This article is committing a fallacy. The idea, that "decision makers" everywhere have: that there is anything at all that you can buy. It's not true. Even if you buy a stone, with the expectation that you can keep that stone ... requires constant payments for space to store it. Ownership, in the sense of owning something forever without further cost, doesn't exist.
And the more obvious it is, the more people fight it. A car requires constant maintenance, tax, and work, and so does a house. You don't own them, and if you don't pay ongoing costs, eventually in most locations the government will either force you to sell or even pay for the destruction of your own property.
But somehow making software must allow any idea to just be built once and then keep working, never to be touched again. Right back to ownership absolutism. I have built software in the beginning of my career that's still running, after 30+ years now. But most often, I find I have trouble convincing managers that they will be needing computers (whether onsite, colo or cloud) to run that solution if they expect it to do anything, never mind the occasional bugfix and/or system administration.
And the more obvious it is, the more people fight it. A car requires constant maintenance, tax, and work, and so does a house. You don't own them, and if you don't pay ongoing costs, eventually in most locations the government will either force you to sell or even pay for the destruction of your own property.
But somehow making software must allow any idea to just be built once and then keep working, never to be touched again. Right back to ownership absolutism. I have built software in the beginning of my career that's still running, after 30+ years now. But most often, I find I have trouble convincing managers that they will be needing computers (whether onsite, colo or cloud) to run that solution if they expect it to do anything, never mind the occasional bugfix and/or system administration.