4 ms·
I liked the old "pay for updates" model. Nowadays, that seems less viable because security updates are so important[0]. I think the middle ground model would be
by VyseofArcadia 2y ago
I liked the old "pay for updates" model. Nowadays, that seems less viable because security updates are so important[0]. I think the middle ground model would be something like security updates are free, feature updates cost money. Something like pay $x for version n+1 or a discounted rate for a subscription.
Sounds like a bit of a hassle on the logistics/release engineering side, though. That would need to be handled with some care and planning.
[0] Which I'll admit I don't 100% buy, but I'd love for a security expert to weigh in.
- hombre_fatal 2y agoYou admit this, but yeah, it's a big headache that has its own trade-offs. By design, you'll have users spread across any number of versions. And you have to decide how far back you're going to issue updates. And instead of having nice in-app updates and a policy of "just upgrade to the latest version", you have a system that's complicated for you and your users. And you have to decide if you're okay letting users use (by design) releases with issues that have long been fixed. I can see how Adobe and Jetbrains have the manpower to do it, but a solo dev or a small team, you should spend your time building the dang product rather than appeasing people who don't think your product is worth $9/mo.
- VyseofArcadia 2y agoYeah, I've seen similar in pro-level software tools, CAD applications, MATLAB, etc, but those tend to be large and mature organizations with the expertise and manpower to e.g. backport bugfixes to released versions.