4 ms·

But to push back, if you’re talking about a 5 minute task, that you’re using once every few months, a free trial timed the way you are asking, might mean you ne

But to push back, if you’re talking about a 5 minute task, that you’re using once every few months, a free trial timed the way you are asking, might mean you never end up needing to purchase a license. I understand that that is useful for you, but that isn’t exactly good for someone trying to sell a piece of software. (I understand you also gave usage based examples, but even in those scenarios (which require additional work to code for trial versions, versus a pure time-lock), there is always going to be someone who says “5 saves isn’t enough” or whatever the metric is). > The idea that, as a consumer, I'm going to sit down and fully evaluate a piece of software over the course of 7/14/30 consecutive days to then make a purchasing decision is bizarre. Maybe it’s my past life as a software reviewer (and current life as someone frequently asked about my assessment/opinion on apps), but for consumer software (SaaS, especially for business like what OP article is about, I think is different), I really don’t think this is that bizarre. To me, a trial is really instructive because if I’m finding myself opening or using an app frequently during the trial, that’s a good indicator I’ll get value out of the application. Similarly, if I did a trial in January for one task, then came back to do that same task again in May and the trial is expired, it’s a good way for me to evaluate if it makes sense for me to buy a license or not. There are some programs I use two or three times a year that I purchase because it is useful enough for that one task, but there are others that I use infrequently enough to try to seek out other options. A time-based trial, for me, is a good forcing function to determine if I’m actually going to use the program.

