I was talking to my partner the other day about how anyone can just hop onto Canva and get whatever they need these days. Our job is to sort things out and find solutions. That’s what professional designers should focus on moving forward. Be that go-to person.
As you, of course, know, they might be able to find what they want, but what they need is another matter.
1 Like
Ah, the basis of economics, finite resources and an unlimited supply of wants.
The thread started with commercial software licensing and somehow ended up at “$99 is unaffordable for someone who wants to build and sell websites.”
Here’s the point you’re making: the same person now offering a $99 plan limited to personal use and saddled with a watermark is the same person who has always sold their software for $99 with no such restrictions. That makes the move obviously exploitative — it pushes buyers to spend nearly three times as much, purely because the seller wants to cash in on the projects you’ll build with their tool.
As you rightly noted, Lionel Robbins defined economics as the study of scarce resources and unlimited wants — not demand based on your own projections. If it worked that way, the dynamic would be “tell me what you want to do, and I’ll tell you how much I’ll charge you,” which is the opposite of a market. The seller is essentially trying to capture the value of your future work, not just the tool itself.
I used Linguix AI for grammar and spelling
That wasn’t really the point I was making. It was just a light comment on how the thread had moved from objecting to commercial licensing into a broader complaint that $99 itself was unaffordable.
Scarcity applies to buyers as well as sellers, most of us have limited resources and an unlimited list of things we would like. That does not automatically make every product we cannot justify buying exploitative.
You can reasonably criticise the watermark, the changed licence terms, or the jump in price for commercial use. But the developer is still setting a price for a licence, not taking a percentage of anyone’s future earnings. You can decide whether the tool provides enough value at that price.
1 Like
I get the concern. Personally, I think a lot of developers are shifting toward these models because they’re looking for new ways to monetize, but charging extra just because someone uses a tool commercially feels like the wrong direction. I’d rather pay for better features or support than for the “right” to make money from my own work.
1 Like
That was kinda my point at the beginning. I’m not sure why the watermark versions are even offered. I can see getting a trial version with limited capabilities, but paying money for two different versions that leaves a watermark is just stupid. It’s either a tool or it isn’t. Is this the only software that does this? Or are there others? This post might be a mountain out of a molehill.
I disagree. Users get an unlimited try-out period before they need to purchase. From a user’s point of view, what’s wrong with that?
Exactly. I would be happy to continue purchasing your app annually as long as you add new features or fix existing issues. There’s no need to pressure me into a subscription; simply provide updates and I’ll keep paying you consistently. Nowadays, developers often take your money, and if you don’t feel the need for an upgrade, suddenly your current version stops working. There’s no other way to view this; it’s sheer abuse and greed.
Because when you decide to purchase, you can’t even use it to make money; that’s why.
I should have mentioned that I was specifically responding to a pricing structure that allows people to use software for free but requires payment for commercial use. I see nothing wrong with that.
A pricing structure that includes a weird $99 beginner option that leaves a watermark — essentially making anything created with it unusable — is another matter. However, I don’t see this as developers “pivoting” on their “ideals.” To me, it’s just a clumsy price point that leaves them open to a bit of ridicule and some head-scratching.
This is a strange thread. Skimming through it, I get the impression that everyone, including me, is misunderstanding what others are saying.
1 Like
me neither
hilarious 
But that is not really consistent annual purchasing. It is conditional you will buy the next version only if the developer adds enough features or fixes that you personally consider worthwhile.
That comes back to economics wants versus needs. A developer cannot build a roadmap around every individual customer’s wish list. They have to judge which changes will benefit enough users to justify the development cost.
In practice, the greatest influence often comes from the largest customers. The conversation may be closer to “We’ll buy 10,000 licences if the software can do these things.” Even then, the person specifying those requirements may be a procurement manager or senior executive rather than someone who uses the software every day.
The company might ask for “automatic design layouts,” but provide little understanding of how designers actually work. The developer then interprets that request, management decides how it should be marketed, and the end user receives a feature they never asked for and may not find useful.
That does not automatically justify subscriptions, but it does explain why perpetual paid upgrades are not as predictable as saying, “Just keep improving it and I’ll keep buying.” Different customers have completely different ideas about what counts as an improvement.
OMG, either buy it and use it.
Or Don’t.
If you don’t subscribe to something you don’t need, and enough other people are of the same mindset, it will eventually shrivel up and die and go away.
5 Likes