I prefer one-time payment with some caveats.
If the developer has the app (at time of purchase) containing no depreciated API, you should get a sold 5 years out of it at least. Without forking out for annual updates / maintenance charges.
When Apple deprecates an API, they usually provide developers with a grace period during which the deprecated API remains functional and supported. This grace period can vary, but typically it lasts for several major releases of the operating system (macOS, iOS, etc.).
This mitigates consumer concerns of OS updates ending the life of the version they possess. In the near future.
So in most cases, you can look at the price as for want of a better way of putting it “a 5 year subscription”.
A subscription model is sadly the way it’s going now. I don’t mind if it’s something I use everyday and rely on and the updates keep coming but if it’s something I use rarely then I’ll have to evaluate the pros and cons.
When 1Password moved to subscription I was annoyed and started using a free app doing the same. That was until I found out from, let’s say, criminal friends, that the free password manager I was using was part of a large network hackers use to research individuals. So I went back to 1Password.
It greatly depends on the product.
I agree with Joe that something like Total CMS warrants a per-domain license. The same goes for Sitelok, for example, as the maintenance for this type of product is high and if you need them for more than one domain, you’re most likely a professional user and make money of your websites.
I also agree with @RapidWeaver 's Dan G that some software warrants a subscription type license for the same reason: they need to be maintained and maintenance costs money.
To draw an analogy with @joeworkman woodworking tools: if a tool needs maintenance, or uses renewables (I have no clue about woodworking, but I imagine saw blades and drill bits need replacing every so often) you don’t expect that to be free for all eternity just because you spent money on the product that one time. Instead, most of us would expect and factor in those costs into their decision to go for a certain tool or not.
This is why a “maintenance guaranteed” period works, and why “stop paying and the product shuts down” doesn’t: I don’t want my drill to stop working if I stop forking over $10 a month to Bosch (or Black & Decker - other drills are available), but I don’t expect it to work forever either. A few years would be ideal. And the renewables themselves wouldn’t be part of that “guarantee” in my point of view.
Now, back to stacks (or elements): some of them are simple and rarely see updates. There’s a ton of image stacks out there that basically all doth same and have been doing that for eons. I wouldn’t want to see a subscription model of any kind for those types of stacks/elements ever. It would feel like a rip-off, to be honest.
But stuff like Joe’s Total CMS completely would warrant a subscription model - there: i’ve said it. The amount of updates is huge, and it’s a type of stack that adds so freaking much value to your project that it does warrant it. But that subscription should be more like what Dan suggests (and RapidWeaver actually has) and not the type that Adobe offers.
Now all we need is a different word for this type of subscription. Support period, perhaps?
Cheers,
Erwin
(Off topic) and Apple now has AND anonymous mail AND a password manager AND a 2FA authentication all in one operating system. I ditched Dashlane, Ironvest and Google Authenticator, but only the last one was free.
I would not be surprised if Apple picks up iWeb again.
I have hundreds of passwords, mostly for my staff so I’m not sure if Apples solution would work. 15 logins from different users for various apps.
Very interesting that you did not mention the free password managers name. It could be very useful to know this… Though it’s off topic.
I did not upgrade to 1Password 8 since I could not make/use local vaults & sync over a local lan. ( Since I cannot use online password managers )
I deliberately didn’t mention it for obvious reasons. It’s free and the most popular free one available.
I keep my critique of subscription models based on my experience with software like RapidWeaver Classic. They switched to a yearly subscription model, but the software itself rarely gets any real updates or improvements to justify the recurring fees.
This is exactly the kind of situation that makes subscription pricing models feel like a scam to extract more money from users without providing commensurate value in return. If a developer is going to ask for subscriptions, they need to uphold their end of the bargain by actively developing the software with new features, performance improvements, bug fixes etc. on an ongoing basis. Otherwise, what are users paying that yearly fee for?
With RapidWeaver Classic specifically, it seems like a cash grab to force longtime users into a subscription just to keep using a mature product that has settled into maintenance mode. Subscriptions are supposed to align incentives for developers to continually update and add value to their apps. But when the updates never materialize, it ends up feeling like we’re being nickel-and-dimed.
This underscores my overarching point - before the prevalence of subscriptions, developers could absolutely monetize their software through paid upgrades when major new versions arrived. So there’s no need to move to subscriptions unless they are truly committed to an accelerated development cycle that warrants recurring revenue. Anything less, and subscriptions come across as lacking in value and taking advantage of users.
I’d much rather pay an upfront fee for software I know will be stable and supported for years. And if major new versions are released down the line, then I’m willing to pay an upgrade fee at that point. But subscriptions without active development are indefensible in my view.
Everything you said makes sense if the only reason app developers updated their apps was to ensure macOS version compatibility.
Thankfully that’s not the only reason that devs push out updates for their apps.
RapidWeaver Classic has gotten a lot of updates/patch releases since it’s release. RapidWeaver Release Notes
We’ve also got some nice updates coming in the next weeks/months to RapidWeaver Classic so stay tuned for those.
But I will point out, your entire comment/point of view seems to be based on the conception that we force you into renewing your subscription in order for the app to continue to work. We don’t. You are free to let your 1 year period of app updates expire and you can carry on using RapidWeaver Classic just as you had been, without giving us another “nickel-and-dime”. ;)
If your 1 year period of app updates is expired, and then you see an update that we push out and you think to yourself “that looks nice, I’d like to have it”, then you are free to renew your 1 year period of app updates for another year.
Again this is the same model that other popular apps/software are using, such as CleanShot X, CodeKit 3, and many more. I personally think this model works well for both the consumer and the developer, and it ensures the app/software is stable and supported for years to come.
Ah yes, that’s a totally different situation.
May I ask what the free tool is that’s used by hackers to research individuals?
What a good question…
I’m probably in the minority here, but I would prefer a subscription model approach. But not per each domain, but one licensed to a user.
I’ve bought dozens of stacks over the years and for the majority, only after purchasing them, I have realised that the stack is not quite what I was looking for, then I have to purchase another stack. Or often, I need a stack for one site but then I’m pretty sure I’ll never use it again.
A monthly fee which allows us to use any stack from a catalogue, for me that would be ideal, and a balanced approach.
Hey, @furqan_aziz, welcome to the forum!
In general, I agree with you that this is a viable option (at least for add-on buyers). With two caveats, though. One: it stipulates the existence of one centralized catalog. Two: all developers and all their products need to be included in that catalog.
Maybe I’m wrong, but I’m pretty sure that those two conditions would turn out to be rather difficult to achieve, especially taking into account the current state of politics between RM and competitors.
I guess you’re right, that would be a utopic view.
The thought of having the opportunity to be able to use any stack, for any project is quite exciting. Our websites would be better, and surely that’s better for the whole community?
Envato Elements is a practical example.
Personally I am for one-off perpetual license.
For very complex add-ons, a domain based license is OK
I think the answer to this question is super simple. Just do an experiment for 6 months where all stacks come with subscriptions. At the end of 6 months, after 90% of developers have disappeared, you’ll have your answer.
This will undoubtedly mark the end of an era if they adopt the one-website license business model, time-based subscription, or any other method to exploit us all. The sole reason we remain loyal is the one-time payment option.
Even if you haven’t used it, supporting the developer in this way is truly commendable. Paying a monthly fee just to see if a stack fits is nonsense.