3 ms·

Yes, I did so for 10+ years, about 15 years ago. It launched my business (which then evolved to include a lot of consulting). I charged for major version upgr

Yes, I did so for 10+ years, about 15 years ago. It launched my business (which then evolved to include a lot of consulting). I charged for major version upgrades that introduced substantial new functionality (discounted for existing customers); minor version upgrades were free. I was probably too generous with support, but it resulted in very satisfied customers and a solid reputation that paid in spades with the more lucrative opportunities. Not sure how the market is these days for that model, but I can give you a datapoint of one in that I strongly prefer it over subscriptions in almost all cases (the exception being when there's legit ongoing service being delivered).

Gigachad 2y ago
Development cycles are getting faster making this less viable. You can’t afford to hold on to finished features waiting to bundle them in to a major release. Your competitor just released a feature, you have it finished, but you’re holding it for a release. Users will get frustrated and move to the software that’s always ahead.
- DougN7 2y ago
  That’s the theory, but I have yet to see it play out in real life. Very few products are so identical that this would be the case.
- rkagerer 2y ago
  There's some truth to that, but I'm not sold it's universally the case (or needs to be). Speaking for myself, I pushed those minor updates - with lots of little feature enhancements - as soon as they were ready (sometimes mere days after being envisioned/suggested). The major upgrades generally included stuff reliant on larger overhaul efforts or new foundations. I wouldn't typically hold anything back artificially. My team was small (for a good portion of time solo) and our efforts were focused, which probably helped. On the other hand, I've seen increasing examples in the last decade of meaningless UI changes that trip up the user by moving their cheese (instead of being carefully thought out in the first place), needless bugs introduced with no remorse, and a whole class of "features" there not for the user but instead to serve the interests of the vendor or their data-hoovering partners. (Windows sadly became a great example) My beef isn't inherent to the subscription model itself, but the shift in revenue structure made it tempting for companies to uncouple development from user wants. Where upgrades used to be forged on the anvil of user acceptance and pitched to our wallets first, they're now shoved down our throats with little choice whether to adopt. (And cloud delivery eliminated the option to stay on that old version you liked better.) I'm not convinced users jump ship quite so rapidly just to get new features. We saw a big move to mobile even when the apps lacked anywhere near the breadth of their desktop counterparts. Personally I gravitate toward products which do a good job of solving their primary purpose. As an example, I loved Dropbox for years but plan to migrate away soon because sync got worse and their dev efforts have been focused on all kinds of new fluff I never wanted.
- GoblinSlayer 2y ago
  Easy migrations are unheard of. If competition existed, electron apps would never exist.
  - BlueTemplar 2y ago
    You don't consider Qt to be competition to Electron ?
    - neverartful 2y ago
      Qt is competition (perhaps not direct in many cases) and it's not the only one. Also wxWidgets, Lazarus, Delphi, C++ Builder, WinForms, WPF, Xojo, etc.
    - GoblinSlayer 2y ago
      If you can run a webapp in Qt, then it's just a Qt wrapper around Electron.
DougN7 2y ago
I do almost the same thing, except I also offer a monthly subscription. The reason being that I’ve run into some companies that absolutely only want to pay monthly, and others that absolutely only want to pay once. I figure it’s best to make it as easy as possible for them to pay.

Gigachad 2y ago

Development cycles are getting faster making this less viable. You can’t afford to hold on to finished features waiting to bundle them in to a major release. Your competitor just released a feature, you have it finished, but you’re holding it for a release. Users will get frustrated and move to the software that’s always ahead.

DougN7 2y ago
That’s the theory, but I have yet to see it play out in real life. Very few products are so identical that this would be the case.
rkagerer 2y ago
There's some truth to that, but I'm not sold it's universally the case (or needs to be). Speaking for myself, I pushed those minor updates - with lots of little feature enhancements - as soon as they were ready (sometimes mere days after being envisioned/suggested). The major upgrades generally included stuff reliant on larger overhaul efforts or new foundations. I wouldn't typically hold anything back artificially. My team was small (for a good portion of time solo) and our efforts were focused, which probably helped. On the other hand, I've seen increasing examples in the last decade of meaningless UI changes that trip up the user by moving their cheese (instead of being carefully thought out in the first place), needless bugs introduced with no remorse, and a whole class of "features" there not for the user but instead to serve the interests of the vendor or their data-hoovering partners. (Windows sadly became a great example) My beef isn't inherent to the subscription model itself, but the shift in revenue structure made it tempting for companies to uncouple development from user wants. Where upgrades used to be forged on the anvil of user acceptance and pitched to our wallets first, they're now shoved down our throats with little choice whether to adopt. (And cloud delivery eliminated the option to stay on that old version you liked better.) I'm not convinced users jump ship quite so rapidly just to get new features. We saw a big move to mobile even when the apps lacked anywhere near the breadth of their desktop counterparts. Personally I gravitate toward products which do a good job of solving their primary purpose. As an example, I loved Dropbox for years but plan to migrate away soon because sync got worse and their dev efforts have been focused on all kinds of new fluff I never wanted.
GoblinSlayer 2y ago
Easy migrations are unheard of. If competition existed, electron apps would never exist.
- BlueTemplar 2y ago
  You don't consider Qt to be competition to Electron ?
  - neverartful 2y ago
    Qt is competition (perhaps not direct in many cases) and it's not the only one. Also wxWidgets, Lazarus, Delphi, C++ Builder, WinForms, WPF, Xojo, etc.
  - GoblinSlayer 2y ago
    If you can run a webapp in Qt, then it's just a Qt wrapper around Electron.

DougN7 2y ago

I do almost the same thing, except I also offer a monthly subscription. The reason being that I’ve run into some companies that absolutely only want to pay monthly, and others that absolutely only want to pay once. I figure it’s best to make it as easy as possible for them to pay.