Live data from Hacker News

Write "Freehold" Software

deadbeef.io

21–30 of 33 posts

Re: Write "Freehold" Software

#21
post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Support contract if you want updates, or limited free support for critical bugs. If you want the next major with more feature you pay again.

Sketch, CleanShot, and Jetbrains come to mind as software that uses this model. It seems the most fair to me: pay once, get forever usage of the software, and one year of free updates. After that, additional years of updates are often a discounted rate. An issue I ran into when I tried this with my software is that it’s not a very common model so people didn’t really get it. They’d call it a subscription, or they’d c…

> An issue I ran into when I tried this with my software is that it’s not a very common model so people didn’t really get it.

Instead of a years updates, which is a bit amorphous in terms of actual value delivered over the time frame, an alternate is you buy a major version, get all updates to that for free, for as long as it is updated in any way, including bug fixes.

Then pay for the next major version, only if you want to (with a discount for owners of the previous one).

And put the major version number into the name of the software, i.e. "Digibrain 1", "Digibrain 2", ...

Then continue to sell version X-1 at a discount, after X is released, to get more sales from the lower end of the market. And so owners of X-1 can still feel the love and less "out of date". Or even all previous versions at log drops in price. And bug fix old versions indefinitely, which is very purchaser friendly.

Another choice would be selling new updates for a noticeably higher price initially, signaling it as "premium", not "we want more of your money", then bringing the price down before the next update.

Might not connect with everyone, but it makes the value and optionality of purchasing an update more apparent.

Obviously, updates better be worth it.

Re: Write "Freehold" Software

#23
post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sketch, CleanShot, and Jetbrains come to mind as software that uses this model. It seems the most fair to me: pay once, get forever usage of the software, and one year of free updates. After that, additional years of updates are often a discounted rate. An issue I ran into when I tried this with my software is that it’s not a very common model so people didn’t really get it. They’d call it a subscription, or they’d c…

> An issue I ran into when I tried this with my software is that it’s not a very common model so people didn’t really get it. Instead of a years updates, which is a bit amorphous in terms of actual value delivered over the time frame, an alternate is you buy a major version, get all updates to that for free, for as long as it is updated in any way, including bug fixes. Then pay for the next major version, only if you…

This provides an incentive to make every version major.

Re: Write "Freehold" Software

#24
That’s partially why I’m interested in self hosting

I do think tastefully done telemetry with clear and easily accessible opt out is fine though. Nothing wrong with developers wanting to understand how their software is used in practice imo

Re: Write "Freehold" Software

#25
post #2

I completely agree with the "freehold" principle, and it's how I exclusively release any of my work however how we get back there for the majority I just don't know. The only apps I know that are a success in the modern day that are using that model is Goodnotes that saves repurchase for significant updates which I think is acceptable, and Affinity design apps. I sense many feel their business model is better suited…

> significant upfront costs on software now. Even a small amount on an app can be thought of as too much

My experience with google play store is that useful apps have in app purchases, but you don't know ahead of time if the feature you need is free or addon. An app store that requires disclosure and filtering by paid features would help there, as users may be ok with paying ahead of time if the can actually find them.

Re: Write "Freehold" Software

#26
post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> An issue I ran into when I tried this with my software is that it’s not a very common model so people didn’t really get it. Instead of a years updates, which is a bit amorphous in terms of actual value delivered over the time frame, an alternate is you buy a major version, get all updates to that for free, for as long as it is updated in any way, including bug fixes. Then pay for the next major version, only if you…

This provides an incentive to make every version major.

if you want to sell it, it should be. if it isn't worth a major version increment then it is probably also not worth charging for it as an upgrade.

Re: Write "Freehold" Software

#27
I would prefer a name that strongly implies ownership.

Such that by definition it becomes painfully obvious that you don't really own the other stuff when confronted with it.

In the UK freehold versus leasehold do evoke these terms, but only if you've entered the housing market to learn about it by getting bitten first. So not really an instantly recognisable term otherwise.

Then again, perhaps the focus here should be to also start calling all that other software "leasehold" software. I think that would then send the right message and establish "freehold software" as a useful term.

The term leasehold fits well come to think of it. You still "buy" your flat, but there's a lease stipulating conditions and an expiry date (typically decades at least), meaning there are many restrictions to full enjoyment of your purchased property, which also affect your ability / profitability to sell, and at some point you (or your children) might even stop having what you thought were ownership rights.

Re: Write "Freehold" Software

#28
post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Support contract if you want updates, or limited free support for critical bugs. If you want the next major with more feature you pay again.

Sketch, CleanShot, and Jetbrains come to mind as software that uses this model. It seems the most fair to me: pay once, get forever usage of the software, and one year of free updates. After that, additional years of updates are often a discounted rate. An issue I ran into when I tried this with my software is that it’s not a very common model so people didn’t really get it. They’d call it a subscription, or they’d c…

Actually I pay for JetBrains product and report bugs to support. When subscription ends I have right to use version with bugs. It looks unfair to me.

Re: Write "Freehold" Software

#29

It is sort of funny that the one type of software that manages to get any momentum behind it for this sort of thing—games—is really pointless (I enjoy games too, I just don’t think preserving most of them is a big deal). For work software, it definitely should be able to run locally and without any license server or whatever. I’m baffled by people who don’t feel the need to own their tools. Open Source software mostl…

> I enjoy games too, I just don’t think preserving most of them is a big deal

Games are undoubtedly one of the most significant forms of cultural artifacts of our time. (For example, contemporary games arguably inform youth culture significantly more than contemporary literature does.)

If your emphasis is on "most", then this is a pretty silly argument: By this logic, we also ought not preserve any movies in our national libraries because most movies are cheap entertainment or outright slop. Same for any other form of media really. Sturgeon's Law and all.

Re: Write "Freehold" Software

#30
post #2

I completely agree with the "freehold" principle, and it's how I exclusively release any of my work however how we get back there for the majority I just don't know. The only apps I know that are a success in the modern day that are using that model is Goodnotes that saves repurchase for significant updates which I think is acceptable, and Affinity design apps. I sense many feel their business model is better suited…

> I sense many feel their business model is better suited to subscriptions

Self-plug, but sometimes the developer just straight up needs income for a basic living. My terminal emulator [0] is in Early Access, meaning fans throw me $5/mo. Each month they get a new version and the binary is 100% offline (theirs to own.)

I sincerely want to respect the customer's wallet/privacy, yet I don't know what else to do while staying indie: my direct competitors either have VC funding [1] or the author's a wealthy retired CEO [2].

However, once I reach a 1.0 stable release I'll switch to a one-off payment system. I'm also not against a Business Source License when the time comes.

[0] https://terminal.click

[1] https://warp.dev

[2] https://ghostty.org

Post reply on HN