Their first response was that it's cheaper than before. Except it's not. Did they think I wouldn't actually go look at the prices?
Then they said it's better because you can jump in and out at will. Only need Product X for a month? Only pay for a month. Which is fine, except I've never heard of a developer who would do that.
This move wouldn't bug me so much if they were just honest about it. If you're doing it because you need the money or it makes your life easier or whatever, then fine. I don't like it even so, but I could deal with it. But when you try to convince me it's better for me, while treating me like a fool, I start to have a major problem with the whole thing.
Uh - their "everything" price is $20/month = $240/year (or $200 for the annual plan)
(All renewal at current license price)
PHPStorm - $129
PyCharm - $99
ReSharper Ultimate - $600 (no renewal price)
If I were to purchase that with their old license it would cost me $828, with the new plan I only pay $240. And those are just the tools I have an immediate need for (I do Python, PHP, and C# on an almost daily basis).
$20/month for their full suite of tools? Count me in.
When I first found their tools - I was like "ehhh I don't know - I'll stick with Eclipse/Netbeans etc". Eventually I tried IntelliJ, PHPStorm and PyCharm and they have been the best IDEs I've ever used. Trust me I'll advocate open source when I can - but after all the issues I've had with Eclipse and Netbeans I almost just totally switched to vi.
Linux users expect the GUI to be unusable so they split into the camps who (i) think Eclipse is the bee's knees or (ii) use vi.
The difference between IntelliJ and Eclipse is like night and day -- Eclipse fans think the plug-in feature is great but install one too many plugins and your Eclipse will get sick with pluginitis.
ps: people, take a look at Emacs, it really is nice, and only needs 8MB cough
I usually don't endorse a product or service (different tools for different tasks and different people etc) but at least try out IntelliJ. I'm pretty sure there is a reason why Google decided to dump Eclipse in favor of IntelliJ as their officially supported IDE.
You may be able to crank out code faster using vi and/or emacs - but an IDE will be more advanced to tell you mistakes that could mean a world of difference. You don't know how many times I've seen people make simple mistakes writing PHP with vi that could have easily been avoided using an IDE.
What kind of errors did they fail to catch ? vi/emacs rely on external checkers, I don't know what IntelliJ uses, if they have an in-house fully fledged AST analyzer or if they reuse community made ones.
As an Emacs fan, I feel obligated to, ahh, unpack this reference.
EMACS: Eight Megs And Constantly Swapping. A Humorous Expansion of the name from when eight megabytes of RAM was more than you had, bucko.
These days, I'm sure that, if you really worked at it, you could get an Emacs process to take up as much RAM as the Chrome tab you just opened to look something up on Stack Exchange.
Correct me if I am wrong but isn't it possible to create a Debian repository server at Jet Brains that I can add to my aptitude sources list and then install Intelli J and stuff from the conventional command line interface? Why does Jet Brains insist on doing things the Net beans way with opening a web browser and downloading a binary every time?
Example setup scripts: https://github.com/byrongibson/scripts/tree/master/install/h...
I dislike them as a company because they claimed to support Linux, took my money, and then blamed my choice of OS when things broke. If they don't want to support linux, fine, but they shouldn't say that they do on the sales page, then act to the contrary.
I don't think that is really an issue (anymore?) - I've installed deb packages manually and compiled stuff from scratch. The only problem you could run into is if package A from the Debain repos requires Version X.1 - but you installed some random deb which installed Version X.2 - you might get into dependency issues. I've found backports to fill this gap.
In fact the Jetbrains stuff is self contained so you need to bring your own JRE and run it from the folder that you extracted it to.
On Fedora, it just downloads a patch, applies it and restarts.
The pet peeve of mine is, that it downloads a patch, restart, then it finds out it has updates for plugins too, downloads them and restarts again.
It would be much nicer if Jetbrains had a yum repository for both IDE and plugins and would download delta rpms. Just like Google Chrome does.
Yes, it'd be nice if we had repositories for yum and apt-get.
Also, I understand that most of the time it just downloads a patch, and restarts but the first install is still a problem. It shouldn't be that way.
edit But looking at the pricing page ( https://www.jetbrains.com/toolbox/ ), a pure C# dev could just get "ReSharper Ultimate" for £79 Per year, or "ReSharper" for £71 per year, which I think is not much different from the current price?
But they shouldn't present it as better for everyone when it's clearly not.
Personally I don't upgrade - because I don't need to. But if given the subscription I probably would if the price was right. Take Office 365 - yeah you can pay $200+ for a full offline copy but you have to do that for every version (and the whole keeping track of your media). Or just pay $99/year and get a perpetual license + extras + online installer. I know there are a number of people who are like "open office does everything I need!" - and that's great but just wait until you need to work on a document with another person who is using office 20XX and open office doesn't support the subtle formatting in that version yet. I know of a large company that tried switching to open office - they couldn't do it because open office didn't format many documents correctly.
If you need that.
The individual products are more expensive with the subscription plan if you buy a license starting 1/1/2016
I want DRM-free IDEs!
The $20 is for all products, Resharper alone is $11.90 a month or $119 a year.
Can you still do that, or does the tool "die" for you altogether once you stop paying?
P.S. Assuming underlying OS compatibility, which would probably eventually break unless e.g. also frozen in a VM.
P.P.S. It was a couple of years ago, and during a promotion, but I got the "whole enchilada", plus a year of updates, for a bit under $100. It was a 50% off promotion, as I recall, so the non-sale price would have been under $200. [Or maybe it was just a bit over -- either way.]
I understand concerns about revenue stream; nonetheless, I have to agree with some others here in... more or less detesting such "subscription" pricing/licensing models.
Among other things, I have some old, old systems and programs that work just fine, as long as I keep them isolated e.g. from the big, bad Internet. I don't want stuff that dies unless I perpetually feed it, even just for historical purposes.
I've also been a Safari online book library subscriber, and I've started to regret not simply instead spending the money to buy ebook versions of the titles I'm most interested in.
In areas where I have a stronger personal interest in long-term and historical access, I am growing increasingly tired of and leery of the "subscription model."
It dies. Or at least, this is what they have announced, obviously we will only be able to test from December.
And now $119 buys him a single year.
Sounds like a downgrade to me?
Would you mind mentioning the question in the FAQ which states this? Everything I've read so far (notable this question: https://i.imgur.com/u7Y7otq.png) suggests the software cannot be used when a subscription is not being actively paid for each month.
Now, his software gets turned off.
Yes, that's what I mean by downgrade. This choice was taken away from him.
So, I stick with Vim for Ruby, but don't rule out IDEs entirely for other dynamic languages in a pinch.
It's a fundamentally different relationship.
My guess is that overall their spreadsheeting makes this even out based on how customers have been paying.
The fringe bits (loss of permanence, ability to install a home copy) will disproportionately hurt solo/small business folks and hobbyists. The very people that have been their champion getting their software into enterprise dev teams.
I don't understand why they don't go to the rental model with optional one-time permanent license add-on.
So like hypothetically 100$/year rental and a 100$ supplement for permanent license. Basically option into the current deal. They can even make the sum total greater then it used to be. Like 120$/year rental + 100$ permanent license supplement.
Starting from zero the prices are the same or higher. The worst offender, Webstorm, from 49€ first year and 29€ next years to 99€/year from the start
PyCharm is 40€/year more expensive from the second year
Edit: my ISP, for instance, will happily charge me $7 a month for an $80 router that I won't upgrade for 3-5 years. Who does that?
A company that knows that people will blindly say "Hey, if I only have to fork over $7 a month instead of finding $80 plus tax, plus gas, plus the inconvenience of going and finding a router myself, and configuring it so that my network works, seems like a good deal" and they purchase the rental - even though $420 for an $80 (plus tax and inconvenience) router is a terrible deal.
Then you get the types that have a box full of routers at home or know that if they purchase for $80, then in a year, it's paid for itself and everything else is gravy.
I imagine they're stumbling thru this viable business model notion, just like everyone else.
Cut them some slack.
I frankly don't care about the price. Developers need to get paid. I hope they figure out something fair (reasonable) with modest profitability, so they can enjoy vacations and have hope of someday retiring.
If I ever stop renewing (or subscribing), I can just use the community version.
It is cheaper if you are using a number of their products. It's the same price for the individual products I'm currently using. Net for me is that it's cheaper.
> Which is fine, except I've never heard of a developer who would do that.
I don't code in Python or Ruby every day, but when I do, it's usually for a specific project, and having PyCharm or RubyMine at a low price point and in an environment that I'm familiar with is nice to have. I wouldn't want to buy the IDE outright, but the lower price point is more attractive.
I liked their first model - I paid for it and just used it. The current model, with the yearly upgrade premium, I tolerated. I felt it was a scam (are they going to publish an update in the next year so I get my money's worth? Probably not) but I could deal with it.
This new model doesn't work for me at all. As someone who bought his own license, used it at work, and got 3 employers to switch to it -- this doesn't feel right. I am reminded of Altova. They turned their $120 XML editor into a $999 enterprise behemoth. I haven't recommended them in over 10 years.
If you struggle with Netbeans or Eclipse for an hour or two with something IntelliJ does easily, you've already paid for your license.
I don't understand arguing about peanuts; pay it the trivial increase and get on with the show of making real money. No wonder why so many startups fail.
In my case (small business) we have months of very low activity. Now if I let my subscription lapse then I lose access to the software and it becomes more expensive since I wouldn't have the existing customer discount anymore (presumably).
I would easily pay double what I'm paying now _but_ on the existing scheme where I can upgrade when I want to, not when I'm forced to.
Your profit margins prohibit you from purchasing new licenses at $120/yr (it's a business expense, so it's even cheaper).
Your business model seems more suspect than anything to do with Jetbrains.
> I would easily pay double what I'm paying now _but_ on the existing scheme where I can upgrade when I want to...
If he upgrades every other year, then JetBrains's revenue per year works out to be the exactly the same as in their subscription model. In the subscription model, if he has a down month around about the time when his JB subscription payment is due, he loses access to his tools. This could kill his business, which would -in turn- shut off the money faucet to JB.
> (it's a business expense, so it's even cheaper)
Does JetBrains have a business license that's cheaper than $120/year? If they don't, then $120/year is still $120/year, whether or not a business is spending the money.
> Your business model seems more suspect...
Do you run a business? Do you know anyone who does? There are good months and bad months; cash flow is almost never steady. Indeed, it is likely this very fact that is causing the JB people to switch to the subscription (AKA "Let's get a guaranteed revenue stream!") model of billing.
> I think (for me anyway) the problem isn't the price at all. It's the fact that if you let your subscription lapse you CANNOT use the product.
 Indeed, he appears to have failed to read and/or comprehend the first two sentences in pixard's comment.
I do care about the difference between license and have it to use indefinitely and continually having to pay to use the product.
Notice how your comparison isn't apples to apples, because the one price is in dollars and the other is in dollar years.
Surely under the current model you can just not pay for another year until they release an update you want access to?
Their policy was saying "We appreciate your loyalty, but only for the next year then you'll have to go back to paying full price." But the year didn't start on the renewal date, it was back-dated to the anniversary of the original purchase date. Which meant if you didn't renew on time, you weren't getting a full year .. maybe only 8 months. It was a money-grab, but one I could tolerate.
Anniversary date: March 1st
Upgrade announced: June 1st
You get around to purchasing the upgrade: September 1st
You get to use the new version for 5 more months (until March 1st) before your upgrade premium expires.
The problem is that for a mature product, yearly sales cycles create a toxic incentive to focus engineering time on flashy demo-friendly features, at the cost of spending cycles on performance, stability, workflow improvements that benefit power users but don't impress salespeople, and so on. It's a recipe for bloat - cutting out a flashy feature never helps sales, so they stick around even when they're not useful.
I don't know anything about JetBrains or their software, or whether the above is an issue for them, but FWIW I think most of the Adobe teams are making better tools since the change, and it's due to having the feature priorities in the right place.
I understand that argument, but what incentive does DRM with a killswitch create for the software company, if its customers must pay in order to keep the product running at all? Might it not create different perverse incentives, for example trying to close the ecosystem in order to make a switch a painful experience?
