Hi, Parallels is a software company that focuses our resources on creating virtualization software to support both the Mac and Windows communities. This development comes with costs and it is not feasible to be adjustable the price.
"... it is not feasible to be adjustable [sic] the price."
Let me impress upon you how much you have overlooked in the user community by making this reply at this time. There are two issues here. The first issue is PRICE. The software is expensive, and the subscription model is ALSO a price increase. This might be necessary, understandable, and warranted. All of those things might be fine.
The second issue here is the FORCED SUBSCRIPTION MODEL. This is a METHOD of getting users to pay more for something they aren't already meeting a sustainable profit goal on (which is a problem of poor management, lack of foresight, and bad previous business models, however the user community might have benefited from them in the past). It is NOT required to charge users ad infinitum for a software package that they want to use as long as it is useful. It is also not hard to come up with a number of scenarios in which this very thing would be ideal. Let me storyboard one for you, since all of you seem to be unimaginative:
Billy buys a Mac. It's the best Mac. He loves it. He decks it out with the best model processor (soldered-in), RAM (soldered-in), and a pretty killer SSD (the last bastion of upgradeable technology in our mobile computers these days). Now he needs to use Windows and Linux to do what he does well. He needs a VM platform, and Parallels is thankfully meeting that need REALLY WELL (I'm paying you a compliment here, so take note of it). He isn't concerned with price right now, but he's a recent college graduate starting his own IT business. He wants to invest in something he can carry forward with him, but he knows that he may not be able to make ends meet in the coming year if he doesn't strategize well for this year. He is talented and ingenuitive, but he needs technology that will last him for a number of years WITHOUT ADDITIONAL COST so that he can continue to function if he isn't strictly profitable by the end of the year. Billy might choose not to upgrade his OS because upgrading it might force him to upgrade Parallels. His subscription can lapse, and he won't get updates, but it is PERFECTLY REASONABLE for a PRO user to assume that he will not lose functionality of the software he purchased on X date after his upgrade potential and support contract expires. Sometimes these things are not ideal, and some people CHOOSE to use OLD versions of operating systems (look at Windows 7 or Windows XP in certain educational and proprietary industrial equipment models) because they don't have a NEED for the current version. They have a NEED for something that will be STABLE, PREDICTABLE, and FUNCTIONAL.
Let's rewrite part of the scenario here. How about we catch up with Billy 5 years later. Apple has come along with machines that do 600,000x the processing of his original machine, and that's really cool, but he can't afford an upgrade right now. He still has the old machine, and it's really still useful to his business model. He works in an industry where he will likely be using the same tools for 5-10 years to come, despite "latest and greatest" advancements in technology around him. (This happens a lot more than any of us wants to admit.) Remember those two crucial soldered-in components? That machine on the workbench CAN'T EVEN RUN the version of OSX that will be released by Apple in a week's time, and yet if he is on a subscription model, Parallels will be forcing him to pay for the upgrade anyway, just so he can continue to run the OLD version of Parallels on the OLD OS. Eventually that old version of Parallels may even stop authenticating with the token server. At that time, he will be forced to buy a new machine because Parallels stopped him from using a tool that was STABLE, PREDICTABLE, and FUNCTIONAL.
How about if that subscription expires, but Billy can keep using whatever version he stopped with? When Billy can buy new hardware, he'll need new Parallels for his new OS. If you provide continued functionality to the subscription model, you haven't really lost business. You just kept a guy's head above water so that he could return that investment to you in the future. You made him successful and a zealot for your product.
If your updates are superfluous enough that they aren't interesting every annuum, then you should stop releasing them annually. That means you should probably charge more in aggregate every two years or so. We get that. You make the mistake of assuming that we will always install every update given to us. That is rarely, in my experience, the case with developers. We scrutinize updates. We want to know how it will change the delicate balance we hold because we are already pushing the limits of the stuff we use. STABILITY MATTERS.
I hope my point is clear. This isn't always about cost. It's about investment, return, and stability of that investment. Some of us make decisions now that we know will have to be stable for 10-20 years in the future. Some of us do that on a regular basis, and we are really damn good at it. We put pieces together that aren't designed to last a long time, and we make them do cartwheels on their 25th anniversary because we know how to leverage stuff efficiently. These are your developers. These are your "Pro" users. These ingenuitive people want to carry your banner and recommend to their larger firms that you are the best ally they can have for what you do.
YOU NEED THEM.
Don't be an ass. Don't alienate the users that feed you. Ask for more money, fine. WE GET THAT. WE DON'T LIKE THAT REALITY, BUT WE UNDERSTAND IT! But be flexible about your subscription expiration terms, or be killed on the battlefield of capitalism. It's your call, but we are actually rooting for you to make the right choice. The alternatives suck for all of us.
If you want to respond to this, I welcome your response. Be direct. Don't dance around the issue. Make a real statement, don't give platitudes or deflections like we've seen above.
