Buy once, use forever A directory of one-time purchase software
buyoncesoftware.com
buyoncesoftware.com
An example from this list: LocalCan – https://buyoncesoftware.com/localcan – there's a server-side component (which is why ngrok its competitor is subscription based). If this component disappears the app ceases to function.
The flip side to this is that just because an app is entirely local doesn't mean it will work as the software around it gets updated (OSes etc), so if a company decides to stop supporting it, that too is useless in a way. It's not the same because running it on the machine you had when you bought it would still work, but that's not how we use computers in practice. Perhaps this is a different case because many of these "buy once" would charge for a major update like that anyway.
The OS upgrade example you give is different from a required server I think, because
- that's under your control: you can choose to keep an old system around, run emulation or WINE, depending on how important this is to you
- they don't have ongoing costs, like they do with a service, so there's no reason for them to stop providing the thing you thought you purchased
> If it depends on a network service that isn't included in the purchase, then it's definitely not a thing you purchased
Not sure if this is what you're referring to, but there's a distinction between services provided by the software supplier, and services that aren't.
Example, could a Twitter client (RIP) be buy-once? Well, yes from the supplier, but no because Twitter turned down their public API access. I think a Twitter client could be sold in the spirit of buy-once.
The clearer case though is something like LocalCan, where it depends on a service provided by the supplier, and that could go away, and I think therefore shouldn't be classed as buy-once (although this is not something I'm decided on, hence looking for input here).
You do make a good point that all, even local only software has a "best before" date, but online software is different: it has a hard expiry date. It is also prone to gradual price hikes and enshitification.
This used to be less of a problem, when OS vendors gave more of a shit about backward compatibility. But still, even today, this doesn't seem like a major risk. OS platforms really don't change that fast. I would expect a Linux, Mac or Windows app purchased today to actually work unpatched (on a computer with the same CPU architecture) for 10, maybe 20 years. I mean, we have games from the 90s that still can be made to work on a modern Windows machine.
The most recent OS-driven rug-pull that broke software that I remember is Apple removing support for 32-bit apps. Which yes was a dick move.
The web as a platform is a different story. Browser APIs are all over the place and things get broken constantly. I honestly would not be willing to pay for a browser-based software, full stop. I just feel like web developers in general are way less serious about forward and backward compatibility, and making sure their software works on a browser that isn't "Bleeding Edge Chrome".
Your comparison to Windows doesn’t make much sense. Windows is by far the less powerful and far more annoying to work with platform as a developer.
Because there are many 32-bit apps which work great offline and require no further updates. They should continue to work with new hardware purchases regardless of OS installation.
Breaking user's apps is a bad experience for them. Worse, it's not even something they can do something about... except by not updating, which is a lose-lose.
Really, if you're using an online app, you should be updating your browser for security patches.
Not really. ES5 (2009, but realistically supported in 2012-2013) still works perfectly fine in pretty much all browsers. There's massive churn in JS frameworks absolutely, but that's not a browser thing. There are even languages still being transpiled to ES5. Just because there's a new js package manager twice a year, it doesn't mean you need to use it :)
For everything else, I prefer free to license and use forever where possible. Like Linux and LibreOffice.
Or a company that's been at it for 30 years, happily paying their employees to have a life, and no interest in IPO or selling?
Because the former: that's buy once, never upgrade, because it's gone. The latter? Buy once, enjoy forever, maybe upgrade once there's a feature that actually makes a difference to you personally 5 years from now. If you ever need to pay for that update at all rather than just getting lifetime free update (VueScan, FL Studio, etc)
If they release the server side component so it is self-hostable, yes.
No, and this is a valid reason for a subscription pricing model.
However, if the software does not need its base / local functionality to reach out to servers, then it should have a one-time (per version, more for major upgrades) price and a separate subscription price.
Personal example: I purchased YNAB4 and was happy with it. Would gladly have purchased YNAB5, but 5 had all sorts of cloud-y functionality that I had no interest or use for. I just wanted a decent local app for expense tracking and 4 had that but 5 did not.
In a similar vein there is a whole bunch of tax-filing software in Canada available , but all (?) of the free stuff is online, which I have no interesting in doing:
* https://www.canada.ca/en/revenue-agency/services/e-services/...
So I pay about CA$ 20 for Studio Tax so that I can have things completely local (CRA is piloting their free tax filing system, we'll see if third-party stuff will be needed in the future).
Screen Studio: $9/month vs $220 "one-time purchase" with only one year of support.
Sizzy browser: $12/month or $499 one-time purchase.
Then you often have a one device limit - I can't be two places at once but I do have both a laptop and desktop machine.
Who in their sane mind would choose these? Note that the problem with "one-year of updates" is not that you'd want free access to a newer major version of the app, but a year+ is enough time to have a new OS version make your app unusable or subject to security updates. While companies in the before times would quickly release a patch to keep their old users happy, the one-year term just ensures you'll be left hanging.