Or in other words: What incentive to improve the software (other than the threat from competitors) does subscription DRM provide, if you can just collect the rent, because the cost of switching is too high anyway and the customers are at your mercy?
Not to dismiss your point though - it's absolutely possible that the company gets complacent and stops innovating and collects rent. I just don't think anything really stops people from ditching Adobe if that happens. In this sense I think people overestimate the tools' intrinsic value and underestimate the value of the updates each year. That is, I like Photoshop better than its competitors today, and I felt the same way three years ago, but between a three year-old version of PS and its competitors today I'd switch in a second, and I think many others would too. In other words, the only reason PS maintains its monopoly-like dominance is that it's kept innovating, and if one side of that equation changes the other will too.
With that said, playing devil's advocate against myself, one big argument against what I'm saying here is lock-in from file formats like PSD - if people subscribe and make PSD files, the risk of losing work if they switched tools removes some of the pressure on Adobe to innovate. At the time of the CC switch Adobe said they would come out with some way to make sure people don't get locked out of their files, but I don't know if anything happened with that or not. A lot of tools support PSD these days so maybe it's not a hot issue but I think it's worth keeping in mind.
Sorry to go to such length but I hope that answers your question.
Why are people so resentful about paying money for their incredibly useful primarily development tool?
Often while I'm using PyCharm I'm awed by how powerful it is and amazed that JetBrains has the resources, time, brainpower and money to write it. And that's not worth a few bucks? Sheesh.
Seriously, it's a trivial amount of money and if you or your company can't afford it then you like this should go and use free alternatives.
Loving the tool enough to use it but hating on a company enough to declare it's lost all its customer loyalty makes my blood boil.
Also, how does this guy elevate himself to the all-knowing position to declare from his personal opinion how much customer loyalty JetBrains has actually lost?
I want the companies who make great software to make money and keep doing it.
This guy should just go use a different product that he doesn't have to pay for. It's not necessary to trash JetBrains on your way out the door.
What I, and most, are complaining about is the fact that they are turning their offerings into "rental only" software (a disturbing trend in the industry).
I have no problems paying JetBrains, and I do, every year, even for duplicate product offerings whose functionality is included in the main IntelliJ product because I love them so much.
I have a problem with rental only software that will stop working the second I stop paying you. I will no longer be a JetBrains customer if they do not bring back a perpetual license offering, and I have told them so.
See my other comment  for why customers are allowed to complain.
Unless you have a rock-solid contract with stiff penalties, software rental is a highly risky proposition.
I do not like the idea of paying a monthly fee BUT I do buy the license annually so its not a huge difference to me. If this keeps JetBrains in business its fine with me. This is such an insignificant cost for a tool that I use all day, every day.
From my own perspective, and I know this doesn't apply to all, but I cannot imagine I'm the only person with this viewpoint, I'm sick of other developers saying things like: "You know what? For the amount developers earn, $X is a small price to pay." You're right, $X for a single piece of software is a small price. But when you add the cost of your MSDN license here, your JetBrains license there, your Xamarin university/license, O'Reilly Safari License, PluralSight license, Apple Developer License, the Mac required to compile/publish for iOS and countless other licenses, software and hardware purchases to do our jobs - all of which are gradually moving towards month-by-month subscription models with excessively large combined annual overheads, it cuts more and more into your budget... and not to forget that the income you make doesn't just pay for an ever revolving cycle of tools to maintain your competitiveness as these arguments seem to forget [unless you're still living in Mom's basement and all your income is expendable or can feed the endless software-as-a-service lifestyle]. It's also used to ensure that your kids get a good education so they can make their own valuable contributions to society; that you're able to live comfortably and not worry about where your next meal is coming from; that your family is safe and secure and well prepared for the unexpected; medical plans; retirement plans; mortgage; vehicle payments; the list goes on... all of which costs money - every month!
I'm growing tired of companies feeling like they can reach into my pocket month after month and take every spare penny for "services rendered." At what point will people turn around and say "Enough's enough! My money is mine!" I'm happy to buy products when they move me forward, but I hate paying monthly subscriptions on the off chance that you're going to provide an update that may [but probably won't] benefit me in the longer term.
As a company providing software, I'm not purchasing you as a service. I'm purchasing your product. When I work for a company that pays me every month, I'm selling myself to them as a service - to do their bidding and write the code they want. If I'm to pay for you as a service, then the money I'm paying you had better be providing what I need to do my job more effectively, just like if I pay a cleaner to come clean the house, I'm not paying for them to develop makeup products that benefit their other clients while I don't wear makeup. I want the option of buying the product that does help me do my job more effectively and then I'll hold on to the rest of my money and allocate it where that is the case.
And by that I mean not even access to their public forums and for their devs to stop posting on Stack Overflow. Because that's the reality for most one-off purchase products. You'll get minimal over-the-phone customer support if you're lucky.
Not sure why you see it as a product that doesn't fit a subscription model. These devs have to constantly put in a ton of work to support this kind of product.
And like other comments have pointed out, if you don't see the value, there ARE free alternatives. It's your call. Ultimately if JetBrains have in fact got this offering wrong then customers will say no and JetBrains will lose out.
I'm not knocking Jetbrains here, so don't take this like a personal gripe at their company. I've been a faithful purchaser of Resharper for a number of years and will likely continue. I'm quite happy to pay for software, and I pay for thousands of dollars worth of software and licenses every year to do my job. Developers have families to feed. I know, I am one and I have one. But I don't expect to write a piece of software that makes your life easier and say - hey, by the way, you can have that software for $10 a month and when you stop paying me, it stops working.
I don't mind paying for a support contract if I feel I need one, but that should not be the default model for the software. I'd rather pay for the software outright and then if I feel I will need support, pay for a support contract too. But I don't want to be told "the only way to 'purchase' our software is via a perpetual rental agreement."... as someone said below somewhere - that's how poor people stay poor.
What is being sold here is effectively the same as a perpetual support contract that comes with some free software... which stops working if you stop paying for the support contract because you decide you no longer require support...
I'm fine if they want to introduce new licensing options, but pulling the old perpetual license model bothers me. Raise the perpetual price if you want to guide more people to monthly/annual, but let me keep a perpetual license that doesn't stop working when I quit paying.
The problem with JB not accommodating the sentiment isn't just "Jetbrains will lose out" - many current and future users will too.
What a bullshit way to start your own complaint. There is absolutely nothing wrong with people complaining about this.
> Why are people so resentful about paying money for their incredibly useful primarily development tool?
It's not about the money, it's about the principle. Poor people rent things. That's how they stay poor. How would you feel if you woke up one morning and couldn't go buy some eggs from the supermarket until you joined their club for 100$ a month? You'd go to another supermarket. What if you couldn't buy a car, only lease one?
> Loving the tool enough to use it but hating on a company enough to declare it's lost all its customer loyalty makes my blood boil.
Have you ever heard the saying "You have to love someone before you hate them?" Does that saying also make your blood boil?
> Also, how does this guy elevate himself to the all-knowing position to declare from his personal opinion how much customer loyalty JetBrains has actually lost?
Because he's talking about himself and his own loyalty to the company?
> I want the companies who make great software to make money and keep doing it.
OK. But if people disagree with the pricing model and it drives away customers, that's not going to work either and no amount of your own whining is going to stop that.
> This guy should just go use a different product that he doesn't have to pay for.
Yeah it's a good solution. I think that's what he said he'd do in the last paragraph. Many of the comments here and on his blog echoed the same thing saying that they'd use Eclipse or NetBeans instead.
Wow, you've just explained so well why I feel uneasy about all this switching to subscription payments for locally install-able software.
I mean, there isn't that much change, and it's even cheaper upfront, but... there's something about it. Not being able to own the stuff you're using every day (and depend on) is that it. It just kinda feels that you're owned instead.
Sounds like the local co-op; turns out they sell better products and generally provide a better shopping experience...
>But if people disagree with the pricing model and it drives away customers
If you change a pricing model (and it's not cheaper) you'll get a ton of complaints no matter what you do. Their model will work fine.
If you're considering making a tool a critical part of how you do business, you need to be able to rely on it forever.
If you rent that tool -and don't have a rock-solid contract with stiff penalties- the lessor may chose to suddenly discontinue, or dramatically raise the price of that tool. Or their company may suddenly go under, taking access to all of your rented software with it. In any of those situations, you'll be left scrambling to find a replacement for something that once was a critical part of your business.
That is the problem with these models. Perpetual licensing grants the user independence... subscription licensing holds your tools hostage unless you pay up. $25 for adobe here, $20 for jetbrains there, pretty soon $20 for windows, $20 for office, $20 here $20 there $20 everywhere... it adds up. Maybe all of these companies will stay in business... if the software was sufficiently popular. If not, then POOF
It didn't used to be that way. It doesn't have to be this way. Some of us prefer to pay once.
That said, JetBrain's previous model was pretty shitty too... if you wanted to sit out a couple months and wait for the next version before renewing your license, those fuckers would backdate your purchase so it began on the last day of your previous license. Jerks...
We need to pay more for software, not less. The Freemium model is killing products because you can't make any money from writing programs anymore unless you get a huge homerun. People only want to pay $0.99 for a program that took months of man-hours to write. $5.99? Fuck it, that's too expensive!
IntelliJ is magic to me. It's a wonderful piece of software, and I generally do not like Java. But it has transformed the entire experience.
Companies like JetBrains needs to be incentivized to write this kind of software, and innovate on it. They're not going to if they have leeches that use the free version in perpetuity. And if they change to a subscription model, then good for them.
If you use IntelliJ in a professional context, and you make a decent wage, a large part of it is because of IntelliJ, so you should pay up. $200/year is nothing compared to other things people spend money on like Starbucks, DirecTV, gas, etc.
Besides, this pales in comparison to a yearly MSDN license and that new fancy macbook every couple years, or even that morning starbucks fix.
Then don't stop paying for it.
Meanwhile, its not like they are holding your data hostage. Apart from your customized settings in their IDE you can always access your project files with another IDE or editor.
If a tool is good, I will happily pay a large one-time fee for it.
Unless there is literally no other choice, I -personally- will not rely on a tool that may cost me an unbounded amount of money in the future. In a subscription model, four things are pretty much always true:
1) When you stop paying your recurring fee, you lose access to your tools.
2) The rate you pay is subject to change at any time.
3) If the company decides to stop offering a given tool, you lose access to it, regardless of how much you relied on it and how unsuitable any replacement tooling is.
4) If the company folds, you've a 50/50 chance of losing legal access to the tools that you "paid for" forever.
I understand that a constant, guaranteed revenue stream makes a company's financial planning easier. Unless I have a contract that makes rock-solid guarantees and imposes penalties that far more than cover my losses for breaking them, neither paying in advance for software upgrades, nor renting tools that will become a vital part of my projects makes any sense at all.
This isn't Freemium. This is the equivalent of Buy-To-Play. You are paying for the product. Paying quote a lot, in fact.
And unlike an MMO, there's no servers to run, just possible bugfix updates.
And it's not just bugfix updates, it's new features and innovations.
With all the goods I want to pay you for your service/time/offering and then maybe pay again if I like what you provide and want more of it. I don't want a financial relationship with you when just because I bought something you made I need to keep paying for it even though you don't need to work on it anymore.
What's next? Laptop as a service where you get upgrades every year but if you don't pay up they take it away from you?
Do you even use IntelliJ? You don't lose anything except access to the IDE. You can always switch to Eclipse if you don't want to pay. You lose NOTHING except the convenience and power of IntellJ, which is why you pay for them.
I, and many others in this thread, are happy to pay for a perpetual license to a particular version of software. We are also happy to pay for future versions of that software, if future versions are even vaguely worth paying for. We are not happy with making rented software that contains a built-in killswitch a critical part of how we get our work done. 
 kileywm found some JetBrains FAQ answers that indicate that if your license cannot be verified for 30 days, or your license payment is 30 days overdue, JetBrains's software will refuse to function: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10171998
They do make software worth buying, and I have already stated that I believe it is priced properly NOW.
Wrong. You don't lose access to your files, your code, your data. You only lose access to the IDE. If they stop innovating, the great thing about this model is that you can leave immediately to another competitor that likely is copying all their feature.
