11 ms·

I just want to state outright that OP was wronged, and I side with them. That being said; I dislike both full subscription (i.e. breaks on expiration) and life

I just want to state outright that OP was wronged, and I side with them. That being said; I dislike both full subscription (i.e. breaks on expiration) and lifetime licenses. Subscriptions are too expensive for software that rarely gets major investment and lifetime licenses are dishonest (e.g. company cannot work for free, so their funded is based on unlimited growth, which isn't realistic for most). My current favorite business model is the "You're buying the current version and [years] of updates." Then typically you'll get some discount to renew your "[years] more of updates." This incentivizes them to deliver value, or you'll just stick with whatever version you purchased. Your software keeps working no matter what ("lifetime"). One example of someone who does this well is Jetbrains, but there are several companies. Obviously subscription is the only option if they're delivering most of the value via a web-service of some kind (e.g. ChatGPT Plus).

lkschubert8 4y ago
Isn't pay per usage viable for value via web or does that fall under subscription? I tend to think of subscription as a monthly/annual payment for access.
- Retric 4y ago
  Pay per use has terrible incentives for pure software. It’s more reasonable if there’s an end product at the end. But you don’t want to discourage people using your 3D printing service because your bundling software access that people might not need.
notwhereyouare 4y ago
that's how the audible ripper I use works. I buy 1 version and get updates for a year and then i'm stuck at that specific version
- stronglikedan 4y ago
  And one of my favorite pieces of software, Sublime Text.
  - rchaud 4y ago
    Sublime Text is like the modern equivalent of the WinZip 60-day trial.
- Avamander 4y ago
  Jetbrains/IntelliJ does the same. It's great.
toastal 4y ago
Can I pay to get extra years of software updates on Android yet? The 2-year support thing is awful.
- xeromal 4y ago
  That's more of a manufacturer choice. The pixel and top-tier samsung lines both get 6 years of security updates
  - dsr_ 4y ago
    So, in a sense, yes: pay by buying the right phone at the beginning, but it's not available otherwise.
    - blagie 4y ago
      The problem is it's not clearly advertised. Apple has had the longest support life historically, but I most recently bought an Android, since Apple does not commit to any particular timeline forward-looking. Most of the other vendors also don't clearly indicate how long a new device will be supported for.
  - mindslight 4y ago
    Six years of updates is also too short, in my book. PCs regularly last for over a decade.
  - philistine 4y ago
    Security updates is carrying a lot of weight here. People are probably expecting feature updates, which is still not a guarantee.
    - xeromal 4y ago
      I believe feature updates are for 3 years or 2 generations.
    - toastal 4y ago
krisoft 4y ago
I see your point, and I largely agree with you. One trickynes is with the "This incentivizes them to deliver value" part. The problem is that if the software just "works" and there are no compelling new features the user will quite rationally stop buying new updates. Which incentivises the developer to make sure that either the software never really "just works" or that they hype up new features to create FOMO. They will probably do both. I guess they could also let go a portion of their developers and keep a skeleton crew around to maintain the product at current But that is not a realistic prospect for many reasons. People talked about this regarding Photoshop. They said the new features are cool, but far from necessary, which made users stick with "old" but perfectly fine versions. The rumour was that that forced Adobe to change to a subscription model. But of course I don't have any first hand knowledge so it might be false.
- cesarb 4y ago
  > Which incentivises the developer to make sure that either the software never really "just works" or that they hype up new features to create FOMO. Nowadays, there's also the security scare. If you don't immediately update to the latest and greatest release, hackers will invade your system, destroy your data, and eat all the food on your fridge.
  - XCSme 4y ago
    When in truth, I think most security issues are created when a newly released, non-safe version reaches the public. Also, I think it's safe to assume that any system can be compromised at some point in one way or another, the best way is to focus on backups, monitoring and alerting.
- TeMPOraL 4y ago
  Perhaps a good case study here is/will be Affinity. They produce graphics software competing directly with Photoshop, Illustrator and InDesign, and their core differentiator is that they don't do subscriptions - you pay up front, and get a regular, perpetual license in return. Few months ago, they released version 2 of their software suite. There are some new features and a host of UI and performance improvements, but otherwise, the software is substantially the same as version 1. It would be interesting to learn what their current breakdown of {new users, users who upgraded to v2, users who stuck to v1} is. Myself, I upgraded only Affinity Photo to v2, because I wanted to play with non-destructive workflow that's enabled by some of the new features. I studied their product page extensively, and couldn't find anything else particularly compelling, at least not for my limited (and non-professional) use cases. v1 is still a fine product. (OK, I admit, 50% of the reason I upgraded, and 100% of the reason I bought the whole v1 suite in the first place, is because it's nice to do business with someone who isn't abusing their customers with subscriptions for a change.)
KingOfCoders 4y ago
Perhaps the biggest reason for me for the lifetime license (I also have a Leanpub one) is to have less invoices [0] - the reason I also prefer 12month subscription options. One thing I hate about being a freelancer is grabbing all invoices for my accountant. [0] Also everyone please name the invoice file YYMMDD-<company>-<no>.pdf ;-) and send them via email, don't make me log in
- JohnFen 4y ago
  Personally, I avoid all those invoices by refusing to "subscribe" to software. If I can't just buy it, I don't.
