we can't help her because she (or more accurately her company) doesn't have a contract. She's fighting back because an annual contract seems a lot for this piddly question. Plus to procure the contract will take days (or weeks or months) on her side. And it's not I any budget, making things harder. Betty is very unhappy.
The junior tech doesn't want to be an arsehole and it's a trivial question, and is stuck in the middle.
We switched to a SaaS model in 2011. Users fell over themselves thanking us. They don't have to justify it to procurement. The amount can be budgeted for. No sudden upgrade or support fees. Users get support when they need it. The support department is funded and pays well, resulting in low staff turnover, and consequently better service.
Plus, new sales can stop tomorrow and service continues. Funding for support remains even if sales saturate the market.
Consumers may dislike SaaS, but for business, it absolutely matches their model, provides predictability, and allows for great service, which results in happy Users.
> We switched to a SaaS model in 2011. Users fell over themselves thanking us. They don't have to justify it to procurement.
In the companies I've worked for so far since SaaS became a thing you absolutely need to go through procurement for a big enough purchase. You actually need to negotiate the contract each time it expires, which is IMO more burden on the end user than buying a one-off license.
> "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" is perfectly fine for the end user
That's okay, but in say, 2 years when Mac OS 28 completely bricks the app, the developer will not be there to give you an updated one (even if you're willing to pay), since most of the addressible market already bought the app in 2025, and after 2 years with almost no revenue, the developer stopped working on it, deleted the repo and moved onto another project. The developer can't even rely on a future OS update "encouraging" people to buy "App (N+1)" since it might be "ain't broke" for 1 year, or for 5.
The point of a subscription is not to rip you off, it's to acknowledge a few realities:
1. For reasons beyond developers' control, platform vendors do not provide a "permanent" platform, but a shifting one without any long-term guarantees. You can put a 100-year certificate into your app, but the OS vendor might decide that only certs with expiration less than 45 days are okay and your app no longer works unless you're around to (A) keep abreast of the platform's rules and changes, and (B) ship an update.
2. Many software offerings need to provide a server-side component, which is never a one-time cost.
3. Relying on upgrade purchases to sustain a product gives developers perverse incentives to shove a ton of new features just to be able to pitch "Upgrade to Appitron 2!" with a ton of bullet points, whereas subscription pricing incentivizes them simply to keep users loving the app forever, including adopting new technologies but also just improving the core experience.
Due to 1 and 2, it makes sense to let users who stop using the program after a short time pay very little, and to let users who rely on the continued operation of the program, pay a little bit each year, instead of paying $500 once and using it for a few years, and maybe upgrading for $250.
> I don't condone piracy, but I also don't condone SaaS.
What's wrong with SaaS?
If we didn't sell our desktop software to ~1000 companies as a SaaS then few would afford it. We could sell one-off/perpetual licenses for maybe $1M but only our biggest customers would manage that expense, while smaller competitors would not. And if that means we sold only 300 licenses, then the price would be even higher because the number of licenses sold would be even smaller. The SaaS is basically what the customers ask for. They can cancel and switch to competing software when they want to. In fact, customers who use the software rarely feel the SaaS yearly cost is too high so ask for even more SaaS-y functionality such as paying by minute of use or per specific action like "run simulation", instead of having a yearly subscription. Because they might just use it a few days per year so they feel that (say) $10/yr is too much.
If a user gets ongoing value from software it makes sense for them to be willing to pay ongoing for that value. What users need is that the value they get from a product is more than the money they are trading for it. A one off license would be the result of a race to the bottom due to competition.
If I get ongoing value from my fully paid off car, should I keep paying the OEM? How about my house or my bike or my shoes? My toilet (huge ROI on this one)? My fridge?? Why do we feel that software gets to impose this ridiculous SaaS model? The only real answer is "because they can", not because it's helping anyone.