With this new model, I wouldn't be happily moving to another competitor, I'd be forced into it immediately. I would paying nearly the same amount but instead I don't own anything.
Big company sees Jetbrains income / username; buys Jetbrains. Decides to cut costs, lets a few devs go. Income doesn't change but profit rises. Let a few more devs go. Switch to minimum viable development model. Customers are locked in to access their work, don't really care about updates because they already like the product. Gradually customers drift away. Not enough revenue for minimum viable product, close it down. All customers can't access files "too bad".
I think this is a tremendous deal for polyglot or multi platform developers and a mild price hike for specialist programmers. If you think the new price isn't worth the software, don't get it. I think it is.. in fact I think the kitchen sink license is worth a lot more than the $240 they are charging frankly.
I never quite understood what makes people that make 100's of thousands of dollars per year so cheap that they would balk at paying a few hundred $ for their main tool of choice.
Looking at a moderately tooled up wood or metalworking shop you'd be looking at a very large multiple for the main tools + accessories without a hope to make the kind of money we can make in software.
Jetbrains could have avoided all this negative backslash by keeping the current licencing scheme in place and adding the subscription service as an option.
Again, think of it like buying a DVD over renting it on Netflix, most likely Netflix would be the cheaper option as with the exception of children's movies most movies/shows are not watched more than twice/thrice.
However we want to feel the ownership of something.
We do not want to be told that we must pay $5 for this exquisite hammer this month or be forced to go back to a 3 year old hammer.
Not to mention, once purchased, a woodworker won't get upgrades to their tools, or have problems with them fixed as part of their ongoing cost.
Consider it a contribution to a team whose tools you obviously enjoy, to ensure both that updates keep coming and you're not stuck with a three year old tool because Jetbrains couldn't afford to stay in business.
I mean, if you're already paying £100 for an IDE despite the wealth of free alternatives, you do it for a reason: because it's worth it. There might be a price point where it stops being worth it, but it's likely not £120 or even £200. You're already competing with free, so price is likely not much of a differentiator already.
Instead, they try to achieve a relatively modest increase by shoving a forced and fairly unjustified SaaS model down their existing customers' throats. That leaves a bad taste, so to speak. Instead of driving sales with innovation, they now drive it with fear (your tool will stop working! pay now!).
Looking at their (current) pricing model for this, it seems like a drive for more predictable income, instead of additional profit. The ability to depend on getting X dollars per month makes it a lot easier to hire employees on, and justify working on the products.
And for many folks, Jetbrains will be getting less money out of them, since they're offering quite a deal for anyone who works with more than one of the products.
> fairly unjustified SaaS model
Except that they are providing constant, incremental upgrades to their tools as part of the model. That alone acts as fairly strong justification for a subscription model.
> Instead of driving sales with innovation, they now drive it with fear
Anybody who fears being unable to pay a $20 monthly bill is very unlikely to have paid $200 up front for the tool in the first place. Double that for any company who fears this new cost; they're already ponying up over ten grand per employee, another $20 isn't going bankrupt them.
To go back to the woodworker analogy - the woodworker who can't afford to replace the worn blade in their bandsaw has bigger problems than the monthly cost of consumables.
I avoid subscription software not because of the price, but because if I stop paying or the company goes out of business the software stops working. Say I completely change industries, then ten years later I want to go back and look at my old projects. If I was using a subscription (IDE|audio editor|DAW|video editor), I won't be able to preserve my historic work.
Of course, businesses are realizing danger and are publishing specs to their proprietary file formats as well, so even in 50 years someone can re-create a document which would have previously been lost. For example, https://www.adobe.com/devnet-apps/photoshop/fileformatashtml...
And this just for IDEs. Intellij also ship a lot of tools (youtrack etc) which may or may not be replaceable without significant data loss.
Pretty much everyone has their project set up to be able to build via an external tool for CI anyway. I'm really not seeing the lock-in argument here, except that moving back to Eclipse would be painful for a lot of people. But I don't see why you would go through that pain now if you're currently happy with what you get from JetBrains for the money that you're paying.
The world is changing, for better or ill. And we're at the forefront of what's driving those changes.
Thats what Visual Paradigm did with their Visual UML product.
You make an assumption that we developers make hundreds of thousands of dollars a year. That may be true in some places and for some fortunate people but it's not true everywhere.
Besides, the main complaint I see here is that the subscription model makes all your code assets hostage to JetBrains' fortunes, since the moment they go out of existence all the software you depend on stops working. People are not balking at the thought of paying a few hundred dollars for a tool - they are, in fact, asking for the opportunity to do just that.
How about if cars could no longer be owned, just leased?
This is why people are upset, not because they begrudge tool vendors getting paid.
"We announced a new subscription licensing model and JetBrains Toolbox yesterday. We want you to rest assured that we are listening. Your comments, questions and concerns are not falling on deaf ears.
We will act on this feedback."
Note that I have been upgrading my license most every year, but chances are I'll just make do with what I have next time around.
If the current pricing model isn't viable for them, I'm sorry, but it is not my problem. It's already the most I pay for any tool I use, and I have found it worth it so far, but coercion into a subscription model just doesn't work for me.
Not a great move by JetBrains.
That's fair. But at the same time, that presents a problem they mentioned. In order to get those sales, they had to worry about big features that would get people to buy. Bug fixes and performance improvements are things people want, but it doesn't make people buy. So you are stuck: you want to make a solid product, but bug fixes don't make sales. So where do you put the effort?
> If the current pricing model isn't viable for them, I'm sorry, but it is not my problem.
You say that, and I know what you mean, but it is your problem in the sense that any software you pay for, you've invested time and workflow into. Moving off IntelliJ products isn't easy unless you haven't been fully utilizing their tools (at least, I can't imagine easily moving off). I'm generally wary of paying for products that I'll rely on because of reasons like this.
For myself, I'm fine with the change because the value they provide is substantially higher than what they charge, and frankly, the subscription model (which again, amounts to the same price I'm paying yearly now) hopefully means less hassle when actually renewing my license.
Has anybody ever tested that hypothesis?
Would be difficult to test this theory though. I've never seen software that doesn't include some level of new features in big releases. Could you convince people to pay for a normal upgrade that didn't include any new features? I seriously doubt it.
The blog post stated this as a reason. They want to focus on quality instead of features to sell upgrade licenses. I was a bit put off that statement though since I expect bug fixes as part of my original purchase price.
You should expect that. But when it comes time to purchase the upgrade, would you do it ONLY for future bugfixes? Or for new features?
Most people would upgrade only if there were new features, because otherwise they'll just use their older version with whatever bugs it has that might not even effect them. JetBrains is a business after all...
Even taxi drivers invest more money than software developers in the tools that they use every day, and software developers make quite a bit more money than taxi drivers.
A modest increase, with a discount for moving to a subscription model (like they're trying to do) would have appealed to all camps, imo. Professionals recognize these are good tools, and want to support them, but not necessarily in a 'one size fits all' SaaS model.
Instead of $199 intellij ultimate license, saying "Buy a perpetual license for $229, or a SaaS model for $149/year"... I would probably still opt for perpetual (at least some of their products), but having the option is important, imo.
I don't want to open the travel laptop I keep stored for when I'm away from home in an airplane or the middle of nowhere and be interrupted because I can't contact a licensing server or whatever such bullshit.
If they want to raise prices, that's fine. But renting tools that are not hosted on the web, for myself and lot of other people, is just a big no-no.
(Or... How many people pay for WinRAR?)
Having the tool ping a server every week doesn't make the tool any harder to crack, and cracked versions obviously don't ping the server, so there's no reason whatever to be draconian about what happens when the check doesn't go through.
At least that's the approach they took at Adobe. IIRC the tool worked normally for up to a month without pinging the server, and after that showed warnings but kept working for a while. The times may have changed but idea was to err as far as possible on the side of lenience, because anyone using a version that pings the server is by definition a paying customer and not a pirate.
But really, you can't blame software providers. In the old days they'd all do the one-off purchasing model, and then they would all starve to death because people don't want to pay for software. So it's no wonder they're going for a model which is actually proven to work, which is a subscription.
I want shit that works, unconditionally. If JetBrains can't give me that, I'll start looking elsewhere.
Just keep the option for a perpetual license thanks. Even if it means increasing the cost, I am fine with that. I just don't want to rent my tools as a professional.
With subscriptions, they don't have to improve the software; it's guaranteed revenue as long as one wants to use the tool. Eventually a competitor might step in and create something better, but until then you're stuck paying whether or not the software is improving.
Much like the OP talking of not being able to do development if your employer fails to approve the payment in time. Resharper is nice and all but you can actually write C# without it. (I know PyCharm etc might be harder but the article was about Resharper).
I'm getting a bit of an extremist regarding SaaS, I'm happy to admit it. It's just that, the more it gets shoved in all sorts of businesses it doesn't really belong, the more I realize is just a form of very modern rent-seeking.
When a product-making business moves to a forced SaaS model, it's basically admitting defeat: it says the market does not value their work enough to profit from innovation alone, so from now on it will extract rent from established customers. That is depressing and exploitative.
I'm happy to have the option to turn my product-buying into a recurring event; but at the end of the day, in most cases I want to buy products, not to subscribe to a book-buying club. This because products change, in some cases for the worse. PyCharm in a few years might drop support for Python 2 (or something equivalent); why should I not be able to run an old installer I paid for whenever I need to work with Python 2 ?
I fear sooner or later somebody will file a class-action suit, and a lot of people will be sorry.
The value of actual SaaS is that the expensive management of the software has been taken off you hands.
>taxi drivers invest more money than software developers
>software developers make quite a bit more money than taxi drivers.
You are assuming that everyone who develops software is employed as a software developer. There is fine work done by hobbyists and independents.
> Citation needed.
Pretty sure that for the price of a car, including maintenance, you could pay for a nice workstation and multiple monitors with lots of "expensive" software on a subscription model.
> You are assuming that everyone who develops software is employed as a software developer. There is fine work done by hobbyists and independents.
If you're developing open-source software, you can probably get a free license for many IDEs. If you're both a hobbyist, don't want to release your software as open-source, and expect to be given top-rate tools for a cheap price...
Most taxi drivers don't own their own car. The person that owns the car and own the medallion taxes the driver, typically but not always, a percentage of the drivers income.
For most of JetBrains actual corporate users, the upshot of this is that they'll never need to bug their managers to buy the new version, or suffer on years-old versions because of corporate inertia. That's a big win.
For a larger corporation where the act of managing pools of licenses is a significant expense and literally everything the business does is managed in terms of contracts that must be maintained via regular payments, this makes a whole lot of sense. Even if the licensing model costs a bit more on paper, it's probably still cheaper to them because of saving the cost of having someone spend time physically managing all those individual licenses every time someone switches projects or enters or leaves the company.
For a smaller company or indie shop I'm not sure it's the same story. The calculus above depends on economies of scale to work out.
Miracles of finance, eh.
Given how much I like IntelliJ (and liked JetBrains until they pulled this off), I'd be a bit sad if they would be that example.
I am still hoping for a quick follow-up announcement that they have listened to their customers and decided to keep the old licensing model as-is. If not, I cannot trust them anymore. How do I know that they won't change the rules of the game again with just two month's notice?
(Note: I am not principally against subscriptions, though I do think the model puts customers in a weaker position. Just offer people an alternative, or give them plenty of heads-up time.)
For something like this, it's not a half-bad business relationship; the incentives are well aligned for everybody.
For something as fundamental as build software, I'd be nervous about committing to anything where whether I can use the software I already have in two years is in somebody else's hands. I really want to be able to squirrel away complete build environments and know I can build the thing I sold two years ago again if I have to release a "my business may die if I don't" update. Remember, in two years, the "somebody else" may not exist to give me permission. Then what?
The incentives here aren't so good if access to the software is actively being removed for non-payment... the vendor is extracting small values from their customers by forcing their customers to take hidden, but actually quite staggeringly enormous, business risks.
If IntelliJ doesn't get money because developers think "old version is good enough for me", then there is no money for bug fixing and for keeping the product alive. It would end up as abandonware like most apps on the iPhone App Store.