weinzierl 4y ago
> My current favorite business model is the "You're buying the current version and [years] of updates." Then typically you'll get some discount to renew your "[years] more of updates." Fully agree, I think this fair for the customer as well as the supplier. I know enterprise customers demand guarantees for [years] of updates, but I think in the B2C world "You're buying the current version and updates as long as we provide them." is also a fair alternative. A good example for this kind of offering is the Reaper DAW. This model is not as good for the customer as your version but as an indy developer I'd rather not promise [years] of support even if it is highly likely that I will provide it.
- JohnFen 4y ago
  > This model is not as good for the customer as your version I don't know. I think that model is better for the customer.
dceddia 4y ago
From the developer side I feel like this type of license makes the most sense to me too. After selling a desktop app with a license like that for a little while though, I’ve also unfortunately realized that not everyone understands it. I had a number of customers referring to it as a “subscription” (which it wasn’t, because it didn’t auto-renew and you could keep using the last version forever) or “lifetime” (which it wasn’t, because the updates were a paid option after a year). Plus it’s hard to adequately explain how it works in few words. For better or worse I think the majority of people understand 2 buckets: “subscription” and “lifetime”. So I went back to selling a lifetime license, with a caveat that any new features that incur ongoing costs might need to be an optional add-on subscription/pay-as-you-go/etc plan to cover those costs.
- asddubs 4y ago
  I think the easiest way to communicate it is to just regularly increment your version number and then have people be able to buy version X. Like Photoshop, and really most software used to be sold.
  - SturgeonsLaw 4y ago
    Right! Has it really been that long since this was the status quo?! There was a time when it was expected that you bought a copy of Widgetmaker 2, and you could use it for as long as you liked, there might be some patches, there might not, but you own (or something close to it) the software and can use it whenever you want. When Widgetmaker 3 comes out, it's a new product with new features, and you'd have to buy it separately if you want the new goodies. Simple. It worked well enough to build behemoths like 1990's Microsoft. There are some companies that claim to offer this, but are very sneaky in their approach (NitroPDF is one I'm familiar with), they will offer a one-off purchase, but after a release or two, will no longer provide downloads for your version's installer, and in some cases won't activate it if you reinstall using your own copy of the installation media. Bring back the days of installing your software, typing in your product key, then using it for as long as you wish.
    - 4y ago
ejb999 4y ago
+1 for naming jetbrains - I have always liked their way of doing business, including the substantial discount to renew each year - even in years when I don't use their tools much, I renew. Also specifically like how they remind me many times, and many months in advance that they are going to charge my credit card on my renewal date - unlike the scumbag companies that never want to draw attention to your upcoming renewal, so you don't have a chance to think about not renewing - and then they make it difficult to get a refund. Jetbrains has earned my loyalty - other companies could learn something from them.
- corndoge 4y ago
  The key for getting a refund is to not deal with the company at all but rather initiate a credit card chargeback.
  - innocenat 4y ago
    In many countries, chargeback require proof that you did not receive the service. Which make chargeback nearly impossible outside of outright scam.
  - eps 4y ago
    Chargebacks can be challenged and challanges can be won by the merchants, in which case you will end up with an attempted fraud on your bank record.
    - corndoge 4y ago
      I'm not going to expend effort arguing with this, I just want anyone reading it to know that it's completely untrue
      - eps 4y ago
        Thanks for the laugh.
  - Shish2k 4y ago
dahart 4y ago
> lifetime licenses are dishonest (e.g. company cannot work for free, so their funded is based on unlimited growth, which isn't realistic for most). I don’t really know what you mean by “dishonest”, that seems like a slightly hyperbolic word here. If someone pays for a lifetime license the company isn’t working for free nor necessarily assuming unlimited growth, they just have to understand and correctly price the average value of their contract, and there are many established successful businesses doing exactly already. And it’s common to price the lifetime license below the predicted average total costs, because money in the bank today is more valuable than later (it’s an investment, and the money can be used as such.) If there’s something I really know I’m going to use for years, and I can get a discount by paying up front, I’m totally in favor of doing so when it’ll cost me less and support the company as well.
- crazygringo 4y ago
  I'd say it's dishonest in the sense that a company knows the probabilities are such that they can't actually ever truly support a lifetime license, so it's a lie from the start. At the end of the day, companies usually go out of business or else sell themselves to another company within a certain number of years. And a new company (like in this case) may change their mind about lifetime licenses, because it's a totally different set of owners with different priorities. "Everybody" knows this, but company management knows it even more than consumers, hence the dishonesty. As a rule of thumb for consumers, anything supposedly perpeutal or "lifetime" for consumers in the business world is probably not even going to last 10 years. It's effectively always a lie.
  - dahart 4y ago
    Ugh, please don’t make it worse and escalate to “lie”. You’re blaming the wrong source, and have it backwards IMO. The previous owners weren’t lying, the new owners are the ones to blame for breaking a pre-existing contract with the company. Breaking this contract might not be legal, and in that sense they may be only the ones lying.
