TGM85
macrumors 6502
Because money.
I hate the subscription model as much as you do. It's probably a valid business model for a fitness app or something, but for mac software it's a disgusting way of fleecing your customers - no more no less.
Deals: Get the Limited Edition Mac Bundle With 11 MacOS Apps Including Parallels Desktop for $54
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Because money.
I hate the subscription model as much as you do. It's probably a valid business model for a fitness app or something, but for mac software it's a disgusting way of fleecing your customers - no more no less.
Well... they can also choose to give you zero updates for the subscription.
...or give you the choice to upgrade for a certain price once you think the new features/updates are worth it.
Or you can be allowed to buy it for life and never update.
I think the subscription concept has more benefits for software companies than the users.
Detnator
macrumors 6502a
I’m not sure I understand the issue with subscriptions. Generally speaking it winds up about the same in the long run. Every company is different of course but when we used to buy software something might have cost $250 for arguments sake. And then maybe the upgrade to the next version was $120 a year later, and again every year after that. Alternatively Maybe they charge $10 a month forever and you always get the latest version as soon as it comes out.
All arbitrary numbers for sake of argument but generally speaking these sorts of ratios/proportions is how I find most subscriptions. If anything it’s helpful because spending $10/month is much easier to pull out of my paycheck than forking our $240 up front or whatever. How is it any different to a car loan or mortgage or finance for anything for that matter - except without interest? It’s not like you get paid for your job a year in advance.
Not trying to be a dick here. I’m generally confused about why people don’t like subscriptions and want to understand.
I can appreciate one possible reason. Without the subscription, you ca. Buy version X today, for that $240, say. And then keep that for years and just not upgrade. But... that used to work ok in the past when our digital lives weren’t all connected to the rest of the world etc. My dad would buy a Mac and use its OS and apps that came with it for a decade the same way you use a fridge, typewriter, car, etc. until it breaks down beyond repair. It’s a snapshot of functionality and it keeps working as is, if unchanged, indefinitely. A 1985 Mac Plus with the OS and apps that came with it works the same today as it did then (as long as it hasn’t broken down).
But now so much of what we do is online. Websites and web apps require relatively up to date versions of browsers and OS to work properly. My dad’s internet banking available today just isn’t going to work with his 1985 Mac Plus. His needs have changed and his hardware, OS, and apps have to change with it. Plus these days unless we’re going to completely unplug we have to keep getting security patches and updates if nothing else. So our web apps change and therefore our local apps, and Os, and hardware sooner or later have to change too. And so we have to pay those upgrade prices sooner or later.
Then there’s the fact that people fight subscriptions and updating in general because of the cost, but then complain that their old stuff doesn’t work with the rest of the world’s new stuff.
So yeah. I don’t get it. I just don’t get what the big problem is with paying small dollars every month instead of big dollars every year or few years or whatever.
justperry
macrumors G5
And I deleted it as *fast as I could, it ate 90 GB of my disk space with out me informing, not only that, the devs don't even tell you where the data is located.
*Thought I deleted it, it's not a typical Mac App, the crap still exists after deleting the App.
It's also way too "Windowsy", as in, the UI is not what you expect from a Mac App.
Rubbish came to my mind
Last edited:
Spectrum
macrumors 68000
Great advice - thanks! Do you know if file sharing works between the guest and the host when using Parallels? Currently I use a VM of 10.6.8 to open specific (old PowerPC) files stored on the host machine.
Detnator
macrumors 6502a
Similar to my experience. I can’t recommend this app. Don’t like or trust it all.
[automerge]1591203138[/automerge]
Yes. Functionality between Parallels and Fusion is pretty similar. A few minor differences but the key/important features (eg. file sharing) are all there.
I’ve used both pretty extensively for many years. One big difference between the two is the disks in Fusion VMs can be mounted in the host OS using a tool called Paragon VMDK Mounter. I bought a license for that years ago and it still works although it’s not available any more so it’s going to stop working sooner or later I expect. Still, for now, for that reason more than anything my go to preference is Fusion.