I'd guess the IDE have now reached this "fully featured" milestone where most developers don't care to upgrade. So IntelliJ has to switch to a subscription model to survive.
So we users have the choice between paying a subscription or having the IDE end up as unmaintained software due to lack of funds.
IntelliJ can't put out a new paid "version 15" which has bug-fixes only. People would be unhappy about that too.
I feel that the core IDE has degraded in quality over the past years because the releases were feature-driven, and I'd be happy to see IntelliJ refocus on quality instead of quantity.
Sorry but this doesn't make any sense to me and I doubt IntelliJ's sales are putting the company in any danger.
Even if they couldn't come up with new features, the programming languages and frameworks keep evolving and the tooling needs to catch up with that. But I can come up with a hundred things to improve from the top of my head, so I'm sure they can too.
If you operate on perpetual licenses you have to support that software and find a way to get people to purchase again - via new features etc etc
This is a great model for Jetbrains but it's a poor model for consumers.
You pay for that when you buy the product - it comes with a year of updates.
1) New OS releases might require fixes to IDEA's embedded JVM.
2) There's still a lot of bugs left after the first year.
The ONLY reason that I have bought the past 2 updates is to get bugs fixed, but so far it has been for the worse.
A company can't live forever on one-time payments. It needs a continuing income, otherwise the most sensible business decision is to close shop.
Which is why they've been charging for updates outside the year. You yourself provided them two recurring payments with no need for a subscription model to prompt it.
I couldn't agree more. The latest versions have a ton of bugs that were not present before. Some of the IDEs are totally unusable for certain tasks like debugging. I don't think they will focus on fixing bugs and they haven't introduced any great features, IMO, in years.
And I do hope the next logical step is to offer an optional fully hosted service that has feature parity with something like WebStorm. There's cloud IDEs out there, but they're lacking when compared to JetBrain's tools.
Maybe the best thing to do would be an initial payment worth, say, 6 months, followed by monthly renewals; if the renewal does not go through, updates stop. This would be closer to the current model, but would still switch most revenue (renewals) to the SaaS model.
I'm happy enough to pay a subscription for intellij since the price seems about the same (oh actually they're putting it up by £20 or £30 per year after the first year). I'd rather get frequent updates, but since I've already bought it outright twice (upgrading when I feel I need to) it seems a bit lame to just pull the plug should you ever take a break.
If you're going to all this trouble just to skimp £100 per year on your main development tool you're probably the type of customer who will simply not buy into a SaaS model anyway, so there is no point in chasing your pennies.
You could unofficially make the "skimping" into the reduced price option, removing the current "personal" licenses and removing complexity. Cheap "Personals" will pay a 6-months fee once a year or less, losing updates, and "Companies" will happily pay full whack (because they value predictability and opex vs capex) for the full monty. Win-win, and nobody gets hurt in the feelings.
I get that. Perhaps they should or could have just sold the current latest version as is for a bit less and then whenever the next big release comes out offer a prorated upgrade amount to those that feel the new features are worth the additional upgrade amount. Their model, withholding features so they could package them into a huge update, was hurting themselves and their customers.
What's to say they don't start pulling IntelliJ with other/more products? That is, to stop or slow down development/improvements and now milk a cash cow?
Clarification: They could have sold a working perpetual license without the 1 year of upgrades. When they have an upgrade they have an prorated upgrade path/cost based on when you purchased your current license/product.
The file hosting is handy, but we already use Dropbox and Google Drive. The other features seem like they could have been incorporated into the desktop apps but were pulled into the cloud to make it appear more worthwhile.
I can see how moving shrink-wrap software to a subscription can be good for the company – reliable income streams, no longer having to worry about headline features to get people to buy the next version – but (especially in Adobe's case) it's hard to see it as anything but a cynical attempt to milk customers for every last drop before the whole thing crumbles.
Whereas the "cynical attempt to milk money out of customers" angle is, IMO, not nearly as relevant as people expect. I mean, everything a for-profit company does is an attempt to milk money out of customers in some sense, so when Adobe (or JetBrains) sold shrink-wrapped boxes I assume they set the prices at whatever their models showed was the maximum people would pay, and presumably they chose the subscription prices the same way. I expect it's much of a muchness.
As for the SaaS stuff (storage, etc), I just see that as little extras that become possible once each install is tied to a user account, so the company tries them out to see if they work. But it's not like they're supposed to be so amazing that they justify the switch. (views my own, not those of my former employer, etc.)
... they didn't have this wonderful option of bashing customers on their virtual heads and break their products if customers forgot to pay rent. It just wasn't an option, when it all started. Now it is, and here we are. The internet sometimes is just bad for people.
Are there any alternatives to adobe on the horizon? I'm asking because I'd like to know. All I know of is affinity designer and pixelmator.
For Photoshop alternatives there's Pixelmator, Acorn and Affinity Photo.
For Illustrator there's Sketch, iDraw and Affinity Designer.
All we need now is a good InDesign alternative.
With this change, I hope JetBrains takes the opportunity to switch from the big-bang yearly releases to just a continuous stream of improvements. In some ways they've already been moving in the this direction, they've added some pretty great improvements to point releases this year (React/JSX, TypeScript etc. comes to mind). This will eliminate release timing anxiety on both sides (customers optimizing when the best time to buy is, and JetBrains deciding if releasing major new functionality now vs in the next big-bang release), and lets the company ship improvements as fast as possible.
If a developer convinces a manager to buy a perpetual license of IntelliJ, mission accomplished: the developer will be able to use IntelliJ forever.
Persuading the manager to spend more on IntelliJ by making a convincing case that an upgrade is worth the money is an optional campaign, reserved for a favorable moment (e.g. when being able to use a new feature would be very valuable) in a vague future.
If a developer convinces a manager to buy a yearly subscription to IntelliJ, the developer should expect to start using Eclipse after one year due to a cost reduction effort.
Persuading the manager to spend more on IntelliJ is difficult (no expected updates), urgent (the software stops working rather than sliding into obsolescence) and a recurring unpleasantness.
Moreover, JetBrains makes the sort of luxury products that are bought when money is abundant and regretted (but still used and enjoyed) in times of poverty; forcing customers who cannot pay right now to eliminate JetBrains products from their daily workflow instead of keeping them as happy users and waiting for when they'll want to spend again is a gratuitous demolition of goodwill.
If you're working for a shop where a $200 annual expense for a dev tool is a deal-breaker, I shudder to think of how the rest of your work life is (free drinks, food, merit raises, etc).
(I acknowledge ahead of time that my comments are based on US employment.)
Add a minimum duration to the subscriptions. If you cancel the subscription after that minimum duration, you can keep using the products you have subscribed to, but you don't get any more updates (like it is now).
If you want to re-subscribe, you can, but the minimum duration starts to count from 0 again.
This would give me the safety net that if worse comes to worst, I'll still be able to use the IDE(s) in some fashion while it still guarantees Jetbrains the fixed income which gives them the freedom to finally work on bug fixes some more, instead of needing to add killer-features all the time.
I gladly entered JetBrain's "cattle pen", and pay yearly for the privilege of being "trapped" there. Whether I might want to leave doesn't cross my mind, because I like it there.
Now they're adding security at the gate. I still don't want to leave, but now it's obvious that I'm trapped. It just feels different, and I don't like it.
You will always find some (edge) case who can profit from these kind of schemes - an amateur photographer for example with Adobe CC or somebody who uses all the jetbrain tools - but there are a lot of cases that are a different and really don't have any benefits of using SAAS.
In Flanders we have a saying that goes a bit like this: "all small things makes on big thing". The personal problem that I have is that if I would add all those "inexpensive" subscriptions of services it will add up very fast to a point that it is becoming really expensive. I don't buy all software in a single month or can even wait for upgrading if an older version is good enough for me, with SAASS that is not the case.
But I have the same opinion that this race to convert all commercial software to SAAS will be beneficial for OSS alternatives. Personally I would even go as far as donating (or crowdfund) (for the same amount that I would give to jetbrains) to an OSS project, if that means that I would get an alternative that I don't need to "rent".
PS Alternatives: Acorn ($25), Pixelmator ($30), Affinity Photo ($50)
Illustrator alternatives: Sketch ($99), Affinity Designer ($50), iDraw ($25), Canvas Draw ($99)
And you know what? All of these options are far lighter than the Adobe behemoths while providing all the most relevant functionality and looking and feeling like real Mac apps instead of half-assed ports, all while taking advantage of the best part of the OS. Here in SV people I know in design are switching away from Adobe in spades.
If companies like Adobe can’t exist without subscriptions, maybe it means that large software companies that produce gargantuan beasts of applications are going out of style. Small indie teams producing lean, maintainable, focused apps are the way forward.
Yearly subscription pricing seems OK to me, with some allowance for giving companies adequate notice to re-subscribe.
Where they 'went wrong', if you could call it that, is that they forced developers down this new path without allowing us to 'dip our toes in'. It would have been better to open this up as a separate way of paying for their products alongside the current model, and then in a year or two simply switching over.
As a hobbyist developer (I use PyCharm with a personal license, but I don't actually sell anything), I'm basically in the "screwed" camp. I thought it was about time for me to upgrade, but now I'll just keep using my current copy forever. I'm sad, because the tool is great; but stopping it from working when the license expires, rather than just disabling updates, is really a low blow. It signals that they don't think their upgrades are worth paying for (which in some cases is absolutely true, a lot of recently introduced PyCharm features are of no use to me whatsoever), and that they've stopped innovating and are now just rent-seeking.
I don't like their proposal that I must forfeit my perpetual license to IntelliJ to take advantage of the lower price and that if my subscription lapses for any reason I'll be forced to pay an extra $100 a year!
At the end of the day, the announcement is just corporate speak for "we need more money more regularly, so from now on you're going to pay rent; to make it a bit sweeter, rent includes use of swimming pool and sauna, which you may or may not need". Most businesses switching to SaaS don't do it for the customer, they do it for themselves.
It is just that, often you find yourself wanting PHPStorm, and PyCharms, but that's it. A simple buy one-full-price-half-off-second scheme would have got people like me to say, "yeah sure, let's buy up PyCharms this weekend. Why not?"
Yes, you can buy everything for US$19.90 per month.
Or you can buy PHPStorm+PyCharm for ($7.90+$7.90) = $15.80
So, under the new model, it's still cheaper to just buy two full-price licenses. There's no discount for the 2nd product.
Unfortunately, there are a few dealbreakers with their proposed model that will have me re-evaluating my development environment:
1) Losing the grandfathered pricing if my subscription lapses. I can swallow paying $149/year for the All Products and would do so, but I don't want to feel like a hostage where I'm stuck paying more if I take a month off of using the IDE.
2) $149/year is pretty reasonable, $199/year a little tougher to swallow, $249/year is a no-go.
3) As mentioned, I made a $200 investment in an IntelliJ license with the expectation that I would upgrade each year at $100. Now I'm forced to convert my existing perpetual license into a subscription where I'm held hostage to keep the lower price or I lose access to my product if I cancel the subscription after converting the license.
4) Losing access to the software if my subscription lapses. If the prices were more reasonable (like those of the grandfathered prices, but permanent without the hostage situation) then I could deal with the fact that I need to pay to play. But I feel like we're paying a premium price (albeit for good products). I like the idea others have floated of getting a perpetual license after having paid for a full year subscription.
I don't like companies that hold my development process hostage or treat me like a serf. I get that they want to stop maintaining old versions. But allowing people access to the full range of builds within their subscription (with maybe a slight exception of providing the next "stable" build after expiration) and some contract lingo should cover that.
Rental has its usage, but it's not for everyone.
If you subscribed to JetBrains's magazine, you pay $X, and every month they give you a new magazine, and take back the previous month's issue. If you stop paying, they would come to your house, confiscate your latest issue, and then search the premises to make sure you weren't keeping any older issues, or any photographs or copies of them. If you want to read something, it'll just have to be something else, like RMS's free gnewsletter.
What JetBrains is doing is not switching to a subscription model. They are switching to a DRM-enforced rental model.
Subscriptions are ideal from products that are consumable or otherwise ephemeral. Television shows or newspapers or foods or coupons or pharmaceutical drugs work for that. Things that are used once and discarded are perfect for subscriptions.