    - crazygringo 4y ago
annoyingnoob 4y ago
A perpetual license does not have to come with perpetual updates, it just has to keep working as-is. Seems completely reasonable, want the new version or updates then buy them.
- mnw21cam 4y ago
  The problem with that is security bugs.
  - JohnFen 4y ago
    Traditionally, security updates had always been free. There's no reason why that can't be the case again. The problem is that the industry has largely decided to combine security and feature updates into an inseparable whole, which I think is a bad thing both from the customer's point of view and from a security point of view.
    - rowanG077 4y ago
      It's simply economically impossible to keep providing an every growing n versions of a software with security updates.
sidewndr46 4y ago
I think you're out of your mind if you don't think a lifetime license is practical. The default license for almost everything, including software, is lifetime. I do not pay Ford an annual fee to advance the timing of the ignition sequence when I need to accelerate into traffic. I do not renew a subscription for the thermostat on my wall every winter when I need to put it in heating mode. When I was young, I bought a license for Epic pinball from then Epic MegaGames. I still have a license to that & can still enjoy it.
- maushu 4y ago
  The difference with your Ford car is that no one is changing how the roads work every year. Compared with other areas IT is really unstable.
dwighttk 4y ago
I just want to buy it and use it until I need to upgrade… if I’m issuing it I’ll usually upgrade every major update, but a subscription happens every 12 months (or whatever) no matter what… I can’t say “I’ll update next month when I have some money set aside” and forgo the amazing new features for a month… or I’m not really using this very often and the new features look non-compelling so I’ll just keep this version for the quarterly use I’m getting out of it. Agree on services but not if it is merely a service to justify a subscription
roland35 4y ago
I think there is plenty of room for lifetime licenses. In fact pretty much any video game works this way! I bought Zelda from Nintendo a few years ago, and Nintendo is not making any money from that purchase any more. But they instead make a new game, which I'll buy, and the cycle continues...
mschuster91 4y ago
> That being said; I dislike both full subscription (i.e. breaks on expiration) and lifetime licenses. Subscriptions are too expensive for software that rarely gets major investment and lifetime licenses are dishonest (e.g. company cannot work for free, so their funded is based on unlimited growth, which isn't realistic for most). There's two "lifetime" models, as you noted: 1. the good old way, provide someone an installer and a license key valid for this version and optionally older versions and N years of patches. Adobe used to do this with the Creative Suite, Microsoft did it for Office and does it for Windows, Atlassian does so for their datacenter and not-yet-expired self-hosting licenses and JetBrains does it for their IDEs as well. 2. "lifetime" as in "buy once, get upgrades in perpetuity". That one entirely depends on the business model of the developer. If it's just some hobbyist developing a piece of software because they want to solve a problem they have (e.g. Hyperswitch, SizeUp for Mac) or open-source developers, that's just fine - they do the work anyway for themselves but get a ton of coffee. If it's something MANY MANY MANY people want but the maintenance effort is low, something like the Slysoft/Redfox suite of DRM removal tooling, it can work out as well. The critical thing is something that needs a ton of ongoing maintenance... and most of these fail spectacularly or do rug pulls on their users.
ensignavenger 4y ago
Providing a benefit for a lifetime is something that companies do every day. The financial world calls such products a "perpetuity". (Or in some cases, an "annuity" because your life is not expected to last into perpetuity, but for a certain number of years.) It is not difficult to calculate the net present value of such products so that you can charge the correct price. It is incompetent management that gets into these situations. The correct response from consumers is to file a small claims suit for a refund. And/Or apparently to blast to company loudly on social media :)
withinboredom 4y ago
You’re assuming a customer will never churn. Customers churn, and if I can get you to pay me a “lifetime” purchase that is more than I’d expect; then I come out ahead. There is a ceiling with subscription purchases (provable with simple math: new customers * churn percentage * subscription cost = new money ceiling) but no theoretical ceiling with one-off purchases — it’s only limited by your marketing reach and funnel.
MSFT_Edging 4y ago
I honestly don't mind the "buy current version" as long as the company doesn't prevent you downloading the version you have the license to. IE years ago I got a vmware workstation license, I bought it at v15, got a v16 update, and I still have access to v16 which works perfectly fine for my use cases.
CodeWriter23 4y ago
I’d be good with lifetime* license * lifetime is __ years
microtherion 4y ago
> My current favorite business model is the "You're buying the current version and [years] of updates." Then typically you'll get some discount to renew your "[years] more of updates." Band in a Box has managed to make this model work for them for several decades now. Each version you buy does not expire, but only gets updates for about a year, and entitles you to an upgrade discount (slightly higher if you buy the next years' version, a little bit lower if you wait longer). The annual updates have both some new features and some new content, so there is always a bit of an incentive to upgrade, but no extreme pressure. Neither the software nor the business model are perfect, but both are reasonable enough to retain a loyal customer base.
XCSme 4y ago
> My current favorite business model is the "You're buying the current version and [years] of updates." After working on UXWizz (self-hosted analytics) for thirteen years and trying to find the right pricing model, I ended up to the same conclusion. For downloadable products, it makes most sense for both the buyer and the seller.

