> I already paid $59 for this software and that's enough for a text editor
This only makes sense if: (a) I guess you're not a software developer, so you don't actually "make money" from the productivity increases of a text-editor good for you? or (b) you plan to switch to some other editor that's open-source (emacs? vim?) or (c) you're and IDE guy and rarely use a "simple" text editor.
Please mention your use case before saying "that's enough for a text editor", because for most that's really pocket change compared to what others pay for other services or software licenses (think designers!).
There is the factor of diminishing returns though once you've already paid for one version. The next one has to be that much better for it to make it worth it. With text editors it's difficult to add enough value in future versions since everything a good one does to help you work should be there from the start(easy navigation in and between files and easy modification of data once you're there) the rest is just fluff.
I love ST2 - it's the first editor I've really sat down and learnt properly, and I've got a tonne of value out of it. The features ST3 are bringing to the table - at this point - don't seem worth the upgrade. I dislike the idea of paid upgrades for just about any software, even though I understand the economics.
Ultimately, I think continued development of plugins will force the issue, and upgrades will be required.
I'd have agreed until I experienced TextMate. Everything basically ground to a halt for years. I know not everyone is fuelled by money but I suspect if it had been more of a priority, updates would have been more frequent.
Suppose that you cost $50,000 a year. If a new Sublime Text would only make you 2% more productive, even an upgrade for $100 per year would be peanuts. Start talking to your boss!
If you use Sublime Text privately, I can see your point.
I don't see what is wrong with that justification. Unless you are saying that he/she is incorrect I don't see why you wouldn't opt for that productivity increase, as long as (salary * perf_increase) > total cost.
If you are saying there are efficiencies elsewhere for which that formula yields a higher number then you should do those as well.
I should state that there is nothing wrong with charging money for upgrades, especially if it motivates the developer to continuously improve the product.
And yes, you are right. Every bit counts, and I'm willing to pay for software that will help me. I just don't think it gets much better for me and ST.
> A 2% increase isn't very good IMO. I'd rather look for other efficiencies that won't cost me more money.
A 2% improvement is a week's worth of effort in a year at a full time job. Even a small improvement will be worth it unless there's a larger opportunity cost (such as using a substitute text editor that will yield even larger improvements), or if there's a risk of something going wrong (such as it being buggy and wiping out a week's worth of work). There's also switching costs of learning new features, which may be significant, depending on what you do and how you you'd use it.
You should obviously make your own choice, but the rationalization can be valid, and 2% productivity improvement is nothing to sneeze at.
I like ST, and it serves my needs well enough, but I already paid $59 for this software and that's enough for a text editor.
Paying yet another $30 isn't worth it for me, especially when I didn't ask for these upgrades.