5 ms·

One-time purchase alternatives to popular subscription tools

131 points by ksec 2y ago

polydevil 2y ago
Opened a website. Already got `Welcome to our website!` modal that block the content. Through the modal's overlay can see the banner `Your product could be here`. Well, that is annoying. Thank you so much, I would rather use anything that is less intrusive.
user_7832 2y ago
I'd add: Upnote (getupnote.com). It's a notes app with just enough features to be powerful (markdown level formatting, tags, spaces) but not too much. And a very quick/responsive app with background sync. It's comfortably replaced google docs for anything that doesn't need much styling, and works well offline. (Not affiliated, just a happy user)
ekianjo 2y ago
the only thing you can rely on in terms of ownership is FOSS.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- XCSme 2y ago
  In what sense? Because most issues arrise in this thread are about future updates, not the ownership of the current product. With FOSS you get no guarantee for future updates.Many products that started FOSS, did it just to use it as a lead magnet, and once they had enough leads, they switched to SaaS as their main model, stopping support and updates for the FOSS version.
  - ekianjo 2y ago
    > they switched to SaaS as their main model, stopping support and updates for the FOSS version. and then someone usually picks up the Last open source available and forks it. thats ownership. happened so often already it's a pattern.
9dev 2y ago
Thing is, I don’t believe in owning software forever anymore. Things loose their value too quickly: what would an Office suite from 2005 yield me now, other than the need to run an ancient VM to produce files nobody else could work with? Am I ever going to play the copy of Dungeon Siege again that I bought in ca. 2002? No. It looks unbearable today. So using forever is off the table; which brings me back to regularly purchasing the new version. And if I agree to do that, I begrudgingly agree to the premise that I’d rather always have the current version than having to research whether the new creative suite actually contains Photoshop features I need.
- anon_cow1111 2y ago
  >Am I ever going to play the copy of Dungeon Siege again that I bought in ca. 2002? No. It looks unbearable today. Haven't played Dungeon siege specifically, but there's plenty of games from that era that still hold up, some even graphically. Be careful, or you're going invoke the wrath of the site's retro gaming community :)
  - GreenWatermelon 2y ago
    Many, many people still enjoy Red Alert 2, which was released during the same time frame. The competitive scene is still active as well.
- LeoPanthera 2y ago
  > what would an Office suite from 2005 yield me now An office suite. I occasionally write documents in Office 97. Yes, in emulation. And despite the emulation, it loads quicker and has no lag. Some software does "rot" in time. But a lot doesn't. And we shouldn't be afraid of keeping things running.
  - wqweto 2y ago
    Office 97 works on Win11. No emulation needed.
  - jstummbillig 2y ago
bitwize 2y ago
You know, in the before times, they actually had a single word for "pay once, use forever". They called it "ownership".
- kybernetikos 2y ago
  And according to libertarian thought, ownership is the basis of ethics. I'm a bit surprised there isn't more of a libertarian backlash against the "you will own nothing and be happy" trend in our culture.
  - TeMPOraL 2y ago
    I don't have this idea fully fleshed out yet, but I feel that the ownership vs. rent preference is like the difference between resource model in StarCraft vs. Total Annihilation (and their respective descendants). In StarCraft, the focus is on your absolute account balance; you think in terms of having N units of minerals/gas, and spending them on things that cost particular amount of resources to make. In Total Annihilation, the focus is on resource flow - you try to balance how much metal/electricity per second your mines/generators supply, vs. how much metal/electricity per seconds your factories and defenses consume. In my experience, the two approaches are ultimately the same - you could compute the resource flow for a StarCraft game, and you could pay attention to absolute amounts in Total Annihilation - but they yield entirely different game dynamics, and different player mindsets. Personally, my mind thinks more in StarCraft terms, but I imagine finance people think more in Total Annihilation terms, and in those, subscriptions are the natural mode of spending.
  - rustcleaner 2y ago