Rental is good for things that have a low marginal benefit in comparison to their upfront costs, such that it takes a long time to recover that initial investment. You rent a hotel room for a night or two. You rent a car when you fly to another city. You rent a pneumatic excavator when you only have one hole to dig. You rent things that you do not intend to use enough to justify paying their purchase price.
With respect to a tool of the trade--something you buy to help you make more money--you emphatically want to own that, rather than just rent it. That's a great argument for using open-source IDEs. Even the previous model was just a perpetual license with a limited-time upgrade option. The person who wants you to forever rent the tools of your own trade is not doing so with your own best interests in mind.
Yes, renting software is a skeezy model. Yes, they should still allow people to purchase perpetual licenses (which, for the record, you can still do until November). Yes, this could have been communicated differently and with more notice.
No, it's not the end of the world. A company has to make money, and at the end of the day, I'd much rather give my money to Jetbrains than many other companies because I know they make excellent tools that facilitate my ability to produce excellent software.
I don't rent my tools.
Imperfect Analogy Time
Imagine a deli that you go to every morning. It's the only one in the neighborhood, but they make great bagels, so you don't go out of your way to find a new deli.
Now imagine the deli adopts a subscription pricing model -- no other options. If you want food from that deli, you have to subscribe month-to-month. If you don't want to subscribe, you have to walk 5 blocks out of your way to go to a different deli.
You decide to subscribe because you were going there every morning anyway.
Over the coming months, however, the food keeps getting worse. The service grows poor. You wind up waiting longer for your food. But you're invested in the deli, and it'd be a hassle to leave, so you put up with it.
Eventually you bail, of course. But for a number of months, you were stuck in that gray area in there in which the deli can take advantage of the fact that, if you drop your subscription, you'd have to have expended significantly more effort and time to come up with an alternative.
Unlike a deli, tools are a lot harder to replace.
Before, the choice after a year was to pay for an upgrade or keep using the old version. Now the choice after a year is to pay for a renewal or find a new tool entirely.
- old model: you keep using latest version you paid; no new updates;
- new model: you stop using the tool
Also, I never would have tried their products if they were already on a subscription model. That would have been a showstopper for me. I may continue to use them now, because I'm already hooked. However, they'll probably lose a lot of potential customers who'll never give them a try just because of their pricing model.
"I see this is turning into a conspiracy theory )
Fortunately, there's a little thing called competition that prevents raising rates at will without facing the consequences, and JetBrains is no exception: we're no monopoly"
So the message first was "We did this for YOU!" and then quickly became "Hey! You can always go elsewhere..."
Doesn't sound like something they did for my benefit.
Just... never trust a business that says "we're doing this for you, beloved customers". They are not. Even if they did it to make you happy, it would simply mean they profit from your happiness in some way. A business does things to make a profit and expand, nothing else. JetBrains are doing this because they feel they have to, likely because of cashflow constraints; everything else is just corporate doublespeak.
Could JetBrains perhaps compromise: Offer the current licensing for individual/independent developers, but the subscription model for enterprise licenses? Businesses are more likely to consume multiple products than an indie developer.
What do you guys think?
JetBrains IDEA Community Edition IDE is open source, someone should fork it and add the various language plugins (many of them are open source too).
Is this statement actually true? Is it educated guessing or has it been substantiated by JetBrains?
(Not trying to argue. Just want to know substantiated facts.)
With that said, refactorings in C# code (like Java) are quite often incredibly repetitive which is why ReSharper exists: to ease that pain. Quite often it is alternating a property to a field, and vice versa. Or auto-implementing a new constructor parameter with a null checker, field or property setter, readonly detection etc. It's just boring repetitive rubbish that the language has delegated onto the programmer rather than simply improve the syntax. There is a common expression about C# (admittedly, often perpetuated by those whom have moved on from C#) which is "In C#, you have to do everything three times."
ReSharper has a type of code linting built into it which can be rolled out to the whole project team. This is cool and all. But it would have been better if the language ecosystem itself agreed upon a stylistic standard and provided a code linter for it. Then allowed that to be added in as a build step. C# shops are possibly too lazy for that though. It's all about the IDE baby!
And that ultimately is the USP of ReSharper. A product for lazy developers. It's no wonder they charge quite handsomely for it.
2) Integrated Unit Test runner - not great, but still better than the built-in VS one
3) Go to Implementation - takes you to straight to the actual class implementation(s) of the interface member you clicked on
4) Auto-disassembly when you hit "Go To Declaration" on a referenced DLL
Only automated refactoring I use is the built-in VS stuff for renaming identifiers. I have no idea why you'd alternate between fields and properties - most people just use properties unless it's a private member. Auto-implementing a constructor is A) something VS can already do out-of-the-box (snippets) and B) not really necessary a lot of the time since there's object initializers now. And I have no idea what you mean about "readonly detection" since 'readonly' is a first-class keyword.
> It's just boring repetitive rubbish that the language has delegated onto the programmer rather than simply improve the syntax.
You realize it's a living language, right? There was admittedly a lot of boilerplate in older versions due to strong Java influence. But C# has had type inference (i.e. 'var' keyword), anonymous types, lambdas, auto-implemented properties, and extension methods since C# 3 was released in 2007. C# 4 (2010) added co- and contravariance for generics, late binding, and optional & named parameters. In 2012 they added async/await with C# 5.
And now C# 6 has static type import, lambda-bodied methods, inline null-check operator, first-class string interpolation, and a bunch of property enhancements that remove even more boilerplate.
I'm dying to know what else you would add to the language.
Their products have been going down in quality. In the latest PHPStorm for example, I've had serious problems with the debugger not working and it rewriting my code to put many lines into one (fun!). Jetbrains hasn't released a new feature that I use on a constant basis for two major versions (multi-cursor is debatable, but certainly not a daily-basis feature). I seriously regret upgrading PHPStorm simply because I wasted $129 on a product that's worse than the previous version in every single way. I asked, but was not offered a refund. Not only that, but prices have already doubled in the last couple of years, with new versions being $200 instead of $100 as they used to be (and sometimes they'd have discounts like the End of The World Sale in 2012 when they were selling PyCharm for $25 and upgrades for $12).
Jetbrains, IMO, is close to failing to provide quality software and now we get this insanity. The only thing I can hope for is that someone takes this great platform and start writing plugins for these languages that are better than Jetbrains (was hard in the past but shouldn't be so now and in the future) or creates another IDE platform (Eclipse need not apply).
However, after looking at the detail, I'm intrigued. I have a personal IntelliJ license that's a couple versions old, and an even older AppCode license. For $149/year I can get the latest of all of the products. Do I need them all? Maybe not, but I want them!
I for one will strongly consider that subscription, even if I wish I still had the option to buy a perpetual license.
That's only a problem if your renewal price is different from a new license.
This is the Oracle model, by the way. Say you buy Oracle with its compulsory support package, then you stop paying (because you don't need or want support, you're not going to upgrade etc). If at any point in the future you decide you'd actually like to buy the new version, you'll have to pay retroactive fees for all the time you skipped renewing. It's... not really nice.
In this sense, a switch to clear per-month pricing is actually welcome; it's just the "disabling stuff you paid for" that grates.
Because I shouldn't have to retroactively pay for a period I didn't use a product and the natural thing for me to assume was my status as a previous customer/license holder was what enabled me to an upgrade with the advertised "year's" worth of upgrades? Because that's how upgrade licenses work for other software products? (Windows/Office, other stuff I've used.)
They can define a license however they want, it's just up to me whether I find it worthwhile, and I didn't.
But at least in those days I had the option of continuing to use the older version after it expired.
If you still want updates as they come, either they are free if you own the version (in which case, you feel cheated if you buy a version then a new one comes out soon after), meaning people will avoid buying the product until the new version comes out.
With the year of upgrades included, it works. Now, in your case, you want to have your cake and eat it too - you still benefit from the upgrades the software got while you were not using it. You were not paying for using the software (that's the new model), you were paying to receive updates, so you either pay continuously for them at a reduced price, or pay for a new year when it runs out.
In fact, what is kind of crazy is what you are saying is you only want to pay for the software while you are using it, which is exactly the new model. You want to use the version you have forever, get all the updates, and also not pay when you don't use it. How is that going to be a sane business model from the other side?
Hey, sure, it's not worth it for you - that's your call, but what business model would actually be good enough for your standards?
PHPStorm renewal $49 (personal)
PHPStorm SaaS $49/year (from existing license, doesn't change)
PHPStorm SaaS $79/year (promo)
PHPStorm SaaS $99/year (after Jan 31st 2016)
For the terms of that upgrade: https://sales.jetbrains.com/hc/en-gb/articles/204249752-What...
> 1. The offer is available to customers with or without upgrade subscriptions regardless of the subscription status, provided a customer switches their existing licenses to the new model before January 1, 2017
> 2. The offer only applies to switching existing licenses to the new model. Purchases for additional users will fall under the standard pricing
> 3. Once the offer is used, the special price is available indefinitely until payments are canceled or paused.
Looks like an irritating change, perhaps, but for existing customers you can lock your price in at its current renewal rate for the smaller products. The downside is that you will be renewing yearly, because if you pause the payment your rate might change.
Seriously, for the price of IntelliJ ultimate, most programmers will earn that in 2-3 hours of work. Your paying 2-3 hours of your time for a product that saves you hundreds of hours, and helps you earn a high white collar salary.
I just don't get people who whine about the pricing of their tools. Have you looked at the costs of video production, 3d and 2d art programs? Profession music creation software? Or any enterprise software for godsakes?
JetBrains has fought hard to survive and thrive in a cut throat market where most people use free tools and don't want to buy anything. They make a premium product and sell it for less than a cheap smartphone you upgrade every 2 years.
Maybe they can please people who want the false comfort of ownership by boosting the price of the non-rent edition.
I can name many people who pirate all sorts of video production, 3d, and 2d art programs.
As for myself, maybe I'm a curmudgeon, but I try to avoid paid software at all costs. I used Sublime Text briefly, but switched back to vim when I found a good combination of plugins (caveat: I do little programming).
Eclipse Mars is better than previous versions but there are still ancient bugs:
Mac OSX scrolling:
Font Line Height (thank you Atom for supporting this)
I have like 10 more bugs that I wish I could pay to have fixed. Intellij had this problem too (but lesser) and I really wish a company had some sort of pricing option to have certain bugs/features fast tracked. Eclipse takes donations and Intellij purchaes but you can't specifically say hey I will give you $1000 if you just fix xyz bug/feature. I know there are services that do this on opensource projects... I just wish that companies did it as well.
Speaking of Atom I just created an Eclipse Color theme that looks like One Dark syntax https://gist.github.com/agentgt/fcaf75eb8acf92e08926 . Combined with the Dark widget theme (yes Mars seems to have made this better) it really looks pretty decent on Mac. Its nice because I use Atom for frontend work so I have consistency theme wise.
Are you aware of Bountysource? https://www.bountysource.com/ While I believe the audience size for it isn't super large, it's also conceivable that you could post a link to the Bountysource as a comment on the Bugzilla issue, at which point your incentive becomes more visible.
I don't know if you were just using a number as an example, but $1000 will likely get you some real traction on a bug - provided, of course, that the upstream project (Eclipse, in this case) will accept the work.
Be wary of random donation sites that are unconnected to the host organisation - the chance of any real money flowing back upstream on average is zero.
It would be interesting if there were some sort of custom white label bounty services for organizations like Apache and Eclipse where contributions are complicated in terms of regulations, licensing, donating, consistency and general policy... Apache and Eclipse don't even store their code on github so I would imagine they might have issues with a bountservice.
Having a recurring revenue is the best way to be able to manage a company, because it gives you a better view for your next years' budgets, and you can more easily plan investment and hirings.
What is wrong, is probably how jetbrain seems to change their pricing and businell model far too often, lacking direction, and pretending it's for the customers (it's only very indirectly for the customers benefit).
Besides, I wouldn't mind paying whatever they want if they would just improve their release quality so that I don't get afraid of breaking my project everytime I update.
If you have kept up versions as I have, it's practically no different. If this means we get features sooner rather than waiting for a whole major version upgrade, I'm happy.
