[throwaway2016a]

This looks really good. My only comment I have is that if I am purchasing a piece of desktop software I expect there to be at least the option of an annual license.

Monthly feels more like a service than a product and I think of desktop software as a product.

But I realize Desktop software pricing is evolving so this may just be old school thinking on my part.

Also, if I'm a Mac user (I am) I expect to be able to buy / pay through the app store. I know it sucks because Apple takes a huge cut but there is a level of trust (misplaced or not) and ease of use that comes with the app store. I am much more likely to use an app if it is in there. Just like on Linux I am much more likely to use an app if it is in a package manager.

Speaking of that, I don't know what desktop framework was used but, is there anything preventing a Linux version?

[hathawayp]

Interesting comment regarding the App Store. To be honest I'm really surprised no one has ever said this to us before. We have another product - (http://urlprofiler.com/) - for Windows and Mac that we've been selling for 3 years and no one has ever given us this feedback.

We're not wedded to a price structure, although we're rolling with monthly for now. I'm pretty sure through weight of demand that we'll need to add Yearly plans in the next few months.

There's nothing preventing a Linux version (it's built in Electron) other than demand really. We'll do it if enough people want it, but we have a bunch of other features on our roadmap that are currently a higher priority.

[throwaway2016a]

The app store has a few benefits. The biggest one, for paid software is that if I format my computer or move to a new computer my license come over with my Apple account. I don't need to worry about remembering an account and license keys for each each.

I can't count how many apps I've paid for but I don't have installed right now because I lost a hard drive and my license keys with it.

Though I'm guessing with monthly billing it is more a username / password thing for you vs a key. (I haven't tried it yet, sorry).

The second benefit is not having to give my billing info to yet another company.

I'm not unlikely to install an app not from the app store. But I'd say I'm... complete guess here... 30% more likely to install it if it is in the app store.

And I can also say that if I have the choice between the two (same software on the app store and off), I will always do the one in the app store because of the previously listed benefits.

[hathawayp]

Thanks for the feedback, good to know.

Yeah we use a username/password so there's no issue with losing a license key.

[devdoomari]

that's not very customer-friendly... I wouldn't want to remember username/password for your website, when the App Store can just let me re-download your app without going any hassle.

[btown]

Adobe Creative Cloud (as well as how streaming services have made people at all levels inured to low monthly subscriptions) has made this type of monthly pricing much more normalized - good for providers who can now point to recurring revenue, not so great for users who usually end up paying more.

[SyneRyder]

It's worth considering what your particular customers want. I make Photoshop plugins, and since the CC subscription came in, I've heard of a lot of customers jumping ship to one-off purchase products, like Affinity Photo and Paint Shop Pro. But some other customers are happy with it.

Also, while Creative Cloud is paid monthly, individual plans have a minimum term of 12 months. If you cancel, you have to pay out 50% of the contract term (unless you prepaid for the year, in which case there are no refunds).

http://www.adobe.com/legal/subscription-terms.html

[hashmal]

In a sense, all software is service. After all, what you buy is a license, the right to use the software, you don't buy the software itself. I suppose the US doesn't view it this way, but it definitely varies from country to country.

[toss1]

Technically, that's correct, although it's a conceit that was foisted upon us by the software industry, partly as an artifact of copyright law and partly to gain more control over their product than others could gain.

As futile as it is, I'd rather see the concept go away than see it further enshrined in subscription services.

[WA]

The concept won’t go away, because users expect updates. The times when software actually was finished are over.

If we don’t expect software to have any updates at all, we can go back to one time fees.

[toss1]

Why would the practice of updating a product eliminate the concept of ownership? We can own a product and get updates as part of a warranty, or a program to purchase new upgrades.

The expectation of updating also seems to be making the software industry even more slipshod and crappy, with a just ship it now ans fix it later attitude.

I'd much rather see properly designed products and software infrastructure, built right the first time, and delivered once. But that would require competence and forethought.

[WA]

> Why would the practice of updating a product eliminate the concept of ownership?

Regular updates = expensive to develop = monthly or yearly fees = reduced/eliminated concept of ownership.

> The expectation of updating also seems to be making the software industry even more slipshod and crappy, with a just ship it now ans fix it later attitude.

Possibly. Or it's the other way around: Companies don't get all the money upfront and have to continue to deliver. Otherwise they get complains, bad ratings and customer churn.

> But that would require competence and forethought.

And much bigger wallets from consumers. I think most people wouldn't pay a few hundred bucks nowadays for an operating system, or for MS Office, or Photoshop. And surely not for most software these days: apps.

Don't get me wrong. Your points are valid, but I think the market has spoken. People want software that continues to work on the newest OS. They want new features, compatibility and whatnot.

Back in the day, you bought Office 2000 and knew it'd be outdated at some point in time. Your Windows XP Professional you bought for 200 bucks is worthless today. Try using Photoshop 5 – works on your XP machine I guess – but can't open files from other designers.

Software 10-15 years ago was delivered once. Updates were an annoyance. But the upfront cost could still be divided through the number of months you actually used the software – and for most software, it's probably not that much different from the monthly subscription or yearly license fee you have today.

[mackatsol]

I'll add on to that.. if I download desktop software, I expect an app and not a package file I need to install.. especially if said package only contains an app and nothing else. Strange. :-)

[seibelj]

I am personally fine with a monthly fee for desktop software. If I'm paying for software, it's up to the person who sells the software to decide how I should pay, and for me to decide if it's worth it.

[gog]

I am definitively not fine with that. Of course it's up to the person selling the software to decide on the pricing model, but it's also up to the customers to voice their opinion.

I refuse to buy software that is subscription based. The closest to this that I find OK is PHPStorm which has a hybrid model where if you pay for a year you get to keep the version you installed at the beginning of your subscription (or after a year of monthly payments have been made).

I don't expect companies to work on the software for free, if there is an upgrade worth upgrading I am prepared to pay for it.

[sametmax]

How many software licences do you pay a month ? Because they add up, very, very quickly.