Reality is that many modern software developments have plenty in common with designing a toilet. You spend time identifying the problem statement, how you can differentiate yourself, prototype it, work out the bugs, ship the final product, and let sales teams move the product. The difference is the toilet can't be turned into a SaaS (yet) and, if it ever could, that would break functionality because you're supposed to poop in it, not have it poop on you.
The funny thing is SAAS frequently provides less value because of automatic updates. If your toilet could change its shape at a moment's notice because of some study on a sample of people who are entirely unlike you or even just because some random PM wanted a promotion, and you could not stop it from doing so, it would be incredibly obvious how bad that was. Yet many people in the software field try to convince users that mandatory automatic updates on their devices are a good thing.
... If there were an ever-evolving landscape of awful things crawling up out of my sewer through my toilet, I would very much want to pay for automated toilet updates to prevent the most recent awful crawling horror from appearing in my bathroom.
If the people who produced toilets ACTUALLY cared about stopping the ever-evolving landscape of awful things, they could:
A. Release security updates independently from feature updates
B. Stop adding random features that hook you up to more unwanted landscapes, or landscapes at all (software that could run entirely locally without network access but have network access anyway, updates that force ads, the updater itself, etc.)
but they don't because that's not the actual reason they have automatic updates.
I think it would be fair to keep paying for a car, house, bike, shoes, toilet, and fridge. If I'm still using such great products, why not reward the creators of them. But as a consumer I am also price conscious so if a competitor can offer an equivalent product for cheaper I will go with them.
If I have "Ajax" brand leather shoes sown by an East Asian sweatshop worker, who is the "creator" of the shoes, for purposes of benefiting from this system?
We are agreed that the company "Ajax" is not a creator, yes? Companies don't create - people create. Patented inventions are created by people, though patent ownership may be transferred to companies.
So does the monthly fee go to the skilled laborer who sewed the pieces together to give the final form? And also the laborers who turned cow hide into leather? As well as everyone involved in the shoe design? Does it also pass to their inheritors? For how long?
The house I owned was built in the 1950s by a local construction firm which is still around. There were several owners before me, including ones who remodeled and renovated it. Do all of them get part of my monthly fee? Or does it go to the woodworkers and plumbers and other builders who did the actual work?
I have books in my personal collection from authors who died decades ago. How do I reward Robert Heinlein in this "keep paying" scheme? Some of these books I bought used, so neither Heinlein nor his estate ever got a penny from me.
But that's fine, as the price point for the original sale already factored in the effect of the First Sale Doctrine.
Just like how the price of a car, house, bike, shows, etc. already factors in the reward for everyone involved, without needed an entirely new system to determine who the "creators" are, and how they get paid monthly.
And that's all assuming the fee distribution system itself is fair. We need only look to academic publishing to see unfair things can be once a system is entrenched.
There are arrangements where you continue to pay for cars and houses without owning them. They're called leases and rental agreements. They typically cost a lot less for the consumer than outright purchases and at the conclusion of the lease/rental term the consumer is free to return the car/house to its owner without compensation for depreciation or wear & tear (though car leases usually impose mileage restrictions and routine maintenance requirements).
Rental cars and houses do exist, but you could still have fully owned cars and houses whose doors lock without paying a subscription. It doesn't have to be the full thing either. Certain tiers could disable only air conditioning for example.
Rental cars and houses do exist, but you could still have fully owned cars and houses whose doors lock without paying a subscription.
For cars maybe, but not for houses. Property law for land is very old and very well established. If someone else is able to lock you out of your house then they are the title owner, not you. If you are the title owner then you’re well within your rights to have a locksmith replace the lock on the door.
This is happening right now with cars. Regular payments or some features on the car you bought outright stop working.
Mercedes restricts the performance of some cars if you don't pay $1200 a year for the “Acceleration Increase”. You have to pay more if you want to use the power you already paid for.
BMW offer heated seats for £10 a month. The car has heated seats that work fine, and you paid for the hardware already, but they are turned off if you don't pay more.
Neither of these are anything to do with ongoing costs to the company, like support or mobile connection, they just want ongoing revenue.