Yes, Adobe had a big clusterfuck when they did it, but you know who hasn't had as big of one? Microsoft Office. I subscribe to their office 365. 10 bucks a month for 5 computers, the whole office suite. I'll happily pay that.
And besides, there's always the community edition if for some reason your 120k/yr job doesn't let you afford 100 bucks per year...
People just have a meltdown anytime anything changes... chill the fuck out for a few minutes and let's see what happens.
They have mature software products and people are not going to renew the license every year for a minor update. Most of their products are so mature that you can buy them once and never look back.
So how do they make up for this one time sale? Switch to a subscription model and convince users it's in their best interest.
Frankly, I don't care about paying money every month; IntelliJ is worth the price.
However, I never update software unless there is a major bug or major features. Updating software is always a gamble and if you customize it, it often requires additional work (deprecated plugins, invalid keymap, new bugs etc.)
I hope they get this right and find the right business model to stay afloat without ruining the relationship they have with their customers.
Personally, Webstorm is exceptional and worth every penny.
Webstorm was heavily discounted compared to the other specialised IDEs (mostly because other specialised ones included Webstorm's features, at least before AppCode and CLion)
That has been rectified, Webstorm is now 99/year and completely worthless (since RubyMine, PHPStorm and PyCharm give you Webstorm + a "server" language for the same price)
If you use proprietary software, you're at the mercy of the vendor for features and, as this shows, for pricing and pricing model changes.
Just because you can do something doesn't mean it's worth doing yourself.
There are whole ecosystems of developers and teams getting work done and building companies (including some of the biggest companies in the industry) without these applications, so they clearly aren't necessary to "get work done."
Doing so, in the context of a real working business with clients, projects, timelines, deadlines and deliverables would be irresponsible if you can simply pay a company for which that product IS their product and business to deliver what you need and support it.
I can see messing around with FOSS as a hobby but unless you are a huge company that can afford to lose clock cycles to your devs playing with FOSS or a medium size company for whom FOSS is a a business it just doesn't make sense.
The vast majority of software developers across all disciplines (there's a huge world outside of Silicon Valley, Web Dev and Mobile) have exactly zero need or interest in deviating from their mission to go fix their tools.
This is the same reason the vast majority of software developers (again, think outside web folk) have exactly zero interest in vim. It is an utter waste of time compared to point-click-go-go-go.
You can improve your productivity (i.e., increase your revenue) by improving your tools.
A blacksmith makes his tools; a developer should be want to extend his environment.
> unless you are a huge company that can afford to lose clock cycles to your devs playing with FOSS
It's not a loss: it's an investment which pays dividends.
> The vast majority of software developers across all disciplines (there's a huge world outside of Silicon Valley, Web Dev and Mobile) have exactly zero need or interest in deviating from their mission to go fix their tools.
I have exactly zero interest in hiring or working with someone who is uninterested in improving his productivity.
> This is the same reason the vast majority of software developers (again, think outside web folk) have exactly zero interest in vim. It is an utter waste of time compared to point-click-go-go-go.
Both vim and emacs are far better and faster at moving structures of code around than the vast majority of GUI editors. Better and faster means…more revenue for less effort. And it's fun!
Give it a shot. Open up `vimtutor`. It's easier than you think!
I know a good percentage of HN members are focused around web development. Please stop for a moment to understand there's much more to software engineering than the web. Much more. Your view of reality is decidedly skewed.
I'll give you an example. We've been working on a system that has required over a year of real R&D and thousands of man-hours before we understood how to solve the problem. The software development phase will take about a month or two. And a good chunk of that is debugging, reevaluating assumptions and testing. Nobody here cares one bit about what we use to enter the code (in various languages) comprising this system. It isn't a factor.
> It is an utter waste of time compared to point-click-go-go-go.
If you don't have free time to devote to learning an editor, then that's fine. I was referring to those who spend most of their time programming (i.e. at an editor/terminal).
As an aside, I'm not sure why you keep mentioning web development. Of all the things that I do, web development requires the least amount of code. Other things have vastly bigger codebases. But yes, if most of your time is spent doing R&D, then you won't benefit much from improving your engineering tools.
Only because I think it is fair to say that a large portion of HN's members are in web development rather than, say, robotics and aerospace which is a significant portion of what we do.
> But yes, if most of your time is spent doing R&D, then you won't benefit much from improving your engineering tools.
Let me add a twist to this, only because I think it got lost somewhere.
I am not opposed to better tools. I simply want to pay for them and let others who's business it is to focus on making better tools create them for me. My job isn't to become an expert on a code editor's source code or our FEA tool's code base. My job is to use these tools and others to develop the products our clients want us to develop.
So, yeah, I will gladly pay --and we do pay tens of thousands of dollars per year-- for the right tools, with the right performance, the right support and the right feature set. If we need something special and it can be done with some easy scripting, sure, absolutely. Otherwise I prefer to communicate needs to our vendors and hope they see the need to address these pain points.
We've had at least half a dozen cases of software providers sending members of their development team to our office to spend time learning about issues we found and how to fix them. One of them was a team of software developers from India that made the trip to try and figure out why their CAM software was crashing end-mills on our Haas vertical machining centers and churning aluminum like it was butter with the 20 HP spindles.
Our mission was to make parts. We made that happen one way or the other. It took them --while being fully versed in their own code-base-- a week to find the problem and another month to fix it and go through regression testing. It probably would have taken us three to six months to do the same thing (had it been open source) while completely deviating from our core mission.
On another occasion we devoted three months to write this application that automated component creation for an EDA tool we were using. The tool had shortcomings. Thankfully it had an API that, of all things, could be accessed through Visual Basic. We talked about it and decided to fix it by creating an external tool in VB.
It took one engineer three months of total dedication to the cause to write the code and produce a working tool. And it was great. What used to take three hours could now be done in 30 minutes.
That seemed like an example of resources and time well used. Except, as the EDA tool company issued updates our tool would break and we very quickly found ourselves chasing our tails constantly fixing our code. It was the old "when you are up to your ass in alligators" story.
Six months later we decided it was a far better to jettison the EDA tool and buy a better tool instead. That was the right decision. We should have made that decision nine months earlier rather than completely deviate from our core business to fix someone else's problems.
I have more stories like that one. I am not saying what I say to be difficult, I have the scars to prove which business and engineering decisions are right and wrong, not in absolute terms, of course, but in the context of the task at hand.
Now, good tools, such as the JetBrains tools can have an impact that has little to do with productivity. We do hardware and software development. It is useful to have a tool that has the potential to feel like you are doing pair programming by helping you along. Why? Because if you are popping between Verilog and Python with a range of other languages across server, desktop and embedded while using multiple tools and IDE's you start valuing tools that can help you context switch. And, no, I do not want to waste time messing with source for the two dozen tools we use on a regular basis. And, no, in this context vim has no real measurable value whatsoever.
My guess is you might disagree. And that's OK. If your context is web development you simply don't have enough of a view of the rest of the tech ecosystem to understand. If you've never run a tech business you will not have had the financial feedback loop that allows you to understand these issues. I can improve productivity by a far larger margin by providing every workstation with three large monitors, lots of memory and making sure people work reasonable hours and don't burn out than through some magical editor that also requires my engineers to even as much as look at source due to shortcomings.
In fact, I can, and have, improved productivity dramatically by having everyone work half days on Fridays while being very flexible with daily schedules and liberal with vacation times. As an example, I had one engineer ask me if he could take a few days off to go to a concert in London. I said "send pictures", paid him for the time he was away and did not take vacation days off.
We are a team, we know what our mission is and we get shit done. We are not factory workers counting keystrokes per second. We are knowledge workers, which automatically means we spend far more time on things other than typing code.
Of course, you are free to do as you wish.
Editors are, or should be, the sole tool necessary to sculpt a system. Using poor languages, yes, there's a lot of ritual outside of coding which is necessary. With powerful languages, the design is the code and the code is the design and it all lives within an editor.
The editor is the interface to the documentation; it's the interface to the running system; it's an interface to the debugger; it's the interface to the world.
> Because if you are popping between Verilog and Python with a range of other languages across server, desktop and embedded while using multiple tools and IDE's you start valuing tools that can help you context switch. And, no, I do not want to waste time messing with source for the two dozen tools we use on a regular basis. And, no, in this context vim has no real measurable value whatsoever.
Which is why I use emacs, which is able to provide a seamless interface between server, desktop, laptop and embedded environments, in which context switching simply doesn't have to be necessary. Emacs provides a whole heck of a lot more than vim. Vim is a powerful editor; emacs is an ultra-powerful environment.
Yes, it's also important to have large monitors, lots of memory and a great work environment. And kudos to you (honestly) for providing that.
> We are knowledge workers, which automatically means we spend far more time on things other than typing code.
Which is why I use a tool which enables me to work with units of knowledge, not just letters and symbols.
Absolutely not true. My guess is you are a web developer.
I am not going to spar with you. Engineering is a world that goes way beyond web development. I urge you to consider there's far more out there than what you might have been exposed to. To think that everything starts and ends with a text editor is a bit myopic.
Don't get me wrong, a nice IDE can be a pleasure to use. Does it make a significance difference in ROI or project timelines? Not at all. If we are working on an IMU for an aerospace project the time spent on the editor is almost a rounding error.
I think a lot of people on HN view the world through web development lenses. That is most certainly not how the rest of the engineering world works. For example, when doing muliti-GHz PCB design you can quite literally blow WEEKS of work if you make a mistake. Weeks. And so the idea of fretting over keystrokes per second or amazing refactoring tools --in that context-- is nothing less than laughable. And that's why, in my world, nobody has ever come up and said "you know, if we took a couple of weeks to get good at vim we could rock this thing". It hasn't come-up because, in our context, like I said, code entry is a rounding error. Nobody cares because it does not matter.
Sounds like FOSS with a support contract would also be appropriate. They might sell you a warranty and indemnity too. Plus your business would have a much better disaster recovery plan if you're not reliant on DRM dev/build tools. Further, selling your business and/or productizing your internal tech can be simpler with FOSS.
Clicking = moving your hand from the keyboard to the mouse. So it's actually point-click-go-back-to-keyboard-go-go-go when it could be type-go-go-go (or go-go-go-go, if you prefer) . I use vim and when I help colleagues that use phpStorm, they seem slow as fuck. Since they have a sidebarmenu, they don't think about their fuzzy matcher, they don't split their display to show 4 files instead of just one and keep navigating through tabs they did not really mean to open.
I don't get it. Even if you have no interest, why would you willingly give up the option? All other things being equal, wouldn't you want the ability to do it? You'll get a great product, you'll pay someone else to take care of it, and, should you ever want to fix it yourself or take it to someone else to fix it, you can do that too?
Why are you so aggressive against the notion of being allowed to do anything you could possibly want?
It sounds aggressive even if you don't intend it to sound that way. There are ways to other ways to express your opinion without sounding this way.
Here, let me try to show you what I mean:
"I am not interested in modifying my tools. I would rather pay someone else to do it. If you are spending time modifying your tools, then that is time that could have been better spent on another task. I have many years of experience, which have convinced me that the right way to spend your time is on your product, not your tools."
Note the lack of dismissive language such as "absolutely zero" or "exactly zero" or "waste of time" or "I am simply" (this last one is another attempt to present opinions as facts).
When I say "I have exactly zero interest" it means exactly that. If it offends you the problem isn't mine.
If you're paying, you also get support - in fact this is a very common structure for open source products where you pay for a service contract. In this case you're paying for them to do it and have the ability to make updates, but since you're paying them to do, they end up doing it.
And if it's really such a problem... then stop using it? I dont know what else to say. What exactly is at risk here?
$240 per year / $200/hour = 1.2 hours that this thing needs to save me each year to be worth paying for. I don't think that I could rewrite ReSharper from scratch in that amount of time. I know from long use that it will save me that much time each year.
It's the simplest money I'll spend all year. It would be if my bill rate were a tenth of what it is.
It all comes down to build/buy assessment, because build still costs money. JetBrains has a price point that puts a tight margin on that build decision.
The whole solution/project model seems to be optimized for something that does not make much sense to me.
The UI is mostly unusable on small screens.
