9 ms·

Whether single-payment lifetime subscription (or what used to be called simply "buying the app") can be a sustainable business model or not in 2019 is an intere

Whether single-payment lifetime subscription (or what used to be called simply "buying the app") can be a sustainable business model or not in 2019 is an interesting topic. But what I want to point out is that revoking something that was once promised to users, ridiculous explanations that the company didn't expect their product to last for so long, and finally deleting comments from their forum is a shitty move that Cerberus should be shamed for. As well as everyone who tries to do the same.

simias 7y ago
The only app I use that offers a lifetime license is the language learning application Memrise, I thought it might make sense for them since I suspect that for most people language learning is a punctual thing: you study for a couple of years and then you either become fluent enough to switch to passive learning or you give up. In this context it might make sense to offer a lifetime license for the cost of, say, 3 years of monthly subscription knowing full well that most people won't use it for that long anyway. So I think lifetime licenses might make good business sense if you know that the service you provide is effectively limited in time by external factors anyway, like for instance a service having to do with young children or education for instance. In this case for Cerebrus it doesn't really add up though, and the justification given by the support is absolutely baffling to me: >Quite frankly we did not think Cerebrus would last that long! Uh, well, kudos for honesty I guess. So what they're saying is that they sold lifetime licenses expecting that they'd never actually have to deal with they because they'd either go under or be acquired before it'd become a problem.
- stevekemp 7y ago
  Having checked my phone the only paid application I have at all, which had a one-off license, was the notification application for pushover.net Honestly I think I spent €3 on it, and I'd happily pay that a year to keep using the service. My automated testing-utility probes about 1000 ping/ssh/http services every 90 seconds, and sends me notificaitons when/if anything fails via that application. Pushover has been absolutely robust and reliable, and although I don't expect instant notification in all circumstances I seem to have received it.
mitchtbaum 7y ago
> But what I want to point out is that revoking something that was once promised to users [with] ridiculous explanations.. How do you back out of a bad promise made in good faith?
- Fjolsvith 7y ago
  Bankruptcy.
- devit 7y ago
  I think declaring bankruptcy is the only legal option in general, although refunding the price paid might be fine as well in some cases. Of course you could also have made a promise with a provision for what happens in case you want to back out (typically with some sort of compensation if appropriate).
- NeedMoreTea 7y ago
  Honour your promises, or [hopefully] die under the weight of lost court cases... A bad promise made in good faith is still going to surely put you in breach of trading contract when you renege?
  - lonelappde 7y ago
    A hundred successful Kickstart frauds for each one that gets punished says no.
  - unreal37 7y ago
    The app was $2.99 so I am not sure there will be any court cases for breach of contract. Just public shame.
- ljm 7y ago
  I don’t think that selling a ‘lifetime’ license is the same as offering lifetime support and bug fixes. Your license would be for a version of the software and I’d expect a year or two of support from that, just as the standard guarantee consumers have when buying physical goods. I don’t think it’d be that controversial to release a new version of the app with a different pricing model while offering a fair upgrade path to existing users. Only this version would be available on the App Store. They can choose not to upgrade and the old app will still work just fine. Keeping the servers up for that would be the cost of doing business. This is more or less what 1Password have done. All their old versions are still usable, you still have the license for an old version because you bought it. Each upgrade is basically an entirely different release that you can subscribe to or pay for. Cerberus have fucked up by pulling the rug from underneath everyone and revoking their licenses, making the software they bought unusable. And as a word to the wise, maybe don’t think about making lifetime or ‘free forever’ promises. They’re totally unrealistic.
stiray 7y ago
I am following simple logic: either there is lifetime license (I dont mind paying more) or I am not buying. What non-lifetime license is saying to me is: "We dont have enough features to develop for the future that would convince you to buy update, so we will charge you over and over again".
- ben-schaaf 7y ago
  I do the same. Promising to update and improve is cheap. Having a continuous revenue stream from your users doesn't bring incentive to update. Losing sales on a new version/year of updates does.
jhart99 7y ago
I bought a "lifetime" subscription to Feedly when they were starting out. Recently, they added a new feature and didn't give the lifetime subscribers access to it, but instead made a new subscription level called Pro+. Technically, our subscriptions continued with the same features as before(minus one or two things which moved up a tier level). It was just frustrating that the first any of us heard about the new level and features was a big blue "upgrade" button on every page. When I just checked, it looks like we are given the option of upgrading our lifetime subscriptions to the new level for an additional $99. Probably worth it, but I think they could have handled it better by giving us some heads up and communicating with people who are arguably the biggest fans if not the people who currently earn them the most money.
- JustSomeNobody 7y ago
  That’s messed up. What’s the point of a lifetime sub if you don’t get the features. I bet that’s how they sold it; that you’d get the new features. Bait and switch laws still a thing?
  - Wowfunhappy 7y ago
    If it's a feature that didn't exist at the time the lifetime sub was purchased, that doesn't seem so bad to me. If they took away existing features, or added annoying upgrade nags to the app, that's a different story.
    - pinkano 7y ago
      Please see the answer above.
    - JustSomeNobody 7y ago
      There’s absolutely no upside for the consumer to buy into the subscription model if they’re not going to receive feature updates. Security patches should be factored into the original cost of the app.
      - 7y ago
TheBobinator 7y ago
