[gobdovan]

I am struggling with finding a good model for desktop apps. The subscription model always seems to yield the most money, but I too dislike subscriptions.

One-shot option seems attractive, but the desktop (MacOS at least) app market is actually so niche that the SAM is somewhere in the low thousands. So, if I would offer a one-time 100$ app, I'd have 100k$ before taxes. And for that revenue, there's developing, marketing, plus support and maintenance. So to match a dev's salary, I'd need to make 2-3 successful apps a year, that I'd also have to maintain for a long time.

I think maybe there's a mid-ground with buy forever, 1 year updates, so people get the product they paid for, and if they want updates or support the development they can re-buy, however I'm yet to hear opinions on this model.

[feznyng]

> I think maybe there's a mid-ground with buy forever, 1 year updates, so people get the product they paid for, and if they want updates or support the development they can re-buy, however I'm yet to hear opinions on this model.

As far as desktop software is concerned, I think this a commonly accepted approach. Sublime Text is probably the most notable example.

[wongarsu]

Isn't that just how most software used to be sold? If you buy Photoshop CS5 or MS Office 2023 you get the product as it's released and maybe a year of bugfix releases (but no new features). If you want the new features buy Photopshop CS6 or MS Office 2024

Personally I like the model, as long as old versions stay truly static and don't get enshittification updates. It aligns incentives on feature development far better than subscription models: if you make genuine improvements you get recurring sales, if you don't then existing users will just stay on the old version. And existing users are protected from features or UI changes they disagree with