lkschubert8 4y ago

Isn't pay per usage viable for value via web or does that fall under subscription? I tend to think of subscription as a monthly/annual payment for access.

Retric 4y ago
Pay per use has terrible incentives for pure software. It’s more reasonable if there’s an end product at the end. But you don’t want to discourage people using your 3D printing service because your bundling software access that people might not need.

notwhereyouare 4y ago

that's how the audible ripper I use works. I buy 1 version and get updates for a year and then i'm stuck at that specific version

stronglikedan 4y ago
And one of my favorite pieces of software, Sublime Text.
- rchaud 4y ago
  Sublime Text is like the modern equivalent of the WinZip 60-day trial.
Avamander 4y ago
Jetbrains/IntelliJ does the same. It's great.

toastal 4y ago

Can I pay to get extra years of software updates on Android yet? The 2-year support thing is awful.

xeromal 4y ago
That's more of a manufacturer choice. The pixel and top-tier samsung lines both get 6 years of security updates
- dsr_ 4y ago
  So, in a sense, yes: pay by buying the right phone at the beginning, but it's not available otherwise.
  - blagie 4y ago
    The problem is it's not clearly advertised. Apple has had the longest support life historically, but I most recently bought an Android, since Apple does not commit to any particular timeline forward-looking. Most of the other vendors also don't clearly indicate how long a new device will be supported for.
- mindslight 4y ago
  Six years of updates is also too short, in my book. PCs regularly last for over a decade.
- philistine 4y ago
  Security updates is carrying a lot of weight here. People are probably expecting feature updates, which is still not a guarantee.
  - xeromal 4y ago
    I believe feature updates are for 3 years or 2 generations.
  - toastal 4y ago