    An analogy: /pol/ used to be a libertarian board, but once it watched Ron Paul receive two screwjobs and saw that the anti-libertarians are actually militant (even if only covertly), /pol/ realized a militant ideology is the only solution as a bunch of ragtag armed individualists are no match against an organized instrument. Libertarianism will make its greatest advancements in creating software and systems which render groups redundant and/or impotent vs individuals. A homomorphically encrypting, opaque, Monero-like Etherium would threaten the neccessity of certain governmental functions and lock the government out from observing (like Bitcoin) and manipulating (with force) participants. Uncensorable prediction markets, DAOs, the possibilities...
msy 2y ago
The fundamental problem is that in our fully networked era software cannot _not_ be maintained. Security issues are inevitable, cloud/sync/store systems require servers, upstream APIs, libraries & operating systems are constantly shifting and breaking things. So OSS aside (which has its own complicated economics) someone needs an ongoing revenue stream for that work to happen. Whether it's through regular release of paid upgrades (and EOL of old ones) or a subscription model is these days less of a fundamental separation and more of a question of cadence. Take a look at the much-vaunted Campfire from once.com - there's been zero new features since initial release and I'll bet the cost of a copy come Feb next year when it's a year old there'll be a 2.0 for another $300. How long after that will 1.0 be EOL'd? So are you really 'buying once' for $300 or paying $300 a year just with the auto-renew turned off?
- josheva 2y ago
  You're buying once for $300.
- thowawatp302 2y ago
  Conversely, it isn’t my problem to make a business model work. Personally, I’ve decide if I can’t buy something and just have it I will do without. So be it.
  - ktallett 2y ago
    Same here, I have no interest in funding someone's dream. I prefer to support a mutually beneficial relationship with a developer.
- HellDunkel 2y ago
  Agree. However the core problem with most SAAS products is: the companies are beeing greedy and the products fail to deliver enough value or keeep missing a certain quality bar to make you happy. You could easily fix that by a base price and a maintenence fee (per year, since first buy) which would make it easy to opt in/out of a subscription model. The fact that companies are beeing greedy and fail to deliver prevents this from happening.
klabb3 2y ago
Can I propose a compromise? How about a yearly subscription with opt-in renewal. If you stop paying, you don’t get updates (or locked out in case it’s a service - not standalone software). We all hate subscriptions but at the same time lifetime ownership puts you in a shitty place from a business development perspective. If the product has room to improve within its scope, I want the updates, the maintenance, select new features. If you one-time price that, the business incentives call for acquiring more users, not to make their existing ones happy.
- matdehaast 2y ago
  Jetbrains does this well. Pay for a year and then you fallback to that license/version forever
  - tuwtuwtuwtuw 2y ago
    The Jetbrain licensing model caused a lot or confusion when it was introduced (as can be seen in posts on their forum and reddit), and when I check now it still seems to be the same. > as soon as you pay for 12 consecutive months, you will receive this perpetual fallback license providing you with access to the exact product version for when your 12 consecutive months subscription started. So if you do not renew then in practice you might need to _downgrade_ to an earlier version when your subscription expires. But some of their software doesn't even support downgrade, so you need to uninstall/reinstall it and hope you have some old backup of your settings. Is this what you are referring to?
    - jeeva 2y ago
      Yow, I hadn't realised that twist. Having just read the JetBrains documentation around it, I don't like that.
- al_borland 2y ago
  Looking at a lot of this stuff, "lifetime" is a bit misleading. It's for the life of the version. Buy v1.x and you can use v1.x forever, but if you want v2.x, pay again. Of course, "forever" is only until everything around it leaves to the software not working, such as not supporting a new version of the OS it runs on.
JSR_FDED 2y ago
I find my tolerance for subscription software is proportional to how often I use it. A tool I use daily as my core work, no problem - I want to support them to ensure they stick around. But occasional tools I’d prefer to buy upgrades only if there are new feature I care about. I’m not a creative, so I’m not paying Adobe subscription (they’re icky in so many ways). But if I were I’d have no issue. But there is a 3rd category - something like an editor I couldn’t bear if it was tied to a company to ensure it’s survival so that’s got to be open source - even though ironically I’m willing to pay more in that scenario.
- turtles3 2y ago
  I'd say there is a fourth category too - things that would be perfectly fine as a simple, local program purchased once that grow over-complicated cloud features to justify a subscription model. Examples of this would be Lens, Postman and now Insomnia. This sort of behaviour is why I use k9s and Bruno instead.