Seriously, I have a house full of appliances, tools, clothing, and so on, that I get "ongoing value" from and whose manufacturers don't have the gall to try to charge me monthly for. Totally unacceptable business model.
As long as no one expects updates and ongoing support beyond some pre-agreed time.
The issue is a mismatch of incentives - customers wanting things for free - even if they aren’t actually customers. Vs businesses need/want for ongoing revenue (ideally for free too!).
Both sides are never going to be perfectly happy, but there are reasonable compromises. There are also extractive abusive psychos, of course.
There was a comment here recently — someone complained that SoundCloud doesn't treat "former paying customers" well. This complainant was a "former paying customer".
Free customers can store 3 hours of sound. This former paying customer had more than 3 hours of sound stored.
The comment said SoundCloud was a terrible company holding their data hostage, by not letting them do anything with it except delete things to get it under 3 hours, and threatening to delete all of it if they didn't.
If you were given the choice of buying a fridge for $0 and paying $10/mo for using it, or paying $1k and $0/mo those are both entirely valid pricing models. If you are a homeowner you probably don't want the hassle of managing subscriptions but if you are starting a business where you need fridges but don't have a lot of capital it might be worth looking into. It's basically just financing + service etc.
Because I ate food each day between 1 July 2013 – 31 July 2013, I didn't starve and die. I am receiving ongoing benefit from not being dead. Should I continue paying for all that food?
No, since that food no longer exists. There's nothing the food creator can do. They can't cause it to spoil after you ate it. The massive benefit of not dying allows the price ceiling of food to be very high. But within society there is a lot of competition for nutrients which prevents food from reaching such heights.
My dad used to use this kind of dongle for a civil engineering program called 'Cosmos'. Just wild to see it, it was so annoying to because sometimes it would simply not be detected on our 80386.
I use one engineering app that has a "soft" license. It has a lot of failure modes, all of which are essentially administrative not technological. A fair number of departments have to work together: IT, purchasing, and accounts payable (in case the company is on credit hold for non-payment of a previous license renewal) across multiple corporate divisions. It can eat up a few days of my life, and sometimes I lose access to the software for a few days.
The IT department restructures the license server or it goes down.
The vendor changes their license technology every few years.
If you have a physical dongle, the vendor will beg you to send it in and receive a soft license. The few remaining users with dongles refuse. The hardware is more reliable.
We use Flex license server for so many pieces of software. It works well as long as everything is up and running. Several years ago, we merged with another company and slowly began to consolidate IT infrastructure. The license server was moved many times without giving proper notification to users until it eventually settled at the main DC we use. Then came the issue of renewing the license. Previously, license renewal was managed at the department level which means the users only need to go to their boss if there's an issue and only had to send one email to our local IT to apply a new license. Funding for licenses came out of a special budget so department heads didn't have to beg. Very simple and it worked fine for years. Now, everything is centralized which sounds great except that the people that manage the license server are so far removed from where we are that it can take months for a license renewal. You're not talking to people you have an email address for, you're submitting tickets to our central system where they forward it onto the license group somewhere. It used to be incredibly painful but has gotten better now that the license group is more aware of the entire division of employees that now require their services too.
The problem seems the sales model rather than the dongle:
1) a hardware and software solution implies that hardware will stop working at some point. Customers should understand it
2) you could sell them a new dongle every time support contract ends which is what I’ve experienced with Xways as an example. Even if you’re air gapped once a year usage data upload and new dongle seems fine.
3) why should users receive free upgrades and bug fixes? No software is bug free.
Finally there are several brand protection shops that fight fakes and work well with Shopee, Lazada, Facebook etc. It’s not five dollars but they will take these down effectively
The model you are referring to works fine when the industry is expanding and/or legal entities turn over eventually.
Which is not uncommon.
It’s also one that is typically pretty good for customers that like to do an investment and then continue to reap benefits from it. The capitalization model.