krisoft 4y ago

I see your point, and I largely agree with you. One trickynes is with the "This incentivizes them to deliver value" part. The problem is that if the software just "works" and there are no compelling new features the user will quite rationally stop buying new updates. Which incentivises the developer to make sure that either the software never really "just works" or that they hype up new features to create FOMO. They will probably do both. I guess they could also let go a portion of their developers and keep a skeleton crew around to maintain the product at current But that is not a realistic prospect for many reasons. People talked about this regarding Photoshop. They said the new features are cool, but far from necessary, which made users stick with "old" but perfectly fine versions. The rumour was that that forced Adobe to change to a subscription model. But of course I don't have any first hand knowledge so it might be false.

cesarb 4y ago
> Which incentivises the developer to make sure that either the software never really "just works" or that they hype up new features to create FOMO. Nowadays, there's also the security scare. If you don't immediately update to the latest and greatest release, hackers will invade your system, destroy your data, and eat all the food on your fridge.
- XCSme 4y ago
  When in truth, I think most security issues are created when a newly released, non-safe version reaches the public. Also, I think it's safe to assume that any system can be compromised at some point in one way or another, the best way is to focus on backups, monitoring and alerting.
TeMPOraL 4y ago
Perhaps a good case study here is/will be Affinity. They produce graphics software competing directly with Photoshop, Illustrator and InDesign, and their core differentiator is that they don't do subscriptions - you pay up front, and get a regular, perpetual license in return. Few months ago, they released version 2 of their software suite. There are some new features and a host of UI and performance improvements, but otherwise, the software is substantially the same as version 1. It would be interesting to learn what their current breakdown of {new users, users who upgraded to v2, users who stuck to v1} is. Myself, I upgraded only Affinity Photo to v2, because I wanted to play with non-destructive workflow that's enabled by some of the new features. I studied their product page extensively, and couldn't find anything else particularly compelling, at least not for my limited (and non-professional) use cases. v1 is still a fine product. (OK, I admit, 50% of the reason I upgraded, and 100% of the reason I bought the whole v1 suite in the first place, is because it's nice to do business with someone who isn't abusing their customers with subscriptions for a change.)

KingOfCoders 4y ago

Perhaps the biggest reason for me for the lifetime license (I also have a Leanpub one) is to have less invoices [0] - the reason I also prefer 12month subscription options. One thing I hate about being a freelancer is grabbing all invoices for my accountant. [0] Also everyone please name the invoice file YYMMDD-<company>-<no>.pdf ;-) and send them via email, don't make me log in

JohnFen 4y ago
Personally, I avoid all those invoices by refusing to "subscribe" to software. If I can't just buy it, I don't.

weinzierl 4y ago

> My current favorite business model is the "You're buying the current version and [years] of updates." Then typically you'll get some discount to renew your "[years] more of updates." Fully agree, I think this fair for the customer as well as the supplier. I know enterprise customers demand guarantees for [years] of updates, but I think in the B2C world "You're buying the current version and updates as long as we provide them." is also a fair alternative. A good example for this kind of offering is the Reaper DAW. This model is not as good for the customer as your version but as an indy developer I'd rather not promise [years] of support even if it is highly likely that I will provide it.

JohnFen 4y ago
> This model is not as good for the customer as your version I don't know. I think that model is better for the customer.

dceddia 4y ago

From the developer side I feel like this type of license makes the most sense to me too. After selling a desktop app with a license like that for a little while though, I’ve also unfortunately realized that not everyone understands it. I had a number of customers referring to it as a “subscription” (which it wasn’t, because it didn’t auto-renew and you could keep using the last version forever) or “lifetime” (which it wasn’t, because the updates were a paid option after a year). Plus it’s hard to adequately explain how it works in few words. For better or worse I think the majority of people understand 2 buckets: “subscription” and “lifetime”. So I went back to selling a lifetime license, with a caveat that any new features that incur ongoing costs might need to be an optional add-on subscription/pay-as-you-go/etc plan to cover those costs.

asddubs 4y ago
I think the easiest way to communicate it is to just regularly increment your version number and then have people be able to buy version X. Like Photoshop, and really most software used to be sold.
- SturgeonsLaw 4y ago
  Right! Has it really been that long since this was the status quo?! There was a time when it was expected that you bought a copy of Widgetmaker 2, and you could use it for as long as you liked, there might be some patches, there might not, but you own (or something close to it) the software and can use it whenever you want. When Widgetmaker 3 comes out, it's a new product with new features, and you'd have to buy it separately if you want the new goodies. Simple. It worked well enough to build behemoths like 1990's Microsoft. There are some companies that claim to offer this, but are very sneaky in their approach (NitroPDF is one I'm familiar with), they will offer a one-off purchase, but after a release or two, will no longer provide downloads for your version's installer, and in some cases won't activate it if you reinstall using your own copy of the installation media. Bring back the days of installing your software, typing in your product key, then using it for as long as you wish.
  - 4y ago

ejb999 4y ago

+1 for naming jetbrains - I have always liked their way of doing business, including the substantial discount to renew each year - even in years when I don't use their tools much, I renew. Also specifically like how they remind me many times, and many months in advance that they are going to charge my credit card on my renewal date - unlike the scumbag companies that never want to draw attention to your upcoming renewal, so you don't have a chance to think about not renewing - and then they make it difficult to get a refund. Jetbrains has earned my loyalty - other companies could learn something from them.

corndoge 4y ago
The key for getting a refund is to not deal with the company at all but rather initiate a credit card chargeback.
- innocenat 4y ago
  In many countries, chargeback require proof that you did not receive the service. Which make chargeback nearly impossible outside of outright scam.
- eps 4y ago
  Chargebacks can be challenged and challanges can be won by the merchants, in which case you will end up with an attempted fraud on your bank record.
  - corndoge 4y ago
    I'm not going to expend effort arguing with this, I just want anyone reading it to know that it's completely untrue
    - eps 4y ago
      Thanks for the laugh.
- Shish2k 4y ago

dahart 4y ago

> lifetime licenses are dishonest (e.g. company cannot work for free, so their funded is based on unlimited growth, which isn't realistic for most). I don’t really know what you mean by “dishonest”, that seems like a slightly hyperbolic word here. If someone pays for a lifetime license the company isn’t working for free nor necessarily assuming unlimited growth, they just have to understand and correctly price the average value of their contract, and there are many established successful businesses doing exactly already. And it’s common to price the lifetime license below the predicted average total costs, because money in the bank today is more valuable than later (it’s an investment, and the money can be used as such.) If there’s something I really know I’m going to use for years, and I can get a discount by paying up front, I’m totally in favor of doing so when it’ll cost me less and support the company as well.

crazygringo 4y ago
I'd say it's dishonest in the sense that a company knows the probabilities are such that they can't actually ever truly support a lifetime license, so it's a lie from the start. At the end of the day, companies usually go out of business or else sell themselves to another company within a certain number of years. And a new company (like in this case) may change their mind about lifetime licenses, because it's a totally different set of owners with different priorities. "Everybody" knows this, but company management knows it even more than consumers, hence the dishonesty. As a rule of thumb for consumers, anything supposedly perpeutal or "lifetime" for consumers in the business world is probably not even going to last 10 years. It's effectively always a lie.
- dahart 4y ago
  Ugh, please don’t make it worse and escalate to “lie”. You’re blaming the wrong source, and have it backwards IMO. The previous owners weren’t lying, the new owners are the ones to blame for breaking a pre-existing contract with the company. Breaking this contract might not be legal, and in that sense they may be only the ones lying.
  - crazygringo 4y ago

annoyingnoob 4y ago

A perpetual license does not have to come with perpetual updates, it just has to keep working as-is. Seems completely reasonable, want the new version or updates then buy them.

mnw21cam 4y ago
The problem with that is security bugs.
- JohnFen 4y ago
  Traditionally, security updates had always been free. There's no reason why that can't be the case again. The problem is that the industry has largely decided to combine security and feature updates into an inseparable whole, which I think is a bad thing both from the customer's point of view and from a security point of view.
  - rowanG077 4y ago
    It's simply economically impossible to keep providing an every growing n versions of a software with security updates.

sidewndr46 4y ago

I think you're out of your mind if you don't think a lifetime license is practical. The default license for almost everything, including software, is lifetime. I do not pay Ford an annual fee to advance the timing of the ignition sequence when I need to accelerate into traffic. I do not renew a subscription for the thermostat on my wall every winter when I need to put it in heating mode. When I was young, I bought a license for Epic pinball from then Epic MegaGames. I still have a license to that & can still enjoy it.