This is just paying lip service to the idea of a one-time purchase.
I'm not sure which operating system is obsoleting all your software on a yearly basis, but it doesn't sound like a very stable computing environment.
Originally I was going to say that's not what I'd assume "Support" to mean (Personally, I would differentiate between patches/updates and support, as in, customer support), however, we should point out that in their own words, on Screen Studio's own site, the fine print under "Pay Once" Says:
> Renew to get the latest updates or keep using the version you have forever.
So indeed, that's disingenuous in my opinion as a "one time purchase" option for the reasons you point out.
Sizzy however states:
> The lifetime plan includes all future updates
So I would think that passes the muster of "one time purchase", not just paying lip service.
Broad picture, I think you bring up an important distinction regarding "one-time purchases" and the expectations therein.
There are also other AI tools listed there. https://buyoncesoftware.com/?category=AI
As soon as the AI models run on an external server a buy once model does no longer work (or atleast not with an acceptable one time price). The constant server cost is just to high.
Tell this to Rabbit and their R1 device, which comes with unlimited LLM usage. I guess they just rate limit through having a bad UX though. /s
But yes, you're right, this is what I was getting at, LLM usage is expensive enough to need a subscription model.
I'm naveen, solo developer behind fridaygpt. thanks for pointing this out. you're absolutely right. api key requirement wasn't clear enough on the landing page. honestly, i hadn't realized this was causing confusion since current users didn't flag it until now.
i've just updated the landing page to make the "bring your own api key" requirement explicitly clear. if i'd noticed this earlier, it would have been fixed sooner.
The post is now flagged.
Note: In this case, the label "Show HN:" might also not have been OK.
Well at least that's consistent. Feels a bit hidden after the invite in the title, though
$29.99 w/o lifetime updates, and $49.98 with.
As appreciation for this thread, here's $10 off for HN readers (expires April fools): HNONCE
- baiting into an expensive one-time-fee and pull the rug becomes that much more viable. In particular it becomes a good place to promote FOSS projects reskins that will be left behind once it gets exposed.
- having a crazy high one time fee and 99.9% operate the subscription tiers will be enough to put the name on the list, which could enough publicity to cover the entry price.
The directory management still gets the money, so I'm also not sure how much incentives they actually have to stop the abuse. What am I missing ?
And maybe a badge of shame for "buy once, and yeah, you own that version, but you get punished for not upgrading by skipping a version meaning you now pay full price again" like DxO... Yeah it's "you own it" but my goodness is it the worst possible way to offer that.
This motivated me to check another perpetual license I've had for a while -- MediaMonkey (license bought in 2006). Looks like this is still available as a lifetime license!
My impression was that the previous "Professional Edition, Single User" license included upgrades in perpetuity (which no longer seems to be the case). Am I misremembering on this point?
I recently bought a (non-subscription) copy of Softmaker Office. If I have to buy a newer version ten years from now, that's okay. It's got better file compatibility with Word than LibreOffice and it doesn't force me to connect to the internet or anyone's cloud.
Weird example perhaps but that's one of the oldest totally unmaintained things I used back in my Windows days. WINE may also be a way to run older Windows wares without needing a whole VM setup
On Android, I also use software written for Android 4 on Android 10 without problems. The permission model got more strict so it asks you for giving some blanket permissions because those weren't granular at that SDK/API version (iirc network and storage access are two of the three main ones), but after that one-time confirmation it works perfectly, and from f-droid I also trust that it doesn't abuse these permissions
Of course, there's also plenty of counterexamples. GOG exists for a reason, patching up games to run on modern OSes. I guess it's a risk but I don't generally expect most things to break with every version upgrade
MacOS Software sadly does break sometimes.
Proprietary binaries may work but there's no guarantee depending upon how the software was written.
So it looks like they'll list anyone who pays the fee, making the whole exercise a waste of time.
Something quite amazing is that it's written in Delphi. I love Fl Studio. It's possibly the best commercial software I've ever seen.
Not that they'll ever do that. Resolve / Studio is their loss-leader product to pull people into their very premium camera ecosystem.
So much you can't even have a directory for them.
Would you rather use an open-source project that has 2000 open issues and only 1–2 updates per year, where developers haven't responded in months and have no incentive to help you, or pay for the software, support the developers, and receive quick answers to your questions and even have your issues/bug reports addressed immediately?
Personally, even if I use open-source "free" software, I often donate to the developers, because I want that software to be maintained and improved, or even have my feature requests implemented.
Why are people so reluctant to pay for stuff they actually need/use and to support smaller businesses? It's not even about being selfish, because paying the developers actually will make your experience with the product better.
I don’t resent paying a subscription for software.
I think idea is good, maybe execution is lacking and could use someone else to do it...
The 1 year subscription terminates.
So technically nanocad qualifies for listing.
Which is sad, as it was a good idea. Someone make an awesome-github repo instead please.
I lived long enough to recognize a grifter.