# When Software Subscriptions Become Public Policy
Dan Gookin, the original author of the "For Dummies" series and current mayor of Coeur d'Alene, Idaho, has surfaced a problem that extends far beyond publishing. His observation exposes a growing tension in American governance: municipalities and institutions increasingly depend on software they cannot own, control, or easily escape.
The issue begins with economics. Software companies shifted from selling products to renting them. This model generates predictable recurring revenue. It also creates dependency. Once a city government, school district, or hospital embeds Adobe Creative Suite, Microsoft 365, or specialized municipal management systems into daily operations, switching costs explode. Not just the cost of new licenses, but retraining staff, migrating data, and managing downtime.
Gookin's perspective matters because mayors operate at the intersection of budget constraints and constituent needs. When municipal IT budgets face annual pressure, procurement officers negotiate with vendors who know that exit costs are prohibitively high. The vendor holds leverage. Prices rise. Terms tighten. Features requested by citizens may never arrive because the vendor's roadmap serves different markets.
This dynamic crosses into policy territory when subscription software becomes public infrastructure. A city cannot function without payroll systems, property records databases, or permit management platforms. Schools need gradebooks and attendance systems. Courts need case management software. These are no longer nice-to-have conveniences. They are operational necessity. Yet cities and counties lack the bargaining power of Fortune 500 companies. They negotiate individually rather than collectively.
The vendor strategy is deliberate. Lock in institutions early with discounted multi-year contracts. Build integration dependencies that make switching costly. Then raise prices when the customer base has nowhere to go. Enterprise software companies do this because it works. Wall Street rewards predictable subscription revenue. Quarterly earnings matter more than long-term customer relationships.
Several consequences ripple outward. Public sector IT budgets increasingly flow to private companies rather than building internal capacity. This hollows out municipal tech talent. Developers leave for higher-paying private sector jobs. Institutional knowledge evaporates. Cities lose the ability to maintain legacy systems or build custom tools. They become perpetual renters.
The regulatory answer remains underdeveloped. No federal mandate requires vendors to provide source code escrow, data portability, or reasonable exit terms. The European Union's Digital Markets Act targets large tech platforms, but municipal software remains in a gray zone. Some states have begun examining this problem. Washington State passed legislation examining government software spending. Other states are examining open-source alternatives or community procurement models.
Gookin's position as mayor gives him a platform to raise an uncomfortable question for the industry. Public institutions should not be hostage to vendor whims. Yet the current subscription model treats them exactly that way. The "For Dummies" approach to explaining technology once democratized technical knowledge. The same clarity should apply to public sector software procurement. If a city depends on software to serve citizens, that city should have meaningful control over its tools, data, and future.