I don’t know of any other way to mount guest OS disks from either app (Parallels or Fusion). Parallels includes an app that’s supposed to be able to do it but I’ve never been able to get it to work. If anyone knows a way for either I’d love to hear it.
One of my greatest frustrations with these apps is why can’t I use a partition on my internal drive as the VM’s drive, or a dmg disk image. I can use an external USB drive but not the internal drive or thunderbolt drive. Why is the only disk type they’ll allow is their own proprietary disk image formats?
If anyone has any answers to any of that I’m all ears.
Last edited:
Tofupunch
macrumors 6502
If you click on the link to the site, there is a specs section next to each app that tells you if the app is a one-time license or subscription.
Dug through the stacksocial page to try to find how long you get to keep each thing:
Parallels: "Length of access: 1 year"
PDF Expert: "Standard Mac license" appears to be lifetime.
iMazing 2: "Universal license for Mac & PC" appears to be lifetime.
Aurora HDR 2019: "Length of access: lifetime"
NetSpot Pro: "Length of access: lifetime"
Disk Drill PRO: "Length of access: standard" not sure what that means.
Windscribe VPN Pro: "Length of access: 2 years"
RapidWeaver 8: "Standard Mac license" appears to be lifetime.
TextExpander: "Length of access: 1 year"
DeltaWalker Pro: "Length of access: lifetime"
xMind 8 Pro: "Length of access: lifetime"
Parallels: "Length of access: 1 year"
PDF Expert: "Standard Mac license" appears to be lifetime.
iMazing 2: "Universal license for Mac & PC" appears to be lifetime.
Aurora HDR 2019: "Length of access: lifetime"
NetSpot Pro: "Length of access: lifetime"
Disk Drill PRO: "Length of access: standard" not sure what that means.
Windscribe VPN Pro: "Length of access: 2 years"
RapidWeaver 8: "Standard Mac license" appears to be lifetime.
TextExpander: "Length of access: 1 year"
DeltaWalker Pro: "Length of access: lifetime"
xMind 8 Pro: "Length of access: lifetime"
Yeah, I don't rent software.
Renting software means they hold you hostage for your own data.
If I don't get a perpetual license, I don't bother.
beanbaguk
macrumors 65816
Im not asking for the latest version each year. My last version of parallels lasted me 5 years until now. I currently have an expired fusion trial and I’m not a VirtualBox advocate. It works but boy it’s slow compared to parallels or fusion.
rgbrock1
Suspended
Yes you can.
malkovich87
Suspended
tbh - Parallels pretty much needs to be updated with every single new OS X update. Depending on when you buy it, a subscription may be cheaper than buying individually.
Same sentiment here. I like to hang on to software as long as I can. I avoid subscriptions at all cost.
About 5 years ago I bought such a bundle, back then it was a genuine "lifetime" copy of Parallels. I upgraded once through Parallels themselves (2 years ago), and I would like to upgrade again, but not to the effect that it stops working after a year. Especially since I have no plans to upgrade from Mojave to Catalina (too much other software would stop working).
About 5 years ago I bought such a bundle, back then it was a genuine "lifetime" copy of Parallels. I upgraded once through Parallels themselves (2 years ago), and I would like to upgrade again, but not to the effect that it stops working after a year. Especially since I have no plans to upgrade from Mojave to Catalina (too much other software would stop working).
It is very difficult, since Catalina won’t recognize the installer (it’s 32-bit). Also, in Mojave, Parallels says that the host OS also needs to be a server OS.
justperry
macrumors G5
Am I misunderstanding your post.
The Installer does not need to run in Catalina, it runs in a VM/Parallels.
It seems that the deal will end in 7 days.
phalseHUD
macrumors 6502
Yep, not keen on the subs model per se... I'd be interested if anyone knows if you get a licence for Mind Pro 8, is that for both Mac and Win platforms? Wanting to stick it on a Windows laptop I have access to as well as my Mac...
I've asked them via email but if anyone can answer due to past experience that'd be smashing...
I've asked them via email but if anyone can answer due to past experience that'd be smashing...
