I had commented in a previous thread about the possibility of using A.I. to reverse engineer device drivers for Windows, Linux, or unsupported Intel Mac operating systems to give new life to old printers and scanners once Intel compatibility is lost in macOS 28. (A very good thread, by the way.)
I’ve also heard of more ambitious attempts using A.I. to create work-alike versions of major apps and even operating systems. For example, here is an “early alpha” version of an open-source, clean room implementation of Photoshop functionality:
Notably, the developer also is working on equivalents for other components of Adobe’s suite. I have no doubt that Adobe will attempt to find a way to sue the developer, but there is well-established case law in the United States that allows clean room implementations of proprietary software.
No one is saying that this project is ready for serious professional workflows, but it will be very interesting to watch this space develop.
(Note: I first learned about photocraft via a tweet from noted open-source developer, Eric S. Raymond.)
I’ll get very excited if the idea could be applied to porting classic games to modern Apple silicon Macs without requiring emulators, bit/ROM files, hacks, etc. while also supporting things like online multiplayer (where applicable). I’d pay top $ for titles like Civ4, RR Tycoon and SimCity (1990s version), CoD2, or Unreal Tournament. I bet those could be made to run like greased lightning on modern Apple silicon. Obviously, legal is the likely the bigger obstacle than technical.
I’d imagine games would present more intellectual property challenges simply from the artwork, which would be copyrighted. It probably would be feasible to develop an app that works like the old game, but the aesthetics probably are a different category.
The developer of ArtCraft has indeed cloned the entire Adobe suite and released a ‘docs’ suite, word, sheets, presentation app. I think the apps will frustrate sophisticated users used to Adobe or indeed, Affinity, but may be perfectly adequate for basic use. It’s an interesting trend and one which will continue to develop.
Recall a few years ago the discussion of Filemaker when it was announced they would release a ‘freeium’ version - which never materialised. Had they done so, there would be many, many more people using FMP, all developing solutions which could have potentially led to significant sales. As it stands now, they would be ripe for a ‘good enough’ clone to come along to strip vast numbers from their users. The LAMP concept above suggests it could be done reasonably well right now.
It seems the subscription rivers of gold may soon be drying up. Greed has caught up with them. One wonders whether AI agents will be the end of the large model AI companies. Self cannibalism would be an ironic end.
Question: are there ways for developers to be compensated fairly for building and maintaining software and for providing ongoing customer service that you don’t feel are “greedy”?
I’m happy to spend a fair days pay for a fair days work, but when they tap directly into your wallet with no escape route (including excess fees when you want to cancel), it becomes a bridge too far. Even worse are those who ‘switch off’ their software, not allowing you to use something for which you’ve already paid.
I’ve paid a frightening amount for software over the past 30 years, but it’s only since subscriptions arrived that I’ve felt greed overtook value.
AI integration aside, many software packages had reached (useful) feature saturation and subscriptions were simply a way to continue milking people when there were few compelling reasons for upgrading.
Of course the best examples are the very packages we’re discussing (along with things like Canva/Affinity). Free, with paid premium options, exactly what Filemaker proposed before they lost their nerve.
I’ve come to admire Agenda’s model. There’s a free level with premium features. An annual fee for updates and new premium features. If you stop the app remains usable at that state of development. They also offer a Lifetime buyout which I took.
(I’m not trying to troll you, I just want to understand your perspective more because pricing and consumer preferences interest me)
So for you, let’s say you need a software package that you will use for up to five years. Your preference, then, would be to pay $500 as a single transaction over paying $100/year with the ability to cancel anytime after Year 1 ends?
Yes, although I’ve never thought of software as having a finite life when buying it. Typically I’d buy software and expect to use it for its useful life - much like buying a car.
If a car brand said you can only drive it for five years unless you pay a yearly fee, how long do you think they’d last? Without wanting to go wildly off topic, it raises the question of whether electric car companies might require you to upgrade in order to keep driving (in fact I think one brand already does this with automatic updates). How long before this becomes a paid update because it includes some feature you don’t want? Sound familiar?
The only reason the subscription model had been a success for companies is the lack of alternatives. It would appear that issue could be coming to an end.
I definitely prefer the old model; buy it outright, and get updates/fixes until the next major release. Keep using it as long as you want.
That sounds like leasing a car to me, so I’d say it’s viable. You’ve probably also seen how Apple, in conjunction with Klarna, is now offering leases on most of its products. Does that make you view Apple as being greedy (or, worse, increasing its level of existing greed)?
The difference is that leasing is typically done for tax/business purposes. The average driver isn’t going to lease their car.
As far as Apple is concerned, I believe they’re trying to mitigate price increases. The leasing only seems to be available in the US - and once again I suspect is targeted at business use - but I do appreciate their interest free options for buying phone, Macs etc. Of course I then own them, and use as long as I like.
I think that made a lot of sense in the days when systems weren’t always connected to a network, and operating systems really were relatively stable platforms for running software over time. Security, coupled with annual OS update cycles that blur the lines between stable platforms and rapidly changing apps, means that software developers build their apps on ground that shifts under their feet.
I like the idea of software that lasts essentially forever, but unless it is simple software, that’s getting to be difficult. I don’t really mind subscriptions vs up-front purchases. I want good developers who can make a decent living while delivering software at a fair value.
I’ll add that most of the complaints about subscriptions arise when subscription is the only option. I’d wager the same would happen if we were all forced to lease cars. But with cars there are many options, leasing being just one. Devs that offer subscriptions as one of many options will not likely see the type of pushback that those face who try to force everybody into that one narrow model.
I’d say that I agree with you - I have a Microsoft 365 subscription for this reason - the family-subscription costs less over time than buying per-machine licenses for the non-subscription version for the four computers I install it on at home.
My biggest problem with subscriptions isn’t the price (although that can also be problematic), but what becomes of the software when the subscription expires.
For example, I have some very old and no longer usable software (e.g. AppleWorks) that is installed on old computers in my closet. If I need to access an old document, I can pull one of those computers out of mothballs and run the app to access the document. The last time I did this was many years ago, but I still can do so. But if the software was subscription-based, it wouldn’t be possible, because the subscription lapsed and the authentication server might not be on-line anymore.
Sadly, avoiding subscriptions doesn’t necessarily avoid this, as people with Microsoft Office 2019 installations recently found out.
As someone with a lot of old files, being able to access them on occasion is important. I’m willing to jump through hoops to get old software to run when needed, but software that refuses to run without a paid-up subscription and a working authentication server makes that job far more difficult than it should be.
At least Microsoft’s apps revert to being viewers when they can’t authenticate. Some companies, like Adobe, brick the app altogether, holding all your data hostage.
For apps that require Internet access to be useful (e.g., web browsers, streaming media), that makes perfect sense. For apps that don’t require the Internet (e.g., editing locally-stored documents), I disagree. On my home computers, I can and do exercise the discipline to not open documents I didn’t create, and I never use connected features. I could firewall the app and it would work just fine for me. So security updates don’t matter that much.
On the other hand, I would never consider accessing a web site with an old/outdated browser. And my work computer, which does have to open Office documents created by other people, absolutely must be kept up to date with the latest security patches.
All true, I have dozens of old files that can only be accessed with old software. I keep an old Mac Pro alive for that purpose, it also has the only DVD-R drive on my system.