  - tigroferoce 2y ago
    100% agree with this. And I’d put most of the software into this category. Also, let me offer you a different view on the software you use a lot and therefore want to support. The more a software/service is important to you, the more you should worry about having that as subscription, because it can go away in a matters of hours without you being able to do anything about that. Think if slack went bankruptcy. Or if it was acquired by someone that shut it down. What would all those people that heavy relies on slack for their workflows? Or what about GitHub?
victorhurdugaci 2y ago
I would love for every tech to be this way but sometimes, there are recurring costs (for good reasons) for whoever provides the product. In those cases, I think subscription makes sense
- microtonal 2y ago
  For every software that is not abandonware, there is always a recurring cost (besides cloud, there is support, security updates, aligning with OS updates, etc.). There is something to be said for both sides. The counterpart to your argument is that, especially in niches or other markets where there is a dominant player, there isn't much incentive anymore to improve software when all your users are subscribers. The money comes in anyway. Besides that, you often see regular price increases in such markets because the user lost all power. If you end your subscription, there is no good alternative. In the pas you could just not update if the new pricing wasn't worth it. The best balance may be in the JetBrains-like model, where you pay a yearly amount, but you keep access to historical versions when you decide to cancel. In this way money flows in for updating and improving the software. But if you fail to provide value, users can always cancel their 'subscription' and continue using the last version.
saos 2y ago
Yeah until the company decides to adopt a subscription model
lionkor 2y ago
In case the author sees this: The email popup needs to go. I'd love to see your conversion on just that popup, its most likely zero.
kbrkbr 2y ago
I already made one-time payments (aka "lifetime") for two softwares/services. Was great until the providers went out of business. Before that they treated me not so well in support. But, what should I do, end the contract? Now I have the strict rule for myself not to use any kind of one-time payment options in this area (software/software based services) anymore. I'm just putting this down here to shed light on the possible downsides. Edit: now I realize this is not written clear enough. This rule applies to software/software based services I intend to use regularly to solve a specific problem, like office, storage, etc.
- TeMPOraL 2y ago
  It's not a "lifetime" payment unless you can run it off-line. If the software needs to talk to vendor licensing/authentication services, then any "lifetime" license is a lie for the reasons you mention.
  - shahzaibmushtaq 2y ago
    No doubt about that what you have just said. Lifetime payment literally means the specific software is yours and runs even after the business selling it goes out of business one day or is acquired by another business. We need to consider these issues before selecting pay once option.
- tigroferoce 2y ago
  Ok, but think what would happen if you made a subscription and the provider went bankruptcy. Or was acquired by someone who shuts down the service? You would have payed for something that all of a sudden disappears and you have nothing, not even an old unsupported version fir the time you need to find alternatives.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
wordofx 2y ago
Final Cut Pro > this should not be on the list. Versions require paying to upgrade and if you update macOS you end up having to pay for FCP.
- XCSme 2y ago
  It does make sense, though? If the developer has to work to change the product to work for new MacOS versions, because of API that Apple changed, the developer should be reimbursed for the development time, right?
  - wordofx 2y ago
    So you’re saying it’s better to stick to Windows or Linux where you don’t need to pay for an update when you wanted to stay on a specific version, just because your OS updated.
    - XCSme 2y ago
      I am not sure how MacOS development works, and if apps are automatically compatible to new versions or not. I was not saying anything OS specific, just that if the developer has to actively work to implement changes, those development time should be paid for.
      - wordofx 2y ago
        I’ve been burned twice with FCP. Happy on version X, updated macOS, run FCP and it fails with that it doesn’t work on this version, contact FCP and get told I have to pay for the latest version to work on that version of macOS. It seems like it’s just a version check. If it was a major version upgrade I would happily pay it. But even premiere pro never broke between OS version updates on macOS or windows. So it seems like a FCP thing.