Just purchased the bundle and it looks like it gave me a two year "Pro" subscription. I will do some more digging. So far I do like it. But also really wanted PDF expert.
Luke MacWalker
macrumors regular
Maybe because if you are satisfied with a version and don't care or want to upgrade, your software will stop working and lock you out of your data? Or maybe because if the developer stops supporting the application for any reason (lack of sale, closing the company…) you have no guarantee that you will have a solution to access your data? End of subscriptions can be rather quick and rough, while a normal version will continue working at least as long as you don't update the OS.
Last edited:
TGM85
macrumors 6502
Buy it once
Once upon a time, I could buy an imaginary piece of software, lets call it SoftApp 7 for €99. I could expect to get a few incremental updates over the next couple of years, e.g. going from SoftApp 7 to SoftApp 7.4.5. v4 two years later.
TCO over 2 years: €99. Let's imagine that the developer releases SoftApp 8 a year later. Great, but I'm fine with SoftApp 7.4.5. v4. I don't buy version 8 and keep using my somewhat older but still functional software.
TCO, 3 years in: still €99. Spread out over 36 months, that's €2.75 / month.
Subscription model
You pay, let's say, €9.99 a month. After three years, you've paid €359.64 instead of €99.99 once.
Most of the time you have no other option of getting the software you want either and you're forced to upgrade to a later version you might not even want or need.
A lot of hate around Parallels and their subscription model. You do know you can still buy a perpetual license for Parallels Desktop 15, right from their website.
There's always VMware Fusion, but from my testing, it's completely inferior. I have fusion 11 installed but almost never use it unless it's for my company software appliance VMs. For Windows vm integration, fusion is horrible compared to Parallels.
There's always VMware Fusion, but from my testing, it's completely inferior. I have fusion 11 installed but almost never use it unless it's for my company software appliance VMs. For Windows vm integration, fusion is horrible compared to Parallels.
Some apps in bundles are not upgradable later on. It varies by app, but I found this out the hard way a few times.
MacMediaNet
macrumors member
It should be installed easily from the DVD. However, try to import the VMWare image - it shoud work as well.
Good bundle, except that we all should be reluctant to support anything that propagates the subscription model for software.
[automerge]1591213912[/automerge]
I think this is best answered by looking at why companies are pushing this model in the first place. One reason is because they have determined that the price does *not* wind up about the same in the long run. They have done the calculations (based on what is usually very good information about how much their customers spend, when, and on what) and are using the subscription model to extract more money over time from their customers.
Another reason is that paying over time disguises the overall cost, which is a plus from a monetization perspective but a minus from a cost transparency perspective.
Third, companies may want a more favorable accounting treatment based on spreading out their profits over time. This is the most benign of the three from a consumer perspective, but it is based on the assumption that the number of new customers will decrease over time and that existing customers will not spring for paid upgrades at predictable intervals. The trade-off for that improved certainty (from the company's perspective) is a relative but strong disincentive to innovate.
In short, subscription models for software are good for companies (insofar as the need to innovate is generally viewed as a net negative for companies, which in itself is questionable in the long run) and bad for consumers.
[automerge]1591213912[/automerge]
I think this is best answered by looking at why companies are pushing this model in the first place. One reason is because they have determined that the price does *not* wind up about the same in the long run. They have done the calculations (based on what is usually very good information about how much their customers spend, when, and on what) and are using the subscription model to extract more money over time from their customers.
Another reason is that paying over time disguises the overall cost, which is a plus from a monetization perspective but a minus from a cost transparency perspective.
Third, companies may want a more favorable accounting treatment based on spreading out their profits over time. This is the most benign of the three from a consumer perspective, but it is based on the assumption that the number of new customers will decrease over time and that existing customers will not spring for paid upgrades at predictable intervals. The trade-off for that improved certainty (from the company's perspective) is a relative but strong disincentive to innovate.
In short, subscription models for software are good for companies (insofar as the need to innovate is generally viewed as a net negative for companies, which in itself is questionable in the long run) and bad for consumers.
Last edited: