4 ms·

> If you release new version for 170usd every 18 months it's about 10usd/m subscription - so you are 6times cheaper?. This would put them under immense pressur

> If you release new version for 170usd every 18 months it's about 10usd/m subscription - so you are 6times cheaper?. This would put them under immense pressure to come up with new features (useful or not) to get people to upgrade. At some point for certain users, the current version is going to cover 90% of what they need and they won't see the point in upgrading. I didn't look into it much, but Sketch moved from a one-off payment for the current version plus 1 year of updates, to subscription-based charging. I wouldn't be surprised if the real reason was most didn't need the latest features. Aside from this, has any software ever done something like "$170 upfront, or $20/month for 12 months only, then you own this major version"? I'm aware of Adobe's approach where if you cancel the monthly plan they'll surprisingly charge you the rest of the payments to make up 12 months, but you don't own anything after.

omnimus 3y ago
Sketch still has 120usd desktop version. Their solution was to add server/collaboration element that is subscription based. > This would put them under immense pressure to come up with new features (useful or not) to get people to upgrade. At some point for certain users, the current version is going to cover 90% of what they need and they won't see the point in upgrading. Isn't this backwards? If you don't have anything to add to the software why should you charge for it? The thing with Adobe there is no shortage of enhancements/features people wanted. It's not lack of imagination. Adobe just realized they don't need to do much so why would you pay programmers if you have no competition and very little churn? Especially since what everyone wanted was stability, bugfixes, performance and hard stuff like versioning systems. How are you going to market that your software crashes 20% less? Also if anything software/hardware compatibility is always going to be reason for upgrading.
- seanwilson 3y ago
  Ah, didn't see that for Sketch, thanks. > If you don't have anything to add to the software why should you charge for it? That's fair, but then ~$150 is too cheap for a lifetime license for a major version of software if you're using that professionally for 5 years to generate $10,000s. Asking someone to pay a higher amount upfront is difficult though. > Also if anything software/hardware compatibility is always going to be reason for upgrading. This is also one of the reasons that developers don't want to offer lifetime licenses as you need to keep software updated for security and compatibility as APIs, OSs, drivers, browsers etc. evolve over the years and to provide ongoing support to existing users. By the way, I'm not saying I like subscriptions or paying a lot upfront, but the alternatives have downsides to the software makers as well. I really don't know what a good compromise is.
  - omnimus 3y ago
    I agree that 150usd might be too cheap for pro market but like i mentioned maybe they found out they need to first go for amateurs. Who knows maybe they will make it more expensive in future or offer some kind of pro option. I also have to mention maybe your expectations are a bit skewed? Software dev got cheaper and not everything has to be breakneck hype venture capital squeeze. There is type design software Glyphs (https://glyphsapp.com/ https://glyphsapp.com/) used by basically every typedesigner now. It costs 300usd and it is very complex. But they seem to be doing OK. Its so niche compared to Affinity that there is maybe 5% of potential customers? Both Affinity and Glyphs are small private companies from europe where devs cost less. Maybe they are fine with smaller teams, slower pace and just OK profits.
    - seanwilson 3y ago
      Thanks, interesting data point! For what it's worth, I'm interested in selling products myself where "smaller teams, slower pace and just OK profits" sounds great to me, so I'm very curious how to price products for niche markets. It's also frustrating how Adobe lock-in and similar can block you from creating and selling certain design products.

omnimus 3y ago

Sketch still has 120usd desktop version. Their solution was to add server/collaboration element that is subscription based. > This would put them under immense pressure to come up with new features (useful or not) to get people to upgrade. At some point for certain users, the current version is going to cover 90% of what they need and they won't see the point in upgrading. Isn't this backwards? If you don't have anything to add to the software why should you charge for it? The thing with Adobe there is no shortage of enhancements/features people wanted. It's not lack of imagination. Adobe just realized they don't need to do much so why would you pay programmers if you have no competition and very little churn? Especially since what everyone wanted was stability, bugfixes, performance and hard stuff like versioning systems. How are you going to market that your software crashes 20% less? Also if anything software/hardware compatibility is always going to be reason for upgrading.

seanwilson 3y ago
Ah, didn't see that for Sketch, thanks. > If you don't have anything to add to the software why should you charge for it? That's fair, but then ~$150 is too cheap for a lifetime license for a major version of software if you're using that professionally for 5 years to generate $10,000s. Asking someone to pay a higher amount upfront is difficult though. > Also if anything software/hardware compatibility is always going to be reason for upgrading. This is also one of the reasons that developers don't want to offer lifetime licenses as you need to keep software updated for security and compatibility as APIs, OSs, drivers, browsers etc. evolve over the years and to provide ongoing support to existing users. By the way, I'm not saying I like subscriptions or paying a lot upfront, but the alternatives have downsides to the software makers as well. I really don't know what a good compromise is.
- omnimus 3y ago
  I agree that 150usd might be too cheap for pro market but like i mentioned maybe they found out they need to first go for amateurs. Who knows maybe they will make it more expensive in future or offer some kind of pro option. I also have to mention maybe your expectations are a bit skewed? Software dev got cheaper and not everything has to be breakneck hype venture capital squeeze. There is type design software Glyphs (https://glyphsapp.com/ https://glyphsapp.com/) used by basically every typedesigner now. It costs 300usd and it is very complex. But they seem to be doing OK. Its so niche compared to Affinity that there is maybe 5% of potential customers? Both Affinity and Glyphs are small private companies from europe where devs cost less. Maybe they are fine with smaller teams, slower pace and just OK profits.
  - seanwilson 3y ago
    Thanks, interesting data point! For what it's worth, I'm interested in selling products myself where "smaller teams, slower pace and just OK profits" sounds great to me, so I'm very curious how to price products for niche markets. It's also frustrating how Adobe lock-in and similar can block you from creating and selling certain design products.