4 ms·
We did the opposite. We raised the price [$50] and will only provide a year of free updates. Extra years come at a comparatively small cost. People hated being
by hemancuso 12y ago
We did the opposite. We raised the price [$50] and will only provide a year of free updates. Extra years come at a comparatively small cost. People hated being asked to upgrade regularly and we obviously didn't want to go years between adding major features. It seemed like the only way.
One interesting thing we have done, is offer a "lifetime upgrade" option for both upgrades and new purchases. About 30% of our customers buy it. It costs 50% more on a new purchase or 100% more if you're upgrading, but you get all future upgrades. It's a win for customers who want that, and it's definitely a win for us.
- milen 12y agoEven though your particular split between upfront + recurring costs is different than in my example, it's still in the spirit of sustainability. I honestly have no idea how the economics pan out if you had $50 app and $X yearly upgrade (or is it $X for 1yr of updates?) compared to, say, $20 each 1.5yrs. But in both cases, I think you'll have a chance of building something that can last. Interesting stats about the lifetime upgrades - thanks for providing those. I guess it works as long as all of your users don't buy it (which means your recurring revenue drops to 0 at some point and you're back to square one).
- hemancuso 12y agoJust raise the price until only a reasonable percentage do then! ;)