It's fraud. The legal way to do this is to go bankrupt, launch app 2.0, and market it under a similar name. They have a ponzi scheme business model, it failed. There's nothing legal about this; you make promises, you sign contracts, you have to live up to them. We, the little insignificant people, have to afterall. The rules for us and them are the same. You do this to a few people you lose your shirt, you do this to thousands or tens of thousands, that accousts the public trust. Management should be in handcuffs and in jail for this. This news site is questionable for calling the business practice "questionable".
- kspacewalk2 7y ago
  The terms of the original licence state that it's revocable. This covers them legally. The issue here is not legality, it's whether it not this is a good business practice (questionable) and good communication with your customers (clearly not).
  - Nrbelex 7y ago
    This is inaccurate. See Section 5(a) of the FTC Act, which provides that “unfair or deceptive acts or practices in or affecting commerce . . . are . . . declared unlawful.” This is an easy case for the FTC and state regulators.
- gremlinsinc 7y ago
  They don't have to go bankrupt. Just sunset Cerberus and launch another app w/ similar features different branding and an easy one-click 'transition' w/ different pricing/etc.
JohnJamesRambo 7y ago
How was it sustainable when we called them programs instead of the current indentured servitude system of subscriptions? Maybe programmers won’t be paid like doctors anymore, but there was a time when it was the only way software was sold and it was a more sane time and the software was of better quality as well.
- benhurmarcel 7y ago
  The price had two digits.
  - endymi0n 7y ago
    Often times, three — without free updates.
- seneca 7y ago
  Software doesn't just run on the users' hardware anymore, generally. Ongoing hosting costs tend to be the argument used to justify subscriptions. In reality it's that it's wildly lucrative, but hosting costs play some part.
  - jacquesm 7y ago
    I'm pretty happy running the software on my own, bought and paid for hardware.
  - stiray 7y ago
    Good that you have mentioned, I have almost forgot. I will never ever pay a dime for the software, that is running on a 3rd party servers. At the moment I havent found any software that I would need (or doesnt have an self hosted alternative) and needs 3 party server interaction. There are multiple reasons for that but primary two, that are history proven are: - I dont trust you - I REALLY, REALLY DONT trust you Credentials storage? Any data storage? Yeah right, I have my own server and dont have time to reverse and check your code each update (but I did on first use). Immediately when you dont support self hosting of my data, you have lost a potential customer, regardless how "good" your application is (typically in this case, it is far from good, developer lacks the knowlidge of how to do it without some major lasigna code on server side or is predatory). All of application that I have bought are running on complete lockdown from any server (including firebase and other unneeded services) that is not mine. And countless times it was proven as a very good practice.
Razengan 7y ago
I actually stopped using apps which went from paid to subscription, like Ulysses and Gemini. In some cases, doing so actually helped me find better and sometimes even free alternatives that I can theoretically count on practically forever (e.g. Quiver and good old TextEdit+Git as Ulysses' replacement.) Why? I just find it offensive and predatory. If vastly more complex products of Pixelmator/Affinity's quality can remain on a pay-once model, then a goddamn text editor can too. Don't give me your pity post about how not switching to a monthly subscription will cause children on the moon to starve etc. It feels like a thin veil upon what often just seems like basic greed. An optional yearly upgrade model (a major version jump) is also fine, and has been the most common case throughout computing history. I would even be fine with IAPs presented as completely optional donations. In fact, pay-once + donate-if-you-want would be my preferred model for things like Pixelmator that are still providing free updates for years after my initial purchase. I'd love to effectively repurchase many times over to support something that I appreciate and use regularly, but at my own pace please, without ever having to worry about being locked out.
- masklinn 7y ago
  > I actually stopped using apps which went from paid to subscription, like Ulysses and Gemini. In some cases, doing so actually helped me find better, free alternatives that I can theoretically count on practically forever. Seems to me "I don't pay for it at all" would be the exact opposite of "count on practically forever". > If vastly more complex products of Pixelmator/Affinity's quality can remain on a pay-once model Unless they can keep expanding their userbase forever, they can't and don't over the long term (though a relatively high initial price helps there). Historically this sort of software has relied on "major version" sales to keep revenue flowing e.g. you'd buy version 2, then would buy version 3 for a reduced price, there would be churn (and buying version 2 would entitle you to using it forever) but there's a point at which continuous work requires continuous pay. Many software houses have switched to subscriptions not because that's fun, but because upgrade pricing was not an option (AFAIK it's available from neither Apple nor Google) and "pay once" is not a sustainable model. > An optional yearly upgrade model (a major version jump) is also fine. That's a good model, but AFAIK no appstore caters to it. You can do either subscriptions or "only get money once", the latter only works for software which is essentially not maintained like video games (and even that's not really the case anymore).
warent 7y ago
Not just shamed but also punished by law. This needs to be taken before a judge. They're violating the terms of their own agreement in the name of greed and trying to pass the blame on their own customers. What a gross business. I've never used them before and now know for certain that I never will.
14 7y ago
So much flack could of been avoided with a more sincere explanation and apology. Tell you customers you meant well but made mistakes. Ongoing costs are higher than anticipated and the business model is failing. Apologize again. Then give a grace period so people are not caught off guard with short notice. Furthermore give existing customers some added value not make them pay the same as new customers. Give them expedited customer support or a premium feature for free. Something. Lastly thank the customers for their time and state you understand if they choose another provider. At least then I would feel the people running the business are partly human hopefully doing their best.
drewstiff 7y ago
This isn't even the first time they have done this. 2015: https://www.droid-life.com/2015/09/03/cerberus-free-lifetime-licenses-forget-what-lifetime-means-company-now-wants-you-to-pay/ https://www.droid-life.com/2015/09/03/cerberus-free-lifetime...