The ‘lease’ model (SaaS) is good for customers with highly variable licensing/software needs or that expect extremely high turnover, and prefer to see these costs as, essentially ‘cost of production’. The cash flow model. It does require a lot of trust, however, that when the lease comes up for renewal the fees won’t be usurious.
Neither is necessarily wrong. A whole lot of folks are starting to realize the downsides of expenses coming out of cashflow though! And losing a lot of trust.
Last Thursday windows 11 forced this update on my Acer machine. It caused me BSOD: inaccessible boot device [0], so I had to reformat my machine to get Windows running again. You might think that in 2026 you shouldn't get BSOD, but here we are.
So I am now very wary of any Windows updates, including a Out of Band Update [1], which it is claimed that it resolves some issue. However, since it's never mention whether the Out of Band Update will solve mine, I'm very hesitant to update.
Windows has always been a bit of a high-maintenance OS. To keep it running well used to consume a lot of time on a weekly/monthly basis. That went down to almost nothing after I switched to Ubuntu LTS a couple of decades ago. Heard it had gotten a bit better in Winland in the recent past but it appears things are going downhill again.
Let's do a thought experiment and take it to the extreme: why not tax at the maximum?
We have already tried that in human history, it's called communism. No one is allowed to take private profit, everyone contributes to the best of their own ability, and everyone consumes according to their needs. It should be utopia because there is no wealth gap and wealth is maximally redistributed. Which is exactly what taxation is designed to do, only to the most extreme.
And I think everyone will agree with me that communism is a miserable failure. The rich may not leave physically but mentally they are checkout -- not willing to work as hard or take as much risk. So the answer is yes, if you tax them, most certainly they will leave physically for haven with lower tax, all things being equalled. Or leave mentally.
But not all things are equalled, so you can still tax them at a somewhat higher rate provided that you can provide other incentives. But still, too much tax will make it more likely for those who are able to to leave. This is almost an axiom.
Communism has never been tried at a large scale. Soviet Union didn't have it. China doesn't have it.
Just because someone has "communism" on paper doesn't mean the society actually functions according to the communist idea.
Social democracy has been tried in many places and it has produced things such as the Nordic Model and the Nordic states that have been very successful.
After the 2nd World War USA was very close to socialism. High wealth taxes, workers unions etc. As a result your average worker had a lot of purchasing power which of course fuels economic strength.
In fact many if the world's best performing companies are a kind of exercise in socialism since the RSU programs share ownership and results of the company to the workers (even if it's a small share)
Reminder when left to it's ways Capitalism reverts to company towns paying in scrip to make sure workers can't move away, so manipulating financial payout is very much within the Capitalist model and fair game in their ideology (only stopped by Government interference).
Capitalism's final form is a dystopian hellscape of rivers that can be lit on fire, unbreathable air, leaded gasoline, asbestos ceilings, company towns paying scrip, strike break private militias, opioid epidemics (wild this isn't a one time thing for Capitalism, but then the model for Capitalism seems to endpoint with getting people addicted to the product).
Everyone can agree pure Capitalism is a miserable failure that creates an unsafe environment and product landscape based on addictiveness. Time after time when left to their own choice, Capitalists chose making a worse world. The Capitalism model requires tight constraints from society to prevent Capitalists from creating an horrific, awful world like they have every time in the past when left unregulated.
The question is why do we make sure Capitalism can't destroy our rivers anymore, or pay workers in scrip (creating their end goal ideal of an inescapable labor system) but when they economically destroy the civil fabric with unequal wealth distribution we somehow refuse to step in? Capitalists long term will NEVER chose societal benefit, yet somehow we keep hoping they will and under regulating them. I remember when extremely liberal friends started getting their vested options and them excitedly talking about the whole loan model to not have to pay taxes, even though they 'supported' high taxes and knew the societal benefit.
Here's a similar discussion[0], and here's my experience[1]:
Last Thursday windows 11 forced this update on my Acer machine. It caused me BSOD: inaccessible boot device, so I had to reformat my machine to get Windows running again.
