The company behind the disk space analyser TreeSize has irked some users by no longer offering support or updates for perpetual licenses beyond their maintenance period unless customers subscribe. Further frustration has come from JAM Software’s long-standing policy of not providing license keys or installers to TreeSize perpetual license holders after that support period ends.

Since 2025, JAM Software has been transitioning most TreeSize editions to subscription models. Today, it sells perpetual licenses only for personal use, which include 12 months of updates, support, and “downloads of older versions, and your license,” plus the option to extend the support period. TreeSize currently has “no plans to discontinue the sale of perpetual licenses for TreeSize Personal,” product manager Hendrik Christ told Ars Technica.

As perpetual-license maintenance periods expire, customers are discovering that extending support now generally requires subscribing to software they already own the right to use.

On Reddit, a user shared an email informing them that support for their perpetual license ends in September, after which they will lose access to updates and support because those “are only available in the subscription.”

Christ said that considering the “current economic conditions,” the change was “necessary to keep developing and supporting TreeSize reliably over the long term.”

One of the biggest criticisms is that JAM Software will not provide backup installation files or license keys to customers with unsupported licenses. TreeSize’s email urged the user to make backups.

“Honestly, it feels quite low to strip paying customers of the ability to simply download the installer for a software version they already paid for,” the Reddit user said.

But even before it sold TreeSize subscriptions, JAM Software didn’t permanently retain every installation file and key after a customer’s support period ended, Christ said. This is because “older software versions can contain known bugs or even security vulnerabilities,” he said, adding:

As organisations scale across SaaS, public cloud and AI, ITAM teams are being asked to do more than track assets: They’re expected to restore visibility, prove value and govern environments that are growing faster than policy can keep up.

Based on a global survey of 512 professionals, Flexera’s 2026 State of ITAM Report shows clear progress. But complexity continues to outpace control.

After 5+ years of Flexera’s State of ITAM report, one thing’s clear: there’s no shortage of daily challenges faced by ITAM teams. Business units now buy applications directly. Teams experiment with unsanctioned AI tools. Free trials turn into paid subscriptions. All while overlapping apps stack up across departments. All of this rolls up under SaaS sprawl.

SaaS sprawl isn’t about having too many tools. It’s about losing control over:

Most businesses believe they are well-prepared to face cyberattacks, but the number of successful breaches in the last year alone paints a different picture.

Last week, NordLayer released a new report, called “Why Browser Security Can’t Wait: Web-based Threat Report 2026.” In it, the company states that while 73% of organisations claim to be prepared for web-based attacks and are confident in their solutions, 82% experienced some form of web-based attack.

The paper is based on an analysis of 504 “highest rated and most reviewed work applications”, an analysis of data stolen from various info-stealers, and a survey of 405 US cybersecurity and IT professionals.

NordLayer stresses that coverage is “modest and uneven”, with data loss prevention tools (DLP) leading at just 53%, followed by other security controls. Nearly all IT professionals reported that their organisations are concerned about web-based threats (98%), and most expect escalation. In fact, 81% expect greater sophistication and 73% believe there will be more incidents in the coming years.

“There’s a clear gap between recognising the threat and knowing how to address it,” says Buinovskis. “Concern is high, but awareness of which controls actually solve browser-specific risks is low. Much of the initial confidence most likely comes from having general security controls in place, yet they rarely adequately cover risks in the browser.”

The researchers also stressed that 100% of the tested applications were browser-accessible, and almost four in five (78.8%) were browser-only. At the same time, malware was able to harvest 1.8 million credentials and 68.8 billion cookies last year.

“Hackers don’t hack anymore, they just log in,” says Buinovskis. “Stolen cookies and credentials grant immediate access without raising alarm bells — a login looks legitimate. It’s low risk, high reward, and as reliance on web-based SaaS grows, so does the value of stolen data. Attackers will keep exploiting this until organisations secure the browser as a critical boundary.”

Does your AI agent count as an employee?

At a recent conference, Microsoft executive Rajesh Jha floated a provocative idea. In a future where companies deploy fleets of AI agents, those agents may need their own identities — logins, inboxes, and even seats inside software systems. If so, AI wouldn’t shrink software revenue. It could expand it.

“All of those embodied agents are seat opportunities,” Jha said, envisioning organisations with more agents than humans — each effectively a user that must pay for a software license, or “seat” in industry lingo.

That’s a radical twist in the SaaS pricing debate rattling companies like Microsoft, Salesforce, and Workday. Investors worry AI could hollow out seat-based pricing, the backbone of enterprise software. If one human can manage dozens of agents, why pay for dozens of licenses?

Jha’s answer: because those agents are the new users. A company with 20 employees might buy 20 Microsoft 365 licenses today. If each employee gets five AI agents, and the workforce shrinks to 10 people, that could still mean 50 paid seats.

Not everyone buys it.

Nenad Milicevic, a partner at AlixPartners, sees the opposite. AI agents will reduce the number of humans interacting with software, slashing licenses. Instead of 20 employees, you might have one person overseeing a handful of agents. That shift would pressure vendors and empower customers to push back on pricing that no longer makes sense.

Milicevic argues the winners will be open platforms. Companies could charge extra for machine-based access, but risk losing customers to software rivals that let agents operate freely.

Which brings us back to the core tension: if AI agents are just extensions of you, charging extra feels like double billing. If they’re autonomous workers, paying for them may be inevitable.

The answer could define the next decade of software economics.