[NikxDa]

Halide is 2.99 a month, or 12.49 a year, and has been a subscription model since 2020. Sure, you have a one-time purchase option, but it is $70. I believe people who bought before the subscription got one year free, but things like widgets aren't supported. So unfortunately, that is likely the same fate for Kino.

This post introduces the subscriptions: https://medium.com/halide/introducing-halide-mkii-30f9f2bcea...

[zymhan]

> you have a one-time purchase option, but it is $70

That is a perfectly reasonable amount of money for consumer software to cost.

[zamadatix]

I'm fine if I can get a reasonable number of years out of it. I'm not expecting infinite updates forever for $9.99. 1-2y for this would be disappointing but not even a bad deal. On Halide it seems the problem is more "pricing in general" - a 1 year subscription costs more than the one time purchase in this app so naturally expecting get and keep the app plus years of updates is a bit eyewatering for a camera app (but not necessarily because of the pricing model/that it switches major versions in long cycles).

[domador]

Speaking of infinite updates forever, I am frustrated that software publishers and users have come to expect that all software should either be free, subscription-based, or a one-time purchase with permanently free updates. Each of these models can make sense for different kinds of software-based products and services, but they are problematic in the case of standalone tools (such as cameras, multimedia editors, productivity software, etc.) Some of the problems:

a) Free: Due to lack of revenue, the company that makes your favorite tool may stop developing new features, add intrusive ads, sell your personal data, and/or sell itself to a nasty buyer that will end up killing your tool’s future in one of various ways.

b) Subscription-based: Many software tools are naturally products, not services, yet this model can artificially and unnecessarily turn them into services. Users may end up paying too much over the long run, the software publisher is not necessarily motivated to keep improving the tool, and if the company or a future owner decides to kill off the product, you won’t be able to keep using it (regardless of how much more you’d be willing to pay to do so.)

c) One-time purchase with permanently free updates: Though it provides the software publisher with revenue and users may appreciate the ability to keep using the tool they bought forever, the product may experience market saturation at some point, and the publisher may stop receiving revenue from new users. The publisher will not be motivated and/or financially able to improve the program and may be tempted to switch to the subscription-based model.

I really wish more companies would go back to the old-style model where users can buy the current version of a software tool but would need to pay a discounted price to upgrade to a newer version of that tool (a major-version upgrade.) Along with this, customers would get free upgrades for a limited time (such as year) or all minor upgrades during the current major version. I believe this model creates a healthy incentive for a software publisher to keep improving its products while receiving revenue from both new and existing customers (reducing the market-saturation problem.) Unfortunately, both publishers and especially users may have grown unaccustomed to this model and may not appreciate its benefits.

[bonney_io]

> I really wish more companies would go back to the old-style model where users can buy the current version of a software tool but would need to pay a discounted price to upgrade to a newer version of that tool

We can thank Apple for this! They refused to adopt upgrade pricing on the App Store (which developers have been asking for since the App Store launched!) and instead introduced Subscriptions.

I like Apple, overall, but they absolutely decimated their software market by forcing apps to either be free with ads or paid subscriptions.

[itsoktocry]

>I'm fine if I can get a reasonable number of years out of it. I'm not expecting infinite updates forever for $9.99.

"Reasonable number" implies that you're fine with it. But where is that threshold? I bet it's different for everyone.

Companies need to be up front with what they are charging for. "Let's say $9.99 because we're not even sure if we'll be around in 5 years" is not a good model.

[gcr]

There's "I expect to get three years of value for $9.99", and then there's the "Halide isn't a subscription product, what are you talking about" people in this thread.

The unpredictability of the pricing model itself is an important point.