simias 7y ago

The only app I use that offers a lifetime license is the language learning application Memrise, I thought it might make sense for them since I suspect that for most people language learning is a punctual thing: you study for a couple of years and then you either become fluent enough to switch to passive learning or you give up. In this context it might make sense to offer a lifetime license for the cost of, say, 3 years of monthly subscription knowing full well that most people won't use it for that long anyway. So I think lifetime licenses might make good business sense if you know that the service you provide is effectively limited in time by external factors anyway, like for instance a service having to do with young children or education for instance. In this case for Cerebrus it doesn't really add up though, and the justification given by the support is absolutely baffling to me: >Quite frankly we did not think Cerebrus would last that long! Uh, well, kudos for honesty I guess. So what they're saying is that they sold lifetime licenses expecting that they'd never actually have to deal with they because they'd either go under or be acquired before it'd become a problem.

stevekemp 7y ago
Having checked my phone the only paid application I have at all, which had a one-off license, was the notification application for pushover.net Honestly I think I spent €3 on it, and I'd happily pay that a year to keep using the service. My automated testing-utility probes about 1000 ping/ssh/http services every 90 seconds, and sends me notificaitons when/if anything fails via that application. Pushover has been absolutely robust and reliable, and although I don't expect instant notification in all circumstances I seem to have received it.

mitchtbaum 7y ago

> But what I want to point out is that revoking something that was once promised to users [with] ridiculous explanations.. How do you back out of a bad promise made in good faith?