- jasomill 2y ago
  The Mac version of Final Cut Pro hasn’t had a paid upgrade since FCP X was released in 2011.
siva7 2y ago
Sorry, this distribution model worked in the 80s, 90s where it also originated from. Software was once installed on your desktop computer. No updates, no client/server model, just a black box without internet dependencies. I get the complaints that people wish back to a time where they purchased once the software but it doesn't work for SaaS, mobile phone apps or where i need to run a web server for the service. People easily forget about the hidden costs and why the software distribution model from ancient times doesn't cover the costs nowadays anymore.
- generic92034 2y ago
  At least in a B2B context a yearly maintenance fee was covering the costs, without cloud subscriptions. I think the move to SAAS in many areas is just to establish a stronger lock-in.
- carlosjobim 2y ago
  If you are using Mac OS, you can find the highest quality programs in any category for sale for between $30 and $100. The old model still works great. I have purchased some fantastic software and these prices are cheaper compared to the 80s and 90s.
- IshKebab 2y ago
  There's still plenty of software where using a very old version is perfectly fine. Matlab, Solidworks, Photoshop, etc. If you bought a 10 year old version it will still work fine and you probably aren't even missing much.
- rkachowski 2y ago
  > People easily forget about the hidden costs and why the software distribution model from ancient times doesn't cover the costs nowadays anymore. If this was true then there would be zero solvent software businesses that don't rely on subscription revenue, which is clearly not the case.
- ktallett 2y ago
  There is no need for a client/server model for most pieces of software, integration to existing cloud storage is far more useful than your server. Updates have existed for many years although less common as software was often more fully featured to begin with. There is still plenty of non subscription software that is out there, fully functioning, and of a high standard. Affinity is a key example.
thih9 2y ago
Feature request: show platform (Windows, Mac, Android, etc). Especially since products can be one time payment on some platforms and subscription based on others (e.g. final cut pro is listed as one time payment but the ipad version is subscription based).
Mackser 2y ago
I love sites like this. I'm always looking for more apps that let me keep using them even if I stop paying for updates. Adding a $10 monthly subscription will stop me from using most products but I'll gladly pay $100+ for some quality software that I can keep
julienreszka 2y ago
Search returns server error
oleksii88 2y ago
Oh nice, I also started a similar project about nine months ago - https://payonceapps.com/ https://payonceapps.com/ It came from my personal experience, where I sold my app for a fair one-time price and decided to give similar-minded people some spotlight.
Defletter 2y ago
Post-purchase subscriptions aren't necessarily bad, but the real death-knell is when they're combined with the profit motive. It hurts to realise that, no, your post-purchase subscription isn't paying for ongoing security updates; that it is the business model. It's why the subscription is $9.99 instead of $0.60, or whatever. The purchase price is just them double-dipping.
- ktallett 2y ago
  This. A subscription can work if a service is actually provided, as in regular updates, however I would say that's rarely the case and it's simply to make cash. Goodnotes, Pro Create, Affinity, all show you can make a fantastic product without a subscription and still bring regular updates.
shahzaibmushtaq 2y ago
If you can't decide which model to choose, go for open-source and contribute whatever you want.
XCSme 2y ago
For UXWizz (also mentioned on this site), it makes a lot of sense to have a one-time payment, because it's self-hosted. For many products and services that require active services/cost from the developer to run, it's harder to be sustainable with one-time payments, but for a self-hosted product it makes a lot of sense. Think of how software licenses used to work, or how games still work and do very well.
rustcleaner 2y ago
Idea: treat a subscription as a perpetuity (forever) or annuity (set time), and offer customers the choice of paying a regular cashflow or the present value of the perpetuity or annuity. You as developer need to smartly invest those larger payments to ensure you stay paid.
newsbinator 2y ago
I'm not even a graphic designer and Pixelmator Pro has paid for itself many times over. I can't believe Mac users (outside professional graphic-design) would willingly pay Adobe.