So I am now very wary of this Out of Band Update[2], especially when it's not mentioned whether the latest update solve my issue or not. I don't know the same problem is still there, or whether this update makes the problem any better or worse
Last Thursday windows 11 forced this update on my Acer machine. It caused me BSOD: inaccessible boot device, so I had to reformat my machine to get Windows running again.
So I am now very wary of this Out of Band Update[0], especially when it's not mentioned whether the latest update solve my issue or not. I don't know the same problem is still there, or whether this update makes the problem any better or worse.
Ugh. I wondered what that was. I had to reformat due to inaccessible boot device as well, I thought the SSD had gone bad.
But I left it after the install, annoyed into abandoning the laptop to the shelf at the no-network first-login workaround to avoid a Microsoft account. I hate all the fresh laptop setup that's required afterwards to make Windows tolerable.
> so I had to reformat my machine to get Windows running again.
I can hear everyone in choir saying "but why would you do that?"
If Microsoft would ever do that to me in an update, I would install an immutable Linux distro on my machine and run windows as a VM (only if I had a strong requirement for it). That way you can do snapshots you can restore from easily.
The only reason I use Windows is probably the same reason a lot of people use Windows: the company I work for requires it. It's a small company and they don't want IT to have to support more than one OS, so I _get_ why, but man do I hate it.
Linux on my non-work machine tho. Windows 11 made me rip off the bandaid and get rid of the windows dual boot I very occasionally used for some old software.
In a job interview last, year a CEO told me he was personally a fan of Linux at home but hated Linux and MacOS as workstation in a corporate env because it was a pain in the ass to manage compliance.
Not sure if it is really the case or just lack of knowledge, I think you can do a long way with tools such as puppet and chief.
Last Thursday windows 11 forced an update on my Acer machine.It caused me BSOD: inaccessible boot device. It took me a reformat to solve the issue.
I am now very wary of this Out of Band Update. I don't know the same problem is still there, or whether this update makes the problem any better or worse.
I don't see what's related there but anyway unless you have access to information from within OpenAI I don't see how you can claim what was or wasn't in the training data of ChatGPT 5.2 Pro.
On the contrary for DeepSeek you could but not for a non open model.
It's not directly comparable. The first time writing the code is always the hardest because you might have to figure out the requirements along the way. When you have the initial system running for a while, doing a second one is easier because all the requirements kinks are figured out.
By the way, why does your co-founder have to do the rewrite at all?
I find the opposite to be true. Once you know the problem you’re trying to solve (which admittedly can be the biggest lift), writing the fist cut of the code is fun, and you can design the system and set precedent however you want. Once it’s in the wild, you have to work within the consequences of your initial decisions, including bad ones.
You can compare it - just factor that in. And compare writing it with AI vs. writing it without AI.
We have no clue the scope of the rewrite but for anything non-trivial, 2 weeks just isn't going to be possible without AI. To the point of you probably not doing it at all.
I have no idea why they are rewriting the code. That's another matter.
The conversation itself is sent to the LLM in regular text, and in addition it sees the feature tree (also text) and often a screenshot of whatever the current model looks like. This is usually enough for the model to know what's going on.
Yes - we're likely looking into other 3D systems in the future.
Since we sold (and still sell) perpetual licenses, it becomes a problem when a dongle breaks and replacement parts are no longer available. Not all users want to upgrade. Also, you may hate cloud licensing, but it is precisely cloud licensing that makes subscriptions possible and, therefore, recurring revenue—which, from a business point of view, is especially important in a field where regulations do not change very fast, because users have little incentive to upgrade.
Also, despite investing a lot of effort into programming the dongle, we can still usually find cracked versions floating online, even on legitimate platforms like Shopee or Lazada. You might think cracking dongles is fun and copy protection is evil, but without protection, our livelihood is affected. It’s not as if we have the legal resources to pursue pirates.
[0]: https://mes100.com
reply