Fjolsvith 7y ago
Bankruptcy.
devit 7y ago
I think declaring bankruptcy is the only legal option in general, although refunding the price paid might be fine as well in some cases. Of course you could also have made a promise with a provision for what happens in case you want to back out (typically with some sort of compensation if appropriate).
NeedMoreTea 7y ago
Honour your promises, or [hopefully] die under the weight of lost court cases... A bad promise made in good faith is still going to surely put you in breach of trading contract when you renege?
- lonelappde 7y ago
  A hundred successful Kickstart frauds for each one that gets punished says no.
- unreal37 7y ago
  The app was $2.99 so I am not sure there will be any court cases for breach of contract. Just public shame.
ljm 7y ago
I don’t think that selling a ‘lifetime’ license is the same as offering lifetime support and bug fixes. Your license would be for a version of the software and I’d expect a year or two of support from that, just as the standard guarantee consumers have when buying physical goods. I don’t think it’d be that controversial to release a new version of the app with a different pricing model while offering a fair upgrade path to existing users. Only this version would be available on the App Store. They can choose not to upgrade and the old app will still work just fine. Keeping the servers up for that would be the cost of doing business. This is more or less what 1Password have done. All their old versions are still usable, you still have the license for an old version because you bought it. Each upgrade is basically an entirely different release that you can subscribe to or pay for. Cerberus have fucked up by pulling the rug from underneath everyone and revoking their licenses, making the software they bought unusable. And as a word to the wise, maybe don’t think about making lifetime or ‘free forever’ promises. They’re totally unrealistic.

stiray 7y ago

I am following simple logic: either there is lifetime license (I dont mind paying more) or I am not buying. What non-lifetime license is saying to me is: "We dont have enough features to develop for the future that would convince you to buy update, so we will charge you over and over again".

ben-schaaf 7y ago
I do the same. Promising to update and improve is cheap. Having a continuous revenue stream from your users doesn't bring incentive to update. Losing sales on a new version/year of updates does.

jhart99 7y ago

I bought a "lifetime" subscription to Feedly when they were starting out. Recently, they added a new feature and didn't give the lifetime subscribers access to it, but instead made a new subscription level called Pro+. Technically, our subscriptions continued with the same features as before(minus one or two things which moved up a tier level). It was just frustrating that the first any of us heard about the new level and features was a big blue "upgrade" button on every page. When I just checked, it looks like we are given the option of upgrading our lifetime subscriptions to the new level for an additional $99. Probably worth it, but I think they could have handled it better by giving us some heads up and communicating with people who are arguably the biggest fans if not the people who currently earn them the most money.

JustSomeNobody 7y ago
That’s messed up. What’s the point of a lifetime sub if you don’t get the features. I bet that’s how they sold it; that you’d get the new features. Bait and switch laws still a thing?
- Wowfunhappy 7y ago
  If it's a feature that didn't exist at the time the lifetime sub was purchased, that doesn't seem so bad to me. If they took away existing features, or added annoying upgrade nags to the app, that's a different story.
  - pinkano 7y ago
    Please see the answer above.
  - JustSomeNobody 7y ago
    There’s absolutely no upside for the consumer to buy into the subscription model if they’re not going to receive feature updates. Security patches should be factored into the original cost of the app.
    - 7y ago

TheBobinator 7y ago

It's fraud. The legal way to do this is to go bankrupt, launch app 2.0, and market it under a similar name. They have a ponzi scheme business model, it failed. There's nothing legal about this; you make promises, you sign contracts, you have to live up to them. We, the little insignificant people, have to afterall. The rules for us and them are the same. You do this to a few people you lose your shirt, you do this to thousands or tens of thousands, that accousts the public trust. Management should be in handcuffs and in jail for this. This news site is questionable for calling the business practice "questionable".

kspacewalk2 7y ago
The terms of the original licence state that it's revocable. This covers them legally. The issue here is not legality, it's whether it not this is a good business practice (questionable) and good communication with your customers (clearly not).
- Nrbelex 7y ago
  This is inaccurate. See Section 5(a) of the FTC Act, which provides that “unfair or deceptive acts or practices in or affecting commerce . . . are . . . declared unlawful.” This is an easy case for the FTC and state regulators.
gremlinsinc 7y ago
They don't have to go bankrupt. Just sunset Cerberus and launch another app w/ similar features different branding and an easy one-click 'transition' w/ different pricing/etc.