131 points by ksec 2y ago

Opened a website. Already got `Welcome to our website!` modal that block the content. Through the modal's overlay can see the banner `Your product could be here`. Well, that is annoying. Thank you so much, I would rather use anything that is less intrusive.

user_7832 2y ago

I'd add: Upnote (getupnote.com). It's a notes app with just enough features to be powerful (markdown level formatting, tags, spaces) but not too much. And a very quick/responsive app with background sync. It's comfortably replaced google docs for anything that doesn't need much styling, and works well offline. (Not affiliated, just a happy user)

ekianjo 2y ago

the only thing you can rely on in terms of ownership is FOSS.

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
XCSme 2y ago
In what sense? Because most issues arrise in this thread are about future updates, not the ownership of the current product. With FOSS you get no guarantee for future updates.Many products that started FOSS, did it just to use it as a lead magnet, and once they had enough leads, they switched to SaaS as their main model, stopping support and updates for the FOSS version.
- ekianjo 2y ago
  > they switched to SaaS as their main model, stopping support and updates for the FOSS version. and then someone usually picks up the Last open source available and forks it. thats ownership. happened so often already it's a pattern.

9dev 2y ago

Thing is, I don’t believe in owning software forever anymore. Things loose their value too quickly: what would an Office suite from 2005 yield me now, other than the need to run an ancient VM to produce files nobody else could work with? Am I ever going to play the copy of Dungeon Siege again that I bought in ca. 2002? No. It looks unbearable today. So using forever is off the table; which brings me back to regularly purchasing the new version. And if I agree to do that, I begrudgingly agree to the premise that I’d rather always have the current version than having to research whether the new creative suite actually contains Photoshop features I need.

anon_cow1111 2y ago
>Am I ever going to play the copy of Dungeon Siege again that I bought in ca. 2002? No. It looks unbearable today. Haven't played Dungeon siege specifically, but there's plenty of games from that era that still hold up, some even graphically. Be careful, or you're going invoke the wrath of the site's retro gaming community :)
- GreenWatermelon 2y ago
  Many, many people still enjoy Red Alert 2, which was released during the same time frame. The competitive scene is still active as well.
LeoPanthera 2y ago
> what would an Office suite from 2005 yield me now An office suite. I occasionally write documents in Office 97. Yes, in emulation. And despite the emulation, it loads quicker and has no lag. Some software does "rot" in time. But a lot doesn't. And we shouldn't be afraid of keeping things running.
- wqweto 2y ago
  Office 97 works on Win11. No emulation needed.
- jstummbillig 2y ago

bitwize 2y ago

You know, in the before times, they actually had a single word for "pay once, use forever". They called it "ownership".

kybernetikos 2y ago
And according to libertarian thought, ownership is the basis of ethics. I'm a bit surprised there isn't more of a libertarian backlash against the "you will own nothing and be happy" trend in our culture.
- TeMPOraL 2y ago
  I don't have this idea fully fleshed out yet, but I feel that the ownership vs. rent preference is like the difference between resource model in StarCraft vs. Total Annihilation (and their respective descendants). In StarCraft, the focus is on your absolute account balance; you think in terms of having N units of minerals/gas, and spending them on things that cost particular amount of resources to make. In Total Annihilation, the focus is on resource flow - you try to balance how much metal/electricity per second your mines/generators supply, vs. how much metal/electricity per seconds your factories and defenses consume. In my experience, the two approaches are ultimately the same - you could compute the resource flow for a StarCraft game, and you could pay attention to absolute amounts in Total Annihilation - but they yield entirely different game dynamics, and different player mindsets. Personally, my mind thinks more in StarCraft terms, but I imagine finance people think more in Total Annihilation terms, and in those, subscriptions are the natural mode of spending.
- rustcleaner 2y ago
  An analogy: /pol/ used to be a libertarian board, but once it watched Ron Paul receive two screwjobs and saw that the anti-libertarians are actually militant (even if only covertly), /pol/ realized a militant ideology is the only solution as a bunch of ragtag armed individualists are no match against an organized instrument. Libertarianism will make its greatest advancements in creating software and systems which render groups redundant and/or impotent vs individuals. A homomorphically encrypting, opaque, Monero-like Etherium would threaten the neccessity of certain governmental functions and lock the government out from observing (like Bitcoin) and manipulating (with force) participants. Uncensorable prediction markets, DAOs, the possibilities...