Integrated editor feels somewhat weird to me (I'm probably too addicted to emacs' electric-indent, but even then).
Thus I may see some reason to use VS for .NET projects (VS being the "native" IDE), but I completely fail to see why one would use VS for C/C++ (which is even exaggerated by various quirks of MS's compiler, like not supporting C99 and different versions of stdlib that sometimes can be used at same time and sometimes can't).
As far as the editor, there are some good attempts at code completion from other systems, but I have not found one nearly as good as Intellisense. That is coupled with the jump to definition and declaration.
Also, the integrated debugging and some of the edit and continue functionality is amazing.
can you really not even comprehend how there's one person out there that would make a choice different than you?
Thats what drew me to the JetBrains product line. The default functionality and polish feels good compared with eclipse which is what I usually use when I'm in java. I still jump into emacs for some file editing because it feels right. But eclipse still seem strangely odd to use (that could just be the whole java toolchain thing). I spend a certain amount of time on learning the tools and learning how to configure. The curve on emacs/eclipse configuration is steep. oddly I donated for me emacs / eclipse since I use them enough.
> If you use proprietary software, you're at the mercy of the vendor for features..
Something I kinda knew, even as a paying customer, but this change really brings it home. Especially since we now have to keep paying to keep using.
When will people realise that true & complete OSS is the only answer.
I HATE Eclipse, it's a massively bloated POS IMHO and I wouldn't touch it with a 10' pole. Eclipse is what drove me FAR away from IDE's until a friend recommended JetBrains to me and I found how awesome it was.
OSS fanatics drive me up a wall. I don't have unlimited amounts of time to customise something a ton just to make it useable. I'm not going to make my life harder on purpose so that I can sit on my high horse. I want to get things done not be constantly futzing around with display drivers, font rendering, icon sets, endless pages of customization, etc. Do you have full control in OSS? Yes, but the defaults normally suck.
I want something that takes me to 80-90% on day 1, I don't care if I can take it to 100% in OSS (it normally starts at 20% at best), it's simply not worth my time. Now given 2 products, one closed and one OSS that perform equally or close to equally well out of the box I will lean towards OSS but I'm not going to go out of my way to use it just so I can tout my neck-bearded-ness. Money = Time and I'm not interested in wasting the "non-renewable" one of the two.
Note: none of this applies to servers, linux is the only thing I'd ever consider using on a server. This is primarily aimed at OSS programs and OS's (Open Office or whatever they are calling it now, Eclipse, Linux on the desktop, etc)
I'm happy to pay Jetbrains three times the amount I pay to continue with it. This deal is great for me because I wanted to use PyCharm and CLion, and have historically used Rubymine, and the amount I have to pay to have everything isn't that far off what I pay already.
I consider it money well paid to be able to be more productive. Understand other people feel differently... it's nice to be idealogically consistent and beholden to no-one. That's worth a lot to many.
I find that people who "HATE" Eclipse passionately often don't understand how to use it properly. E.g... why is it taking a long time to build? Well, you enabled "Build automatically" in the project settings of your 900KLOC project...
Anyway, I've had this debate many times, I have no interest in having it again. I am just happy Eclipse works well for my needs, so I have no reason to worry about IntelliJ, SaaS licensing or whatever.
I would just encourage people who are unhappy about the changes to give Eclipse another shot -- who knows, maybe you will like it the second time around.
So why buy a subscription at all?
Because you get the kinds of things big companies care about: certification, maintenance, support, indemnification, somebody to sue if things don't work, a vendor to shift blame onto if the shit hits the fan, a discount on professional services work, perpetual upgrades, priority access to influence the roadmap and direction of the product, etc. Subscriptions are also a win for customers in that (depending on the details) they may be able to pay for a subscription out of an operational budget, rather than needing to go to some committee and get approval for a large one-time capital expenditure. And with subscriptions you are paying a portion of the cost in future, inflated, dollars instead of today's dollars.
Of course, like any vendor who does OSS, we run the risk of having a lot of people using our software and never paying, but that's just something we accept.
But here's the thing... we don't sell development tools - IDEs and the like. Our stuff is backend/middle-ware that costs in the tens of thousands of dollars and up (for companies with thousands of employees, anyway), which makes things like worrying about capital expenditures more of an issue. At the kind of price-points you are talking about for IDEs and what-not, I'm not sure the advantages of a subscription (from the customer POV) really carry much weight.
Basically, it's a guarantee that if you get sued for using our software (patent infringement, whatever) then we protect you from any fallout from that.
We defend the company from issues using our software, arising from a 3rd party's IP claims. We wouldn't defend them if they used our software as part of an effort to hack into the Facebook's user database and stage a massive identity theft scheme.
as in, problems that occur from actually using the software. As opposed to IP claims which is typically over the source code, not the software itself.
For example, if you write a realtime scheduling component that Toyota ends up using in their vehicle software, and someone dies due to a problem with the realtime scheduling, you do not protect Toyota from the resulting lawsuit.
Now, I've not really used Java, so I have no experience with this package.
We've banned this account for repeatedly breaking the HN guidelines.
emacs and a real a IDE, together at last.
On the other hand, upgrading to a new version with new features is a risk. When none of the previous version's features changed, there's still the reconfiguration cost...and usually previous version features do change if for no other reason than UI. Even a compelling new feature entails the disruption of changing processes.
Ideally, the best long term strategy for a tools company is a subscription model that pushes no features and results in more or less the same profitability for their customers in the end: for example by exactly offsetting the gains from features with the cost of switching. The sweet spot is technical progress accompanied by business stasis. AutoDesk is the master at this...they started moving toward subscriptions almost twenty years ago. They got away from selling platforms and focused on features, and their customers are all locked into yearly cycles of disrupting their workflow and looking to features for redemption.
I can't find anything that explains the difference between the individual vs. company/organization licenses.
Are these still single-developer licenses?
Why does a company have to pay twice as much as the individual license?
That's just silly. I'll have my devs buy their own licenses and reimburse them. People are not stupid, you know? Because these licenses expire on a monthly basis there really isn't a reason for a company to "own" the product.
With the prior licensing scheme it made sense because the product never expired. You could continue using it even if you didn't need the upgrades. You were, in fact, purchasing an asset. Not too different from buying a set of wrenches for your toolbox, they might not be the latest in a year, but they work just as well.
With this setup there is no reason whatsoever for a company to pay double monthly fees. That's just silly. I'd like to see someone justify a reason to charge a business twice as much. Please don't say "because you make a profit". This is like Ford charging you twice as much for an F150 because you buy it through your business.
Regarding the company/organization license: Does one license allow one developer to work with, say, IntelliJ while another uses PyCharm? I have not ask. Again, there's precious little on the website to explain the terms and conditions of each license.
I am simply pointing out people are not stupid. Doubling the monthly cost just because it is a business can't be justified and this is bound to lead to people gaming the system.
Again, pick a service, say, gardener, and have them charge you twice as much to mow exactly the same size lawn just because you are a business. What will happen is they'll be treated to a big "fuck you" and someone else will get the business.
Someone needs to tell me what they deliver to a business user that supports charging twice as much. There's certainly zero difference in the already questionable level of support, so, where is the justification?
To me that's bordering on being offensive.
Personally I would find the pricing more reasonable if the "individual developer" licenses could be used by small businesses and freelancers.
Loyalty is as good as the product; if another product comes along and makes my life easier i would switch.
That would lose you the 'renewing' discount, but it wouldn't stop the concern about the IDE's not working.
I actually used and liked WebStorm at one point. I've since switched to Atom, but I still occasionally miss some of the more advanced refactoring and navigation features that indexing and static analysis made possible.
Every time JetBrains released a new version of WebStorm I usually try to take a thorough look through the release notes and sometimes become tempted to give it another try.
But this new subscription model has managed to completely kill any enthusiasm I had left for WebStorm and other JetBrains products.
As a side note, I really hope this doesn't mean Cursive is going to have to switch to the same subscription model.
I suppose that we are at JetBrains market saturation levels - everybody is using their IDEs, so they just don't sell as many new licences to fuel growth.
Realise that the same model doesn't work for everyone but the subscription deal for all-you-can-eat is damn good.
Especially when they already have a community edition in place, I think more people will use that.
And I think that's a shame, because I prefer NetBeans over IntelliJ. I've used both, and IntelliJ's Maven integration is just terrible.
NetBeans, on the other hand, uses the POM itself as its project file for everything it can. All dependency information exists only in the POM, and NetBeans reads it directly. What little bit NetBeans needs that doesn't go in the POM goes in nbactions.xml (e.g. main class, path to JVM), which is very small and minimal, and there's no duplication of data between the two. The NetBeans project file is just the tuple of (pom.xml, nbactions.xml). I've encountered many instances where IntelliJ and Maven get their dependency trees desynced, and while sometimes it can be solved by re-importing the POM, other times it can't, and resolving it becomes this huge hairy nightmare.
Better yet, whenever you initiate a build or run anything in NetBeans using a Maven project, it simply invokes mvn through a shell. You can see in the output tab the exact Maven command line NetBeans ran, so you can duplicate it or send it as instructions to collaborators who don't necessarily use NetBeans.
I have to use IntelliJ at my current job, and I find myself just using it as an editor and building by manually invoking Maven on the command line myself (and the company has our own system of scripts for running our Java projects).
Plus when customers view changes like this as unfair or unethical, they suddenly find themselves caring a lot less about using a disassembler and changing some jumps.
Aside from that, this reinforces my coding minimalism. I don't have a need for all of these weird extra things that just make "life easier" about 5% of the time while screwing with normal typing 95% of the time (in my case at least). I am perfectly happy with standard visual studio and notepad for anything that isn't .net.
That sounds like a problem with the company practices and policies and not Jetbrains. I'm pretty sure that would affect other things in the company as well (such as stalling to pay an internet bill or something).
This is not to say that a SaaS model is necessarily bad... it's just that, as a user, one is now beholden to the whims of a company for what is perhaps the most critical part of their work flow.
This, not so much. Officially looking for alternatives.
If those developers go from 'IntelliJ is great and the JetBrains people rock' to 'IntelliJ may be great, but JetBrains is scammy', it may be bad for growth.
Of course, one can assume that they calculated in some protests + losing customers.
Converted and new ones do, so previously loyal customers who don't want to lose their perpetual license… can't upgrade their editor ever again.
Of course there are still other reasons for innovating their product, it's just one less.
As someone who upgrades WebStorm within an hour of a new version being released, I'm hoping the new subscription model will mean they push out improvements whenever they're ready, rather than waiting for a major release to showcase.
Totally understand the angst on here about the IDE not working if you cancel your subscription, but I guess I'm already in that mindset from using services like Linode and BrowserStack.
As a serial upgrader, the WebStorm subscription price looks okay. Over the years, I've considered the IDE more of a co-worker than a tool (should credit Hector the Inspector as a great Wingman). If you're billing for your hours I still think the product is a no-brainer, but understand this would be a frustrating development for a more casual user.
"Phoning home" is actually not new. We've introduced JetBrains Account as a way of authorizing a product instance (as an alternative to license keys) for a couple of years now.
Current student licenses work exactly the same way, as well as a part of classroom and OS licenses AFAIK. A lot of current personal and some commercial licenses are managed through a JetBrains Account as well.
With the new scheme, JetBrains Account will simply gain more usage than now, hard-coded license keys will eventually go away, but a license server option for environments that have restricted Internet connection will be provided the same as it is now.
Now, there might be certain additional steps we might need to take to ensure license delivery in certain scenarios but we'll be handling this as we receive specific problem reports.
One thing that has always bothered me about JetBrains is the "personality" of their support. It is isn't good. We haven't needed a lot of it, maybe 2 or 3 incidents since PyCharm came out (we adopted right away). Yet, there's a bothersome lag in support (I am not talking about international time zones) as well as a lack of quality. It's almost --but not quite-- condescending in feel.
I do understand there might be language and cultural differences at play here. I also have experience with German companies (not just software). Their approach to customer service can be very dry and very different from what you might experience in the US. I am guessing the Czech Republic might be similar.
I know these are generalizations that could be way off base. In the case of JetBrains, if the product was not good we would have stopped using them purely based on the substandard support.
