[pimterry]

Hi! I'm the dev behind HTTP Toolkit.

There is a subscription for Pro features, but most users don't need it - you can do most things common use cases need (all interception & inspection, manual traffic rewriting, almost everything that doesn't need advanced configuration) with just the free version. It's also 100% open-source, even the paid bits.

That said, imo subscriptions provide lots of benefits as a model for both sides. Basically by aligning how much value users get with how much they pay - cheap for quick use, expensive for extensive heavy use, strong incentive to fix bugs & support existing users instead of chasing the next shiny launch.

I hear your point about approvals anyway. If subscriptions are impossible, I can do one-off indefinite licenses - send me an email at [e-mail]

[enumjorge]

Thank you for clarifying. I initially misread the pricing page and thought the free could only be used for personal and not commercial use. That really helps with adoption. If I can get multiple people to try it and if they like it, it’s an easier conversation with the people who approve expensed if I’m not the only one vouching for a piece of software.

I get what you mean about aligning incentives. I do want to support devs in a way that these types of projects are sustainable, but the way other products shut off access to your stuff once you stop paying make subscription models an unnecessary risk. Having a free tier like yours really helps.

[Cu3PO42]

While I don't currently need such a tool at work, I just want to chime in to agree with the approval point. It's significantly less hassle to get an expensive one time purchase approved than a €5 recurring payment. I very much appreciate your openness in that regard and I'll keep it in mind for the future :-)

[angry_octet]

Can confirm that the only way I could buy a subscription tool would be with my own money, they stress of buying it at work would be insane. Every monthly credit card charge would require someone to code it against the requisition, have that approved, then file in the records management system. Just purchasing software once is painful. We haven't even got to the part about installing it. You can imagine their happiness about mitmproxy.

Generally I try to buy the tool and three years of support upfront. Otherwise I'm at risk of it being deleted because we can't have software if it doesn't have a support contract 'in case there are bugs'. These rules are written by cretins in 'IT' and accountants.

Anyway, put the bit about flexible licencing on your order page.

[InvaderFizz]

I like the look of the product, but there is no mention whatsoever of websockets in the docs.

That is the thing missing from Charles for our QA folks.

It is highly annoying to have to hook the iOS app up to Xcode just to be able to see the wss traffic when tracking down a bug.

[wildbook]

I've successfully used Fiddler Classic as alternative to Charles to look at live websocket traffic when debugging things before. Websocket support in general is a bit of a hidden feature though since you need to go to the request that established the connection and double-click the websocket logo to the left on it, which opens a new panel showing its traffic.

The newer "Fiddler Everywhere" might also be able to do it, possibly even better, but I dislike the UI and I'm used to Classic so I've stuck to that.

[pimterry]

Yep, websockets are coming later this year, but it's not done yet I'm afraid.

Tracked here: https://github.com/httptoolkit/httptoolkit/issues/36. You can subscribe to the GH issue for updates if you're interested.