msy 2y ago

The fundamental problem is that in our fully networked era software cannot _not_ be maintained. Security issues are inevitable, cloud/sync/store systems require servers, upstream APIs, libraries & operating systems are constantly shifting and breaking things. So OSS aside (which has its own complicated economics) someone needs an ongoing revenue stream for that work to happen. Whether it's through regular release of paid upgrades (and EOL of old ones) or a subscription model is these days less of a fundamental separation and more of a question of cadence. Take a look at the much-vaunted Campfire from once.com - there's been zero new features since initial release and I'll bet the cost of a copy come Feb next year when it's a year old there'll be a 2.0 for another $300. How long after that will 1.0 be EOL'd? So are you really 'buying once' for $300 or paying $300 a year just with the auto-renew turned off?

josheva 2y ago
You're buying once for $300.
thowawatp302 2y ago
Conversely, it isn’t my problem to make a business model work. Personally, I’ve decide if I can’t buy something and just have it I will do without. So be it.
- ktallett 2y ago
  Same here, I have no interest in funding someone's dream. I prefer to support a mutually beneficial relationship with a developer.
HellDunkel 2y ago
Agree. However the core problem with most SAAS products is: the companies are beeing greedy and the products fail to deliver enough value or keeep missing a certain quality bar to make you happy. You could easily fix that by a base price and a maintenence fee (per year, since first buy) which would make it easy to opt in/out of a subscription model. The fact that companies are beeing greedy and fail to deliver prevents this from happening.

klabb3 2y ago

Can I propose a compromise? How about a yearly subscription with opt-in renewal. If you stop paying, you don’t get updates (or locked out in case it’s a service - not standalone software). We all hate subscriptions but at the same time lifetime ownership puts you in a shitty place from a business development perspective. If the product has room to improve within its scope, I want the updates, the maintenance, select new features. If you one-time price that, the business incentives call for acquiring more users, not to make their existing ones happy.

matdehaast 2y ago
Jetbrains does this well. Pay for a year and then you fallback to that license/version forever
- tuwtuwtuwtuw 2y ago
  The Jetbrain licensing model caused a lot or confusion when it was introduced (as can be seen in posts on their forum and reddit), and when I check now it still seems to be the same. > as soon as you pay for 12 consecutive months, you will receive this perpetual fallback license providing you with access to the exact product version for when your 12 consecutive months subscription started. So if you do not renew then in practice you might need to _downgrade_ to an earlier version when your subscription expires. But some of their software doesn't even support downgrade, so you need to uninstall/reinstall it and hope you have some old backup of your settings. Is this what you are referring to?
  - jeeva 2y ago
    Yow, I hadn't realised that twist. Having just read the JetBrains documentation around it, I don't like that.
al_borland 2y ago
Looking at a lot of this stuff, "lifetime" is a bit misleading. It's for the life of the version. Buy v1.x and you can use v1.x forever, but if you want v2.x, pay again. Of course, "forever" is only until everything around it leaves to the software not working, such as not supporting a new version of the OS it runs on.