asah 2y ago
IMHO some light users should be free - niche users who don't have significant budgets or would be a support burden. Others get enormous value in 5 minutes, have easy budgets for this category of software and should be paying. I wouldn't be quick to judge either way.
- kelnos 2y ago
  It's a little weird to suggest that just because someone wants to use the product of someone else's work only for a short time, that use "should" be free.
  - amflare 2y ago
    If you are offering free samples of your product, you shouldn't get mad at the people who don't need your product for more.
    - TylerE 2y ago
      But likewise, a hungry person isn't entitled to every sample on the tray - just one. They're samples.
  - SR2Z 2y ago
    I mean, it's not strange to think that the ideal state for software is "used as widely as possible while maximizing profit."
    - thfuran 2y ago
      That's definitely a strange ideal, to put it politely. Human welfare should be maximized instead.
    - HeatrayEnjoyer 2y ago
      ??? That is very strange.
  - ska 2y ago
    I think the context of “should” matters quite a bit here. For example the claim that everyone should have free access as if by right is quite different than the claim that as the producer of said software this is your best bet.
- giobox 2y ago
  This essentially is how tailscale operates (or did last I was in this space). Home/small use totally free, and experimentation seems encouraged. > https://tailscale.com/pricing https://tailscale.com/pricing I have genuinely deployed tailscale in paying locations on basis of my really positive experience on the "Personal" plan, which is effectively almost the whole product for up to three users/100 devices, for free. I don't think there is a universally right answer for all products/services on this question though.
hinkley 2y ago
I took a job working at a company that made a code obfuscator/minimizer in the days before CI/CD really existed. I knew a lot about Java internals so I thought this would be good. First day I got assigned instead to an embedded Java project. Why? They couldn’t market the obfuscator, so they were winding it down. People didn’t want a license for something they used for ten minutes four times a year. (We did later hire an intern to fix bugs in the obfuscator. The app was constrained to a specific JAR size, and those gave us enough headroom for about another dozen features. And I made a change late in the project that got me space for two more, via suffix sorting the constant pool instead of prefix sorting it).
fuzzythinker 2y ago
That is exactly the point. As a producer of the said software, if that is the user's usage pattern, and there are enough regular users to sustain/pay for these users, then I won't want to charge them. Doing so means I either lose out on potential customers or they aren't going to be a true customer anyways.
kmacdough 2y ago
Counter to your counter, a person using software 5-6 times over a few years is almost never going to become a paying customer. They'll just cut you out entirely. But odds are they know similar professionals and could be a major promoter to potential power-users. Chatting with a few coworkers, none of us can come up with a single example of letting a trial expire, only to pay for isolated uses later. We had quite a few examples of software we thought might be valueable, but weren't prepared to pay having run out our trials. Three of us are in this state for Copilot alone. It seems you're very focused on what people "oughta" pay for. But what matters is simply what people do pay for. You tell this story, but it seems very inconsistent with my experience or my understanding of pricing theory.
- kulahan 2y ago
  "It's free advertising" is an argument I see a lot, but I've never seen the numbers to see how much that actually matters in the real world. Well, I guess I've seen some, but it's always from ad companies anyways.
  - meiraleal 2y ago
    The person using this argument never accepts free advertising as a payment option and this tells everything about the effectiveness of this strategy
    - trogdor 2y ago
      I own a media production company. We occasionally sell content to other media outlets. Early in our existence, we were routinely contacted by reporters asking for permission to use our content with credit to us. I used to respond by saying yes, but only if I could use some of their content, with credit to them. Obviously, they never agreed.
  - plussed_reader 2y ago
    When it comes to free advertising/exposure as compensation I think back to my early days on the Oregon Trail: You can die from exposure.
tylersmith 2y ago
> But to push back, if you’re talking about a 5 minute task, that you’re using once every few months, a free trial timed the way you are asking, might mean you never end up needing to purchase a license. That's why they want that model. Complaints like the GP's are just a thin veil over being too cheap to pay for the software they use. You can see it in the other responses to your comment.
pierrebai 2y ago
The problem with this thinking is that you are creating dissatisfaction for 25 cents. Let's say, you sell your software as a single-version perpetual license. You sell it for 150$. A typical user uses it 8 hours a month. After a year, that's 96 hours. So they spend less than 2$ per hour (I'm rounding in the seller's favor.) So using it for 5 minutes, 1/12h, is less than 25 cents. (Again rounding up in the seller's favor.) Is this about not giving away 25 cents? This is where SaaS wins over, but even there, the overhead, both for sellers and users, of managing payment for people who want to do one-shot work is never going to be worth it.
- meiraleal 2y ago
  This scenario is akin to wanting an insurance payout for a stolen car after paying just the last month’s premium
jasonlotito 2y ago
> There are some programs I use two or three times a year that I purchase because it is useful enough for that one task, but there are others that I use infrequently enough to try to seek out other options. Flip that. I find most people do the second thing first. If what I'm doing in the software takes 5 minutes, chances are I can find something else out there that will do the same thing for free as well. Sometimes the same software lets you trial it again because it's been so long. And so all the additional features you'd review them for amount to nothing when I'm just using them to remove the background in my picture. But here is the bigger issue. > it’s a good way for me to evaluate if it makes sense for me to buy a license or not It's a horrible way for me to evaluate licensing. Why? Because, I probably want to get on with whatever task should only take 5 minutes and do something else. I don't want to spend time evaluating licensing and determine the cost benefits analysis of this software purchase (which more and more tends toward a monthly/yearly fee). I want to do the 5 minute thing and move on, and I will spend more time searching for another free solution than pay. You want to get me to pay you? Make that 5 minutes showcase the things I did't know I needed. And yes, if you have the only thing that can do the thing I'm looking to do, sure. But, a monopoly isn't exactly what we are talking about here.

asah 2y ago

IMHO some light users should be free - niche users who don't have significant budgets or would be a support burden. Others get enormous value in 5 minutes, have easy budgets for this category of software and should be paying. I wouldn't be quick to judge either way.

kelnos 2y ago
It's a little weird to suggest that just because someone wants to use the product of someone else's work only for a short time, that use "should" be free.
- amflare 2y ago
  If you are offering free samples of your product, you shouldn't get mad at the people who don't need your product for more.
  - TylerE 2y ago
    But likewise, a hungry person isn't entitled to every sample on the tray - just one. They're samples.
- SR2Z 2y ago
  I mean, it's not strange to think that the ideal state for software is "used as widely as possible while maximizing profit."
  - thfuran 2y ago
    That's definitely a strange ideal, to put it politely. Human welfare should be maximized instead.
  - HeatrayEnjoyer 2y ago
    ??? That is very strange.
- ska 2y ago
  I think the context of “should” matters quite a bit here. For example the claim that everyone should have free access as if by right is quite different than the claim that as the producer of said software this is your best bet.
giobox 2y ago
This essentially is how tailscale operates (or did last I was in this space). Home/small use totally free, and experimentation seems encouraged. > https://tailscale.com/pricing https://tailscale.com/pricing I have genuinely deployed tailscale in paying locations on basis of my really positive experience on the "Personal" plan, which is effectively almost the whole product for up to three users/100 devices, for free. I don't think there is a universally right answer for all products/services on this question though.

