As a user of hundreds of programs with no direct cost for updates decades after purchase, I find this perfectly reasonable.
I didn’t say free as this cost is included in the price at purchase. Vendors can be explicit about their fees and updates and let me choose to buy or not buy.
There’s lots of markets with natural charge points for updates (windows and office for example). A vendor not calling out the price for updates and then renaming and stopping updates is sleazy definitely and maybe scammy.
There are lots of models for software with pros and cons. The only thing that really tweaks me is the bait and switch after my purchase. Or the exploitation of an implicit allowance to my detriment.
Theoretically Mac has been providing updates to purchases made in 2000[0]. Granted, they used to charge and I doubt you have hardware that will still run the updates.
Microsoft patched Server 2003 in 2017 [1].
Not to mention the reason why lots of OSS is still used because it allows “free updates for life.”
There’s no such thing as true free (tnstaafl), but there are lots of companies willing to be clear about update costs.
We're talking 2 different things. You're pointing to examples of bug and security fixes. When I say updates, I'm referring to new and improved functionality. (in other words, probably a terminology issue: "update" vs "upgrade")
Software like Omnifocus 3 adds new functionality, or as you put it, "natural charge points for updates".
Mac OS has feature updates. Those were just two examples and it’s not just security.
I’m not against charging for feature updates, I’m against companies lying “Omnifocus costs $xx” and then changing their mind later to charge a new price even if you only want security updates.
I didn’t say free as this cost is included in the price at purchase. Vendors can be explicit about their fees and updates and let me choose to buy or not buy.
There’s lots of markets with natural charge points for updates (windows and office for example). A vendor not calling out the price for updates and then renaming and stopping updates is sleazy definitely and maybe scammy.
There are lots of models for software with pros and cons. The only thing that really tweaks me is the bait and switch after my purchase. Or the exploitation of an implicit allowance to my detriment.
Theoretically Mac has been providing updates to purchases made in 2000[0]. Granted, they used to charge and I doubt you have hardware that will still run the updates.
Microsoft patched Server 2003 in 2017 [1].
Not to mention the reason why lots of OSS is still used because it allows “free updates for life.”
There’s no such thing as true free (tnstaafl), but there are lots of companies willing to be clear about update costs.
[0] https://robservatory.com/a-useless-analysis-of-os-x-release-...
[1] https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/security-updates/securitybu...