5 ms·

Yes, although the new system might require some non-trivial changes to the software, e.g. new OS version is very different from the old version. That should hav

Yes, although the new system might require some non-trivial changes to the software, e.g. new OS version is very different from the old version. That should have been covered in software requirements section. Also, the software distributors are not obliged to _distribute_ the old software versions, just like car manufacturers don't distribute or support an old car models, even though owner have "lifetime license" to use the car.

ghaff 4y ago
It's one thing to be allowed to run the old version (and in general you should be allowed to transfer software to a new system--so there should be some mechanism to do so). It's another for the software to work when it gets there. A lot of Mac software was broken by the, I think, Mojave transition, and I wouldn't expect a software vendor to make changes to an old version of software so it would run. >car manufacturers don't distribute or support an old car models Car manufacturers do support old models up to a point. (Parts, recalls, etc.) But analogies to software are imperfect anyway.
- bruce511 4y ago
  You are completely right - software should be transferable from one machine to another (and usually is). It pretty much only works though if you assume your customer is honest, and don't spend too much time fighting it. Which means yes, some dishonest customers will buy once and use on multiple machines. If you go the other way - assume the customer is dishonest - then you need "transfer checking" which in turn means external servers (at best) or staff (at worst). But a model where you get one-time revenue, but monthly-reoccurring cost (for life no less) is not sustainable. Reoccurring revenue to match reoccurring cost is sustainable - hence subscriptions are popular with products that have reoccurring cost (development, support etc.) Version upgrades were popular, but that is an "optional subscription" which works only as long as you keep adding things existing customers actually want. This was masked behind new sales, but once there's some market saturation this becomes a bigger problem. Lifetime licenses should only apply to software that will be completely abandoned when sales dry up. Which means no online infrastructure etc. I've seen other "lifetime" products "change name" to side-step the lifetime free upgrades license, and it leaves a very sour taste with customers.

ghaff 4y ago

It's one thing to be allowed to run the old version (and in general you should be allowed to transfer software to a new system--so there should be some mechanism to do so). It's another for the software to work when it gets there. A lot of Mac software was broken by the, I think, Mojave transition, and I wouldn't expect a software vendor to make changes to an old version of software so it would run. >car manufacturers don't distribute or support an old car models Car manufacturers do support old models up to a point. (Parts, recalls, etc.) But analogies to software are imperfect anyway.

bruce511 4y ago
You are completely right - software should be transferable from one machine to another (and usually is). It pretty much only works though if you assume your customer is honest, and don't spend too much time fighting it. Which means yes, some dishonest customers will buy once and use on multiple machines. If you go the other way - assume the customer is dishonest - then you need "transfer checking" which in turn means external servers (at best) or staff (at worst). But a model where you get one-time revenue, but monthly-reoccurring cost (for life no less) is not sustainable. Reoccurring revenue to match reoccurring cost is sustainable - hence subscriptions are popular with products that have reoccurring cost (development, support etc.) Version upgrades were popular, but that is an "optional subscription" which works only as long as you keep adding things existing customers actually want. This was masked behind new sales, but once there's some market saturation this becomes a bigger problem. Lifetime licenses should only apply to software that will be completely abandoned when sales dry up. Which means no online infrastructure etc. I've seen other "lifetime" products "change name" to side-step the lifetime free upgrades license, and it leaves a very sour taste with customers.