maushu 4y ago
The difference with your Ford car is that no one is changing how the roads work every year. Compared with other areas IT is really unstable.

dwighttk 4y ago

I just want to buy it and use it until I need to upgrade… if I’m issuing it I’ll usually upgrade every major update, but a subscription happens every 12 months (or whatever) no matter what… I can’t say “I’ll update next month when I have some money set aside” and forgo the amazing new features for a month… or I’m not really using this very often and the new features look non-compelling so I’ll just keep this version for the quarterly use I’m getting out of it. Agree on services but not if it is merely a service to justify a subscription

roland35 4y ago

I think there is plenty of room for lifetime licenses. In fact pretty much any video game works this way! I bought Zelda from Nintendo a few years ago, and Nintendo is not making any money from that purchase any more. But they instead make a new game, which I'll buy, and the cycle continues...

mschuster91 4y ago

> That being said; I dislike both full subscription (i.e. breaks on expiration) and lifetime licenses. Subscriptions are too expensive for software that rarely gets major investment and lifetime licenses are dishonest (e.g. company cannot work for free, so their funded is based on unlimited growth, which isn't realistic for most). There's two "lifetime" models, as you noted: 1. the good old way, provide someone an installer and a license key valid for this version and optionally older versions and N years of patches. Adobe used to do this with the Creative Suite, Microsoft did it for Office and does it for Windows, Atlassian does so for their datacenter and not-yet-expired self-hosting licenses and JetBrains does it for their IDEs as well. 2. "lifetime" as in "buy once, get upgrades in perpetuity". That one entirely depends on the business model of the developer. If it's just some hobbyist developing a piece of software because they want to solve a problem they have (e.g. Hyperswitch, SizeUp for Mac) or open-source developers, that's just fine - they do the work anyway for themselves but get a ton of coffee. If it's something MANY MANY MANY people want but the maintenance effort is low, something like the Slysoft/Redfox suite of DRM removal tooling, it can work out as well. The critical thing is something that needs a ton of ongoing maintenance... and most of these fail spectacularly or do rug pulls on their users.

ensignavenger 4y ago

Providing a benefit for a lifetime is something that companies do every day. The financial world calls such products a "perpetuity". (Or in some cases, an "annuity" because your life is not expected to last into perpetuity, but for a certain number of years.) It is not difficult to calculate the net present value of such products so that you can charge the correct price. It is incompetent management that gets into these situations. The correct response from consumers is to file a small claims suit for a refund. And/Or apparently to blast to company loudly on social media :)

withinboredom 4y ago

You’re assuming a customer will never churn. Customers churn, and if I can get you to pay me a “lifetime” purchase that is more than I’d expect; then I come out ahead. There is a ceiling with subscription purchases (provable with simple math: new customers * churn percentage * subscription cost = new money ceiling) but no theoretical ceiling with one-off purchases — it’s only limited by your marketing reach and funnel.

MSFT_Edging 4y ago

I honestly don't mind the "buy current version" as long as the company doesn't prevent you downloading the version you have the license to. IE years ago I got a vmware workstation license, I bought it at v15, got a v16 update, and I still have access to v16 which works perfectly fine for my use cases.

CodeWriter23 4y ago

I’d be good with lifetime* license * lifetime is __ years

microtherion 4y ago

> My current favorite business model is the "You're buying the current version and [years] of updates." Then typically you'll get some discount to renew your "[years] more of updates." Band in a Box has managed to make this model work for them for several decades now. Each version you buy does not expire, but only gets updates for about a year, and entitles you to an upgrade discount (slightly higher if you buy the next years' version, a little bit lower if you wait longer). The annual updates have both some new features and some new content, so there is always a bit of an incentive to upgrade, but no extreme pressure. Neither the software nor the business model are perfect, but both are reasonable enough to retain a loyal customer base.

XCSme 4y ago

> My current favorite business model is the "You're buying the current version and [years] of updates." After working on UXWizz (self-hosted analytics) for thirteen years and trying to find the right pricing model, I ended up to the same conclusion. For downloadable products, it makes most sense for both the buyer and the seller.