As far as paying monthly. No. Thanks. I want my software to work and work reliably. If I chose not to upgrade for a year or two, these tools need to work. A monthly plan with 30 day call-the-mothership is a non-starter for me. I will not, ever, buy into something like that for my business. I want less overhead, not more. And I don't want a situation where if things are tight for a few months we lose half of our tools. Buying into something like that would be a really dumb decision on the part of a business owner or manager.
I look at something like MS Office. We purchased licenses back in 2007. We have not needed any of the new features. And so, our 15 or so licenses work just fine for what we need to do and we do not need to spend another dime to use the software. From a business perspective that is the right way to use tools and the right way to make purchases. You do not want to bleed money on a regular basis for software updates you don't need or updates that don't make enough of a material impact to justify their cost.
Anyhow, I hope JetBrains reconsiders. We have been looking at some of their other products but will not even consider them if they are converted to monthly subscription products. If they insist on taking this approach I suspect products like SublimeText will see a boost in adoption. Yes, not the same thing, but not the end of the world and it is a really, really good product with a very friendly license.
The keygen for jetbrains currently unlocks ultimate mode on all products for 100 years. It's not hard for your average script kiddie to find.
From my own perspective, and I know this doesn't apply to all, but I cannot imagine I'm the only person with this viewpoint:
I'm sick of other developers saying things like: "You know what? For the amount developers earn, $X is a small price to pay." You're right, $X for a single piece of software is a small price. But when you add the cost of your MSDN license here, your JetBrains license there, your Xamarin university/license, O'Reilly Safari License, PluralSight license and countless other licenses and software purchases to do our jobs - all of which are gradually moving towards month-by-month subscription models with excessively large combined annual overheads, it cuts more and more into your budget... and not to forget that the income you make doesn't just pay for an ever revolving cycle of tools to maintain your competitiveness as these arguments seem to forget [unless you're still living in Mom's basement and all your income is expendable or can feed the endless software-as-a-service lifestyle]. It's also used to ensure that your kids get a good education so they can make their own valuable contributions to society; that you're able to live comfortably and not worry about where your next meal is coming from; that your family is safe and secure and well prepared for the unexpected; medical plans; retirement plans; mortgage; vehicle payments; the list goes on... all of which costs money - every month!
I'm growing tired of companies feeling like they can reach into my pocket month after month and take every spare penny for "services rendered." At what point will people turn around and say "Enough's enough! My money is mine!" I'm happy to buy products when they move me forward, but I hate paying monthly subscriptions on the off chance that you're going to continue provide updates that may or may not benefit me in the longer term.
Now trying to get some licensing server installed in an Enterprise environment is a PITA.
* PyCharm, RubyMine, PhpStorm, AppCode and CLion were 99 + 59/year, new license is 99/year (more expensive from year 2)
* WebStorm was 49 + 29/year, new license is 99/year (more expensive from year 1)
Things have gotten significantly more expensive across the board, and if you don't need the new version or can't pay for it… you lose your IDE.
The new licenses are absolutely terrible for holders of individual licenses.
The use-it-all yearly price is cheaper, plus I can try their other IDEs. (Looking at you AppCode!)
Seems like a win to me. I heard about the change through the OP, which filled me with dread. Then I went to their website, which filled me with relief.
I've always found their IDEs worth the price.
Here's the science:
He gets the news that this is coming in and sees the fanfare and the pricetag and is like "wow! way to go jetbrains! $19.90 a month for ALL of your tools or $199 a year?! I mean that's only slightly more than what I'm paying now for my renewals at the yearly rate and I'd get all of their tools...." but Joe doesn't have time to look into it Joe is a busy contractor, work is coming in fast and furious now and besides, his current license doesn't expire until March. Nothing to see here.
Well winter comes and work slows down as it does during the holidays, except this year it doesn't pick up in the spring. It's dead slow. It's the end of February and Joe's considering getting well...a "Joe Job" when the phone rings and it's a client with a fat contract to put him back on track. But the project needs PHP version 5.whatever-the-hell-the-new-hotness-is and PHPStorm only supports up to 5.old-and-busted. Time to download the updates! Oh crap, his license is expired. Wait didn't he see something a while back about nw licensing options. He certainly doesn't have the $178 dollars it's gonna cost him to upgrade PHPStorm and WebStorm right now and he REALLY needs it to do this project that's going to get him back on track. So he checks the pricing. Hrmmm $24.90.....wasn't it $19.90 when I looked before. Oh, it was a promotional. Damn. Joe doesn't have $24.90 either, maybe he can just buy the updates for the products he uses. Oh look it's only $9.90 for phpstorm and $9.90 for webstorm for the month...oh wow but together it's MORE than he used to pay for his renewals! What's going on JetBrains?! He used to only pay $178 a year to renew both products but now it's $198. Well that's a no go. So Joe decides to do the month to month thing and when the check clears from this job he'll just update to the full year! So 20 bucks and a couple downloads later Joe is in business. Wow this new version is great! The Jetbrains devs still have their stuff together even if their business people don't. He knocks the project out of the park. Well a month passes and Joe sees another ding on his credit card for jetbrains....oh yeah he should switch that subscription. He'll get to it later. Well a year goes buy. Another winter and another slow spring and another big project to bail Joe out. Only this time Joe doesn't have the 20 bucks to renew that month. Well no big deal Joe can just fire it up and use the old version he doesn't need the latest and greatest. Except, Joe can't. The subscription has expired and so has the tool. And so like a shallow friend when the money ran out so did Jetbrains and left Joe without the tools he needs. All told over the year, Joe spent $237 dollars on a product he used to spend only $178 and had nothing to show for it.
I realize there are some things Joe could have done better, bad business practice etc. but this could very well happen and does all to often. Sure there are alternatives but the goal of a good business isn't supposed to be to force you into the arms of an alternative...you might get comfortable there.
So, most people writing long screeds are just going to pony up and forget about it in a few months.
Besides, They have a free version of IntelliJ, making the ultimate edition and other languages (for which there are probably more, and free, alternatives) support as "premium".
If their tools are that good, maybe they're worth the money and $119 per year sounds pretty much like peanuts for anyone that is trying to make money.
JetBrains is making a business decision. That's what businesses do. Their current Community Edition is open-source. Anyone is free to pick up where they left off. That is an enormous contribution they've already made to the community. You make your consumer decision. They make their business decision. This is the implicit but very real relationship any customer of theirs has chosen to be in.
I personally don't agree with their decision. But, I'm not running their business or working their jobs. Before going all "They're Google Reader'ing Us.", just ask yourself, do you use Gmail? Are you willing to continue their work on the Community Edition?
edit: to clarify my examples.
The services I referenced where chosen as examples of alternatives to options such as hosting one's own email or using existing perpetually or open-sourced licensed products (Gmail), a company that drastically revised it's product offering (NetFlix), and a company who's founder destroyed the business model of purchasing a c.d. for life by making mp3's user friendly and then went legit by moving to a SaaS model (Spotify).
As others have pointed out, one can still purchase a perpetual license through November, so JetBrains is not only not stealing back the product they sold you, they are also giving you time whether you'd like to make this transition with them. If not, simply do not purchase their product in the future. To expect JetBrains to do otherwise (maintain their business model) is to tell them how to make very basic decisions about how they run their business and live their lives. That, I think, is bad.
tl;dr: They didn't steal anything. Don't tell people how to live their lives.
Walk me through why this removes my right to complain. I don't get it.
I don't like JetBrains' decision because using their software represents a large investment in time and effort to learn it and get set up to use it. That investment could then be destroyed at any time if they go out of business, or if they decide in a few years that their prices need to be 500x higher. This is important to me because building software is how I eat.
Spotify is click and go. It's just music, and there are about a thousand other services where I can get music if Spotify goes kablooie. Worst case I have no more streaming music, and I can continue to eat even if that happens.
So do explain, how does paying for the latter mean I can't complain about the former?
2. Nothing in their old model prevented them from raising prices. Not sure how you think switching to a monthly subscription model changes that.
i.e. your entire premise, that this is an investment of time and money, really has nothing to do with JetBrains' switch to a subscription model. In fact, they would probably be more likely to go out of business if they stuck with the old model, so this protects your investment.
Complaining because you don't think you can afford it is an understandable position. Your points, however, are entirely irrelevant.
If they went out of business or raised prices in the old model, I could keep using the version I purchased for as long as I wanted. With the new model, my software turns into a pumpkin and my choice is either to keep paying whatever they want to charge, or switch to something else.
Edit: oh, exactly one of their products has a Community Edition. Guess that's not much of an option after all, unless that's the one product you need.
I guess it's not "all" products.
Oh, it's much worse than that. With the old licensing model, if JetBrains went out of business, you'd be left with an antiquated IDE that works. Under the new model, you'd be left with nothing because the IDEs need to call-home and verify against a licensing server. Who knows what happens when the licensing server gets decommissioned (I guess you could ask EA customers).
> If they actually went out of business, I'm sure they'd to something to remedy the situation.
That all depends on how they go out of business. They could too busy fighting other fires to write a patch that removes license-check, or it could be a hostile takeover with the subsequent "we are discontinuing $PRODUCT from next month" announcement
That does not make sense. Spotify et al. were like that from the beginning. You know what kind of deal you are getting. JetBrains is changing the rules of the game completely, with very little heads-up time, for people who might be deeply invested in their products.
It's comparable to what Adobe pulled off: they knew that most people did not have a choice, so they could force it on them. Luckily, the IDE landscape is a bit more healthy, so I expect that a subset of their customers will flee to other IDEs.
Desktop software on the other hand has no direct monthly costs other than phoning home once a month. You could definitely argue that iterating development costs should be factored in here, I can't imagine that being a deciding factor in moving completely to this business model. I'm sure if they offered a low cost monthly subscription and a perpetual license option, they wouldn't have any issue offsetting development costs. At this point, they could even raise the price of perpetual license (hell, I seem to remember paying $200 for mine). I'd gladly pay an increased price with the knowledge that my software wouldn't stop working, especially given how many hours of productivity I gain by using their software.
I dropped most of Adobe's products after they went to a subscription based model. The only product I still use is Photoshop and I'm planning on dropping that later this year so I can move 100% to Linux.
For the record, over 95% of the front-end devs I know use Sublime Text for their IDE.
I have gotten so used to using ReSharper, I'm probably 30% less productive without it.
It looks like even when you purchase a ReSharper license, the software will work for about a year. So subscriptions aren't that much worse.
Another benefit of more time would be that in a corporation where purchases are not as simple as pulling the trigger, you have some time to do the paperwork to get the subscription approved, while still continuing in the current update scheme until then.
The delta would be marginal. People just love to complain about change.
You are saying that as a paying customer, one is not allowed to question any product or service offering they pay for (or even will potentially pay for as a potential customer). One is not allowed to suggest improvements. One is not allowed to state that if the company would modify the offering in some way, then they would again become a paying customer. One's only choices are to pay for the product/service as is or walk away and keep quiet.
One is also not allowed to mention to friends/acquaintances/colleagues that they are dissatisfied with the overall value of a product or service, or indicate that they do not believe the overall value to be worth it. As before, one's only choices here are to give good recommendations of the product/service to others or to not say anything at all.
"Take what we offer or walk away quietly and never speak of this again, those are your only choices."
This is essentially what you are saying. Are you sure that is what you want to be saying?
All of the things you listed are services that run on servers that cost money to run.
JetBrains' IDEs are downloadable software that we pay for and exists in perpetuity.
I also have no idea why you're referencing the community edition; the people complaining are customers that pay for JetBrains' non-OSS software.
We give JetBrains a chance to change it's mind by this public outrage, and if they don't listen – many people will switch.
What if you discover many other customers also don't agree with this decision?
In that case it seems fair to write it down and provide feedback to the company making the decision.
Managing licenses for teams is time-consuming and frustrating. When I worked in the MSP world, convincing our clients (for whom we were essentially the IT department) that they had to buy an extra seat or upgrade everyone license or reminding them that, "No, you upgraded Sally to v5 but the Intern's system has last year's v4 license, and you have to shell out $X00 right now or they can't work" was a _constant_ issue. Creative Cloud and Office 360 made everything better, I expect this to have the same effect for dev teams.