JSR_FDED 2y ago

I find my tolerance for subscription software is proportional to how often I use it. A tool I use daily as my core work, no problem - I want to support them to ensure they stick around. But occasional tools I’d prefer to buy upgrades only if there are new feature I care about. I’m not a creative, so I’m not paying Adobe subscription (they’re icky in so many ways). But if I were I’d have no issue. But there is a 3rd category - something like an editor I couldn’t bear if it was tied to a company to ensure it’s survival so that’s got to be open source - even though ironically I’m willing to pay more in that scenario.

turtles3 2y ago
I'd say there is a fourth category too - things that would be perfectly fine as a simple, local program purchased once that grow over-complicated cloud features to justify a subscription model. Examples of this would be Lens, Postman and now Insomnia. This sort of behaviour is why I use k9s and Bruno instead.
- tigroferoce 2y ago
  100% agree with this. And I’d put most of the software into this category. Also, let me offer you a different view on the software you use a lot and therefore want to support. The more a software/service is important to you, the more you should worry about having that as subscription, because it can go away in a matters of hours without you being able to do anything about that. Think if slack went bankruptcy. Or if it was acquired by someone that shut it down. What would all those people that heavy relies on slack for their workflows? Or what about GitHub?

victorhurdugaci 2y ago

I would love for every tech to be this way but sometimes, there are recurring costs (for good reasons) for whoever provides the product. In those cases, I think subscription makes sense

microtonal 2y ago
For every software that is not abandonware, there is always a recurring cost (besides cloud, there is support, security updates, aligning with OS updates, etc.). There is something to be said for both sides. The counterpart to your argument is that, especially in niches or other markets where there is a dominant player, there isn't much incentive anymore to improve software when all your users are subscribers. The money comes in anyway. Besides that, you often see regular price increases in such markets because the user lost all power. If you end your subscription, there is no good alternative. In the pas you could just not update if the new pricing wasn't worth it. The best balance may be in the JetBrains-like model, where you pay a yearly amount, but you keep access to historical versions when you decide to cancel. In this way money flows in for updating and improving the software. But if you fail to provide value, users can always cancel their 'subscription' and continue using the last version.

saos 2y ago

Yeah until the company decides to adopt a subscription model

lionkor 2y ago

In case the author sees this: The email popup needs to go. I'd love to see your conversion on just that popup, its most likely zero.

kbrkbr 2y ago

I already made one-time payments (aka "lifetime") for two softwares/services. Was great until the providers went out of business. Before that they treated me not so well in support. But, what should I do, end the contract? Now I have the strict rule for myself not to use any kind of one-time payment options in this area (software/software based services) anymore. I'm just putting this down here to shed light on the possible downsides. Edit: now I realize this is not written clear enough. This rule applies to software/software based services I intend to use regularly to solve a specific problem, like office, storage, etc.

TeMPOraL 2y ago
It's not a "lifetime" payment unless you can run it off-line. If the software needs to talk to vendor licensing/authentication services, then any "lifetime" license is a lie for the reasons you mention.
- shahzaibmushtaq 2y ago
  No doubt about that what you have just said. Lifetime payment literally means the specific software is yours and runs even after the business selling it goes out of business one day or is acquired by another business. We need to consider these issues before selecting pay once option.
tigroferoce 2y ago
Ok, but think what would happen if you made a subscription and the provider went bankruptcy. Or was acquired by someone who shuts down the service? You would have payed for something that all of a sudden disappears and you have nothing, not even an old unsupported version fir the time you need to find alternatives.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]

wordofx 2y ago

Final Cut Pro > this should not be on the list. Versions require paying to upgrade and if you update macOS you end up having to pay for FCP.

XCSme 2y ago
It does make sense, though? If the developer has to work to change the product to work for new MacOS versions, because of API that Apple changed, the developer should be reimbursed for the development time, right?
- wordofx 2y ago
  So you’re saying it’s better to stick to Windows or Linux where you don’t need to pay for an update when you wanted to stay on a specific version, just because your OS updated.
  - XCSme 2y ago
    I am not sure how MacOS development works, and if apps are automatically compatible to new versions or not. I was not saying anything OS specific, just that if the developer has to actively work to implement changes, those development time should be paid for.
    - wordofx 2y ago
      I’ve been burned twice with FCP. Happy on version X, updated macOS, run FCP and it fails with that it doesn’t work on this version, contact FCP and get told I have to pay for the latest version to work on that version of macOS. It seems like it’s just a version check. If it was a major version upgrade I would happily pay it. But even premiere pro never broke between OS version updates on macOS or windows. So it seems like a FCP thing.
jasomill 2y ago
The Mac version of Final Cut Pro hasn’t had a paid upgrade since FCP X was released in 2011.