hinkley 2y ago

I took a job working at a company that made a code obfuscator/minimizer in the days before CI/CD really existed. I knew a lot about Java internals so I thought this would be good. First day I got assigned instead to an embedded Java project. Why? They couldn’t market the obfuscator, so they were winding it down. People didn’t want a license for something they used for ten minutes four times a year. (We did later hire an intern to fix bugs in the obfuscator. The app was constrained to a specific JAR size, and those gave us enough headroom for about another dozen features. And I made a change late in the project that got me space for two more, via suffix sorting the constant pool instead of prefix sorting it).

fuzzythinker 2y ago

That is exactly the point. As a producer of the said software, if that is the user's usage pattern, and there are enough regular users to sustain/pay for these users, then I won't want to charge them. Doing so means I either lose out on potential customers or they aren't going to be a true customer anyways.

kmacdough 2y ago

Counter to your counter, a person using software 5-6 times over a few years is almost never going to become a paying customer. They'll just cut you out entirely. But odds are they know similar professionals and could be a major promoter to potential power-users. Chatting with a few coworkers, none of us can come up with a single example of letting a trial expire, only to pay for isolated uses later. We had quite a few examples of software we thought might be valueable, but weren't prepared to pay having run out our trials. Three of us are in this state for Copilot alone. It seems you're very focused on what people "oughta" pay for. But what matters is simply what people do pay for. You tell this story, but it seems very inconsistent with my experience or my understanding of pricing theory.

kulahan 2y ago
"It's free advertising" is an argument I see a lot, but I've never seen the numbers to see how much that actually matters in the real world. Well, I guess I've seen some, but it's always from ad companies anyways.
- meiraleal 2y ago
  The person using this argument never accepts free advertising as a payment option and this tells everything about the effectiveness of this strategy
  - trogdor 2y ago
    I own a media production company. We occasionally sell content to other media outlets. Early in our existence, we were routinely contacted by reporters asking for permission to use our content with credit to us. I used to respond by saying yes, but only if I could use some of their content, with credit to them. Obviously, they never agreed.
- plussed_reader 2y ago
  When it comes to free advertising/exposure as compensation I think back to my early days on the Oregon Trail: You can die from exposure.

tylersmith 2y ago

> But to push back, if you’re talking about a 5 minute task, that you’re using once every few months, a free trial timed the way you are asking, might mean you never end up needing to purchase a license. That's why they want that model. Complaints like the GP's are just a thin veil over being too cheap to pay for the software they use. You can see it in the other responses to your comment.

pierrebai 2y ago

The problem with this thinking is that you are creating dissatisfaction for 25 cents. Let's say, you sell your software as a single-version perpetual license. You sell it for 150$. A typical user uses it 8 hours a month. After a year, that's 96 hours. So they spend less than 2$ per hour (I'm rounding in the seller's favor.) So using it for 5 minutes, 1/12h, is less than 25 cents. (Again rounding up in the seller's favor.) Is this about not giving away 25 cents? This is where SaaS wins over, but even there, the overhead, both for sellers and users, of managing payment for people who want to do one-shot work is never going to be worth it.

meiraleal 2y ago
This scenario is akin to wanting an insurance payout for a stolen car after paying just the last month’s premium

jasonlotito 2y ago

> There are some programs I use two or three times a year that I purchase because it is useful enough for that one task, but there are others that I use infrequently enough to try to seek out other options. Flip that. I find most people do the second thing first. If what I'm doing in the software takes 5 minutes, chances are I can find something else out there that will do the same thing for free as well. Sometimes the same software lets you trial it again because it's been so long. And so all the additional features you'd review them for amount to nothing when I'm just using them to remove the background in my picture. But here is the bigger issue. > it’s a good way for me to evaluate if it makes sense for me to buy a license or not It's a horrible way for me to evaluate licensing. Why? Because, I probably want to get on with whatever task should only take 5 minutes and do something else. I don't want to spend time evaluating licensing and determine the cost benefits analysis of this software purchase (which more and more tends toward a monthly/yearly fee). I want to do the 5 minute thing and move on, and I will spend more time searching for another free solution than pay. You want to get me to pay you? Make that 5 minutes showcase the things I did't know I needed. And yes, if you have the only thing that can do the thing I'm looking to do, sure. But, a monopoly isn't exactly what we are talking about here.