JohnJamesRambo 7y ago

How was it sustainable when we called them programs instead of the current indentured servitude system of subscriptions? Maybe programmers won’t be paid like doctors anymore, but there was a time when it was the only way software was sold and it was a more sane time and the software was of better quality as well.

benhurmarcel 7y ago
The price had two digits.
- endymi0n 7y ago
  Often times, three — without free updates.
seneca 7y ago
Software doesn't just run on the users' hardware anymore, generally. Ongoing hosting costs tend to be the argument used to justify subscriptions. In reality it's that it's wildly lucrative, but hosting costs play some part.
- jacquesm 7y ago
  I'm pretty happy running the software on my own, bought and paid for hardware.
- stiray 7y ago
  Good that you have mentioned, I have almost forgot. I will never ever pay a dime for the software, that is running on a 3rd party servers. At the moment I havent found any software that I would need (or doesnt have an self hosted alternative) and needs 3 party server interaction. There are multiple reasons for that but primary two, that are history proven are: - I dont trust you - I REALLY, REALLY DONT trust you Credentials storage? Any data storage? Yeah right, I have my own server and dont have time to reverse and check your code each update (but I did on first use). Immediately when you dont support self hosting of my data, you have lost a potential customer, regardless how "good" your application is (typically in this case, it is far from good, developer lacks the knowlidge of how to do it without some major lasigna code on server side or is predatory). All of application that I have bought are running on complete lockdown from any server (including firebase and other unneeded services) that is not mine. And countless times it was proven as a very good practice.

Razengan 7y ago

I actually stopped using apps which went from paid to subscription, like Ulysses and Gemini. In some cases, doing so actually helped me find better and sometimes even free alternatives that I can theoretically count on practically forever (e.g. Quiver and good old TextEdit+Git as Ulysses' replacement.) Why? I just find it offensive and predatory. If vastly more complex products of Pixelmator/Affinity's quality can remain on a pay-once model, then a goddamn text editor can too. Don't give me your pity post about how not switching to a monthly subscription will cause children on the moon to starve etc. It feels like a thin veil upon what often just seems like basic greed. An optional yearly upgrade model (a major version jump) is also fine, and has been the most common case throughout computing history. I would even be fine with IAPs presented as completely optional donations. In fact, pay-once + donate-if-you-want would be my preferred model for things like Pixelmator that are still providing free updates for years after my initial purchase. I'd love to effectively repurchase many times over to support something that I appreciate and use regularly, but at my own pace please, without ever having to worry about being locked out.

masklinn 7y ago
> I actually stopped using apps which went from paid to subscription, like Ulysses and Gemini. In some cases, doing so actually helped me find better, free alternatives that I can theoretically count on practically forever. Seems to me "I don't pay for it at all" would be the exact opposite of "count on practically forever". > If vastly more complex products of Pixelmator/Affinity's quality can remain on a pay-once model Unless they can keep expanding their userbase forever, they can't and don't over the long term (though a relatively high initial price helps there). Historically this sort of software has relied on "major version" sales to keep revenue flowing e.g. you'd buy version 2, then would buy version 3 for a reduced price, there would be churn (and buying version 2 would entitle you to using it forever) but there's a point at which continuous work requires continuous pay. Many software houses have switched to subscriptions not because that's fun, but because upgrade pricing was not an option (AFAIK it's available from neither Apple nor Google) and "pay once" is not a sustainable model. > An optional yearly upgrade model (a major version jump) is also fine. That's a good model, but AFAIK no appstore caters to it. You can do either subscriptions or "only get money once", the latter only works for software which is essentially not maintained like video games (and even that's not really the case anymore).

warent 7y ago

Not just shamed but also punished by law. This needs to be taken before a judge. They're violating the terms of their own agreement in the name of greed and trying to pass the blame on their own customers. What a gross business. I've never used them before and now know for certain that I never will.

14 7y ago

So much flack could of been avoided with a more sincere explanation and apology. Tell you customers you meant well but made mistakes. Ongoing costs are higher than anticipated and the business model is failing. Apologize again. Then give a grace period so people are not caught off guard with short notice. Furthermore give existing customers some added value not make them pay the same as new customers. Give them expedited customer support or a premium feature for free. Something. Lastly thank the customers for their time and state you understand if they choose another provider. At least then I would feel the people running the business are partly human hopefully doing their best.

drewstiff 7y ago

This isn't even the first time they have done this. 2015: https://www.droid-life.com/2015/09/03/cerberus-free-lifetime-licenses-forget-what-lifetime-means-company-now-wants-you-to-pay/ https://www.droid-life.com/2015/09/03/cerberus-free-lifetime...