siva7 2y ago

Sorry, this distribution model worked in the 80s, 90s where it also originated from. Software was once installed on your desktop computer. No updates, no client/server model, just a black box without internet dependencies. I get the complaints that people wish back to a time where they purchased once the software but it doesn't work for SaaS, mobile phone apps or where i need to run a web server for the service. People easily forget about the hidden costs and why the software distribution model from ancient times doesn't cover the costs nowadays anymore.

generic92034 2y ago
At least in a B2B context a yearly maintenance fee was covering the costs, without cloud subscriptions. I think the move to SAAS in many areas is just to establish a stronger lock-in.
carlosjobim 2y ago
If you are using Mac OS, you can find the highest quality programs in any category for sale for between $30 and $100. The old model still works great. I have purchased some fantastic software and these prices are cheaper compared to the 80s and 90s.
IshKebab 2y ago
There's still plenty of software where using a very old version is perfectly fine. Matlab, Solidworks, Photoshop, etc. If you bought a 10 year old version it will still work fine and you probably aren't even missing much.
rkachowski 2y ago
> People easily forget about the hidden costs and why the software distribution model from ancient times doesn't cover the costs nowadays anymore. If this was true then there would be zero solvent software businesses that don't rely on subscription revenue, which is clearly not the case.
ktallett 2y ago
There is no need for a client/server model for most pieces of software, integration to existing cloud storage is far more useful than your server. Updates have existed for many years although less common as software was often more fully featured to begin with. There is still plenty of non subscription software that is out there, fully functioning, and of a high standard. Affinity is a key example.

thih9 2y ago

Feature request: show platform (Windows, Mac, Android, etc). Especially since products can be one time payment on some platforms and subscription based on others (e.g. final cut pro is listed as one time payment but the ipad version is subscription based).

Mackser 2y ago

I love sites like this. I'm always looking for more apps that let me keep using them even if I stop paying for updates. Adding a $10 monthly subscription will stop me from using most products but I'll gladly pay $100+ for some quality software that I can keep

julienreszka 2y ago

Search returns server error

oleksii88 2y ago

Oh nice, I also started a similar project about nine months ago - https://payonceapps.com/ https://payonceapps.com/ It came from my personal experience, where I sold my app for a fair one-time price and decided to give similar-minded people some spotlight.

Defletter 2y ago

Post-purchase subscriptions aren't necessarily bad, but the real death-knell is when they're combined with the profit motive. It hurts to realise that, no, your post-purchase subscription isn't paying for ongoing security updates; that it is the business model. It's why the subscription is $9.99 instead of $0.60, or whatever. The purchase price is just them double-dipping.

ktallett 2y ago
This. A subscription can work if a service is actually provided, as in regular updates, however I would say that's rarely the case and it's simply to make cash. Goodnotes, Pro Create, Affinity, all show you can make a fantastic product without a subscription and still bring regular updates.

shahzaibmushtaq 2y ago

If you can't decide which model to choose, go for open-source and contribute whatever you want.

XCSme 2y ago

For UXWizz (also mentioned on this site), it makes a lot of sense to have a one-time payment, because it's self-hosted. For many products and services that require active services/cost from the developer to run, it's harder to be sustainable with one-time payments, but for a self-hosted product it makes a lot of sense. Think of how software licenses used to work, or how games still work and do very well.

rustcleaner 2y ago

Idea: treat a subscription as a perpetuity (forever) or annuity (set time), and offer customers the choice of paying a regular cashflow or the present value of the perpetuity or annuity. You as developer need to smartly invest those larger payments to ensure you stay paid.

newsbinator 2y ago

I'm not even a graphic designer and Pixelmator Pro has paid for itself many times over. I can't believe Mac users (outside professional graphic-design) would willingly pay Adobe.