I Miss when Software Ended
We used to ship software that ended
Remember when software had an end, like a movie or a book? You bought it, installed it, used it. There were no weekly updates, no monthly subscriptions, no constant notifications to update or accept frankly ever more intrusive permissions or ridiculous terms of service. Software was a product, not a service. You owned it, you controlled it. It was yours.
What Happened?
Somewhere along the way, software companies decided that they could make more money by turning software into a service. Instead of selling you a product, they would sell you a subscription. This meant that you would have to pay them every month or year to continue using their software. This also meant that they could update the software whenever they wanted.
Now in my honest opinion this was mostly a good thing, because it meant that software could be updated without much fuss, bugs and issues could be patched out and in the early days of SaaS you’d mostly get more value for your money, because you’d get new features and improvements without having to buy a new version of the software.
Back then when software was a full on product and delivery of updates was not as seamless as it is today, you’d often have to wait quite a while for a patch to get released and available for download or purchase via service packs or even worst case scenario new versions of the software. Think Photoshop 6 to Photoshop 7, or Windows XP to Windows Vista.
So SaaS did solve a really great problem there where you did not have to be locked to a certain version of the software with all it’s bugs, issues, security flaws, or just lack of features.
When Updates Stopped feeling like progress
However over time the promise got blurry, updates stopped feeling like more value delivered to the end user and more like obligations to keep the service running. Updates became more frequent, more intrusive and more often than not they would break things rather than fix them.
Features quietly got removed, or hidden behind more premium paywalls so that companies could incentivize users to slowly upgrade to more expensive plans. Instead of delivering valuable updates or features SaaS was now used to fine tune companies revenue streams.
And at this point I was still okay with it, because as an end user I still got value for my money, it cost more money sure but the way most companies structured their plans it was negligible for most common users.
Can’t fault a company for trying to make money off of their work right? As long as they pay their developers fairly and deliver a good product I don’t see a problem with it.
But it still felt odd because we were essentially renting software rather than owning it, we no longer bought a product but rather a service that was completely in the hands of the provider and for a while that relationship was pretty fair and balanced.
The Subscription Model got out of hand
But then came the era of “everything subscription”. Suddenly every single piece of software you used was a subscription. No matter how small or trivial the functionality was it would sooner or later succumb to the SaaS demon.
This is how we got simple things like Postman, Git clients, Email clients and in some extreme cases even very basic text editors that we suddenly had to pay a monthly fee to use.
This is where I started to feel uneasy about the whole SaaS model, because no longer did the value provided to the end user justify the cost of the subscription. Do you as a user really need all the features that the $14 a month postman plan provides? Or do you really need to pay $5 a month for a git client how about that $20 a month email client?
The price is not even my main problem, I want to support all of these companies and their developers, I want them to be able to make a living off of their work, but they do not offer me a way to pay them fairly.
All of the examples above have free tiers and then the next payed tier is a monthly subscription filled to the brim with stuff that I will very very rarely need.
I would love to be able to pay a one time fee of whatever their software is worth to them and I’d happily be locked at a certain version of their software that I can use for as long as I want. But I am not allowed to do that because the subscription model does not allow for it.
I have to either use the free tier or pay a monthly subscription filled with stuff that I do not really need or want.
But the worst part is yet to come.
Lack of Ownership means Lack of Control
This is where the SaaS model really starts to fall apart for me, because I no longer own the software I use. I’m merely renting it. And as a renter, I have no real control.
The software we rely on for our work, our hobbies, and sometimes even our ability to function day to day can be taken away at any time for any reason. A company can shut it down, change the pricing, or rewrite the terms of service overnight. If you don’t like it, you’re out.
In some extreme cases, users have been forced to waive their basic consumer rights just to keep using software or the hardware it runs on. Disney, for instance, once argued in court that by using their streaming service you agreed not to sue them even if they acted illegally or unethically. They actually tried to use that argument to dodge a lawsuit from a man whose wife died in Disneyland after an allergic reaction, even though the staff had been warned about her allergy.
That’s the level of power imbalance we’ve created. Software you rent can demand that you accept terms that are questionable at best and dangerous at worst, and your only alternative is to lose access to something you depend on.
This is not what SaaS was meant to be. The original idea was to deliver more value, not to take away control or ownership. SaaS should have evolved into a model of better service, not deeper dependency.
And now, there’s a new layer to it. Companies like Adobe and Notion quietly use your work, your data, and your creations to train their AI models. All justified by a single line in an update that you “agreed” to when you clicked through just to get back to work.
That’s not progress. That’s permission laundering.
So where does this leave us? Somewhere between the promise SaaS once held and the reality many of us experience today. The model itself isn’t broken, but the way it’s often applied is. Updates, subscriptions, and cloud features should be tools to deliver value, not mechanisms to extract it.
Maybe the answer isn’t abandoning SaaS entirely. Maybe it’s building a model that respects both the user and the developer, giving people choice, stability, and control while still funding ongoing improvements.
A Third More Reasonable Way?
There’s a middle ground that gets mostly ignored in today’s software landscape. It’s simple: give users choice. Let people decide how they want to interact with your product.
Some users are perfectly fine renting access, staying on the bleeding edge, and paying for convenience. Others just want to own the software they rely on, lock in a version, and use it indefinitely without worrying about subscriptions, sudden paywalls, or disappearing features.
Imagine a model where the same software offers both paths:
A one-time purchase option for users who are happy to stay on version X. No forced upgrades. No subscription. Just a finished product they can control.
A subscription option for users who want continuous updates, cloud features, and new tools as soon as they’re ready.
This approach respects both sides. It honors the nostalgic value of software as a finished product while keeping the benefits of SaaS alive. Users get what they need, developers get paid fairly, and everyone keeps a sense of control.
It’s not about rejecting SaaS. It’s about rebalancing it. Making updates and subscriptions tools for value, not leverage. Let people pay for what they actually want, and stop using access as a weapon.
Software can still evolve. SaaS can still be great. But it doesn’t have to come at the cost of ownership, autonomy, or trust.
This approach isn’t just about giving people options. It’s about returning control to the users, respecting the work they create, and protecting their data. Ownership and privacy aren’t optional features, they are the foundation of trust between software and the people who rely on it.
Reclaiming What’s Ours
Software belongs to the people who bought it. Full stop. We should control our tools, our work, and our data without being coerced or trapped by subscriptions, paywalls, or shady terms. Ownership and privacy are not optional conveniences, they are fundamental rights.
I am asking for a software world where users are not just passive consumers. Let us own what we create. Let us decide if we want to stay on a version indefinitely or pay for updates on our terms. Let companies innovate without taking control from the people who depend on their products.
This is not a plea for nostalgia. It is a demand for respect, trust, and autonomy. SaaS can be powerful, but it must not come at the cost of ownership or privacy. Users deserve tools that serve them, not cages disguised as convenience.
Moving Forward
We don’t have to accept a software landscape where ownership, control, and privacy are optional. Developers and users can coexist in a fairer ecosystem, one where innovation thrives without taking advantage of those who rely on the software.
If you’re a developer, consider offering choice. Let users pay for updates if they want them, but don’t trap those who are happy with a stable version. Respect the work your users create and give them control over their data.
If you’re a user, don’t settle for losing ownership. Support companies that value transparency, respect privacy, and give you options. Demand software that works for you, not against you.
SaaS can still be powerful, flexible, and convenient. But it should serve the people who use it, not turn them into passive renters of their own tools. Let’s build a future where software ends gracefully, respectfully, and on our terms, while still evolving for those who want it to.