[entrode]

Developers should start prorating upgrade costs instead of setting arbitrary cutoff dates for free upgrades to recent purchasers.

So if you release V1 on Jan 1 2013 and I buy it July 2 2013, I should get the V2 you release Jan 1 2014 for half price. Likewise, someone who buys on Jan 31 2013 should get V2 for 11/12 full price, and someone who buys on Oct 1 2013 should get it for 1/4 full price, etc.

This is in the developer's interest because it discourages people from waiting to buy if they expect a paid upgrade release soon and it leads to fewer requests for free upgrades from people who "just missed" the free upgrade window, for several values of "just missed."

It's also just fair and nice.

[angerman]

That's basically a subscription model, no? Say USD80/12mo makes ~USD6.99/mo. I'm still not sure how I feel about renting software. Even though I feel that's where our industry is heading with the app stores and their restrictive pricing model.

[arrrg]

Well, the issue many people have with renting software is that they can’t continue using it after they stop paying.

With what the grandparent proposed you wouldn’t have to upgrade, you could just continue using the old version.

[chrisdevereux]

I quite like the model where you get a year of major updates but can continue using the software after the year ends.

Seems to be popular with making developer tools for some reason. MonoTouch, RubyMotion and Apportable all use it, for example.

[noir_lord]

Perhaps they are doing something reasonable knowing that developers inevitably want to play with the new hotness and will upgrade.

I watch the phpstorm/pycharm EAP's like a hawk as they are constantly adding stuff that will make me hand over money :).

[philgr]

They'll keep updating, OK. But there's no backwards compatibility in the new format.

Sketch 2 can't open Sketch 3 files.

Somehow you're forced to update if you intent to keep using Sketch.

[chrisdevereux]

That's orthogonal to the pricing model. Same issue with pay-to-upgarade.

[entrode]

No, because users choose to upgrade and own the version they bought outright. You would also have different pricing for new users vs upgraders still, so you'd have the big up front bump from new users.

As you mention, some users don't like the "service" model, so you could present options along these lines (scale values to fit your product):

$120/yr ($10/mo) as a service, or... $150 to buy now with free minor upgrades and $100 (or scale to be fair for the magnitude of the upgrade) prorated major upgrades.

So I can choose to pay more up front and maybe save a little bit of money in the long run if I choose to keep upgrading, but definitely have access to the software I bought and am familiar with even if I decide I don't use it enough to keep upgrading.

[entrode]

I think this would also lead to a lot of users grabbing a subscription to try out the software who wouldn't have otherwise.

From there of of four things is likely to happen:

1) They decide they don't like it and end their subscription quickly. Since it was cheap, they don't feel cheated and are less likely to smear your brand.

2) They like it and are lazy/preoccupied/like-the-convenience, so they keep the subscription.

3) They like it enough they decide to buy a license so they can save some money long term with upgrades and have more freedom with how they use it.

4) They're not sure if they'll use it enough to justify a continued subscription. If they need it enough, they buy a license without planning to upgrade as a compromise. Maybe they'll decide to upgrade later. If they're not sure, they drop the subscription and maybe buy a month at a time when they need it in the future (you can encourage more frequent users not to do this by offering a 20-25% discount to prepay a year for the service).

Monolithic desktop software like this would pull in more users and revenue with flexible rent/buy options.

I'm also more confident that you're motivated to keep pushing out big meaningful upgrades if you have users that you actually actively have to convince to buy them over what they already have.

[callum85]

> That's basically a subscription model, no?

Not really. A subscription model means the software stops working when you stop paying. @entrode's pro-rating idea is just more granular about how much of a rebate you get off the next version.

[wlesieutre]

It usually means that, but not necessarily. Unreal Engine 4 does a $20/month subscription where you can stop paying at any time and just keep using the version you have.

Maybe they do that because it would be impossible to enforce anything else (paying one month gets you the full source code), but it's still great that the license allows it.

[pbreit]

I suspect that's not supported by the app store. An initial discount seems like a reasonable work-around.