Buy once, use forever A directory of one-time purchase software

Serious question, because I'm not sure how I feel about it... should software with a server-side component that needs to keep working be counted as "buy once"? We've seen so many cases of companies going out of business or just deciding that it's no longer worth running these services, and leaving customers with no recourse.

An example from this list: LocalCan – https://buyoncesoftware.com/localcan – there's a server-side component (which is why ngrok its competitor is subscription based). If this component disappears the app ceases to function.

The flip side to this is that just because an app is entirely local doesn't mean it will work as the software around it gets updated (OSes etc), so if a company decides to stop supporting it, that too is useless in a way. It's not the same because running it on the machine you had when you bought it would still work, but that's not how we use computers in practice. Perhaps this is a different case because many of these "buy once" would charge for a major update like that anyway.

If it depends on a network service that isn't included in the purchase, then it's definitely not a thing you purchased

The OS upgrade example you give is different from a required server I think, because

- that's under your control: you can choose to keep an old system around, run emulation or WINE, depending on how important this is to you

- they don't have ongoing costs, like they do with a service, so there's no reason for them to stop providing the thing you thought you purchased

5 years could be enough

To me, anything that needs a server cannot be "buy once", because that would imply that the server availability for forever is included in the purchase. Which obviously is not and neither should it be.

You do make a good point that all, even local only software has a "best before" date, but online software is different: it has a hard expiry date. It is also prone to gradual price hikes and enshitification.

Yeah I agree the OS upgrade is different, but it is somewhere on a spectrum right?

> If it depends on a network service that isn't included in the purchase, then it's definitely not a thing you purchased

Not sure if this is what you're referring to, but there's a distinction between services provided by the software supplier, and services that aren't.

Example, could a Twitter client (RIP) be buy-once? Well, yes from the supplier, but no because Twitter turned down their public API access. I think a Twitter client could be sold in the spirit of buy-once.

The clearer case though is something like LocalCan, where it depends on a service provided by the supplier, and that could go away, and I think therefore shouldn't be classed as buy-once (although this is not something I'm decided on, hence looking for input here).

The server side component aspect is a serious flaw with the directory. Updates, well, that has always been an issue with perpetual licenses and is quite often out of control of the software vendor. Just because the license is perpetual, I don't think it is reasonable to expect perpetual support.

> The flip side to this is that just because an app is entirely local doesn't mean it will work as the software around it gets updated (OSes etc), so if a company decides to stop supporting it, that too is useless in a way.

This used to be less of a problem, when OS vendors gave more of a shit about backward compatibility. But still, even today, this doesn't seem like a major risk. OS platforms really don't change that fast. I would expect a Linux, Mac or Windows app purchased today to actually work unpatched (on a computer with the same CPU architecture) for 10, maybe 20 years. I mean, we have games from the 90s that still can be made to work on a modern Windows machine.

The most recent OS-driven rug-pull that broke software that I remember is Apple removing support for 32-bit apps. Which yes was a dick move.

The web as a platform is a different story. Browser APIs are all over the place and things get broken constantly. I honestly would not be willing to pay for a browser-based software, full stop. I just feel like web developers in general are way less serious about forward and backward compatibility, and making sure their software works on a browser that isn't "Bleeding Edge Chrome".

Steam is just about the only 'DRM' I'm willing to accept in this area. Both because I suspect there won't be an issue within my lifetime, and that if there IS an issue within my lifetime the outcry will be so huge that anything I wanted to get off of it will have 'alternative work arounds'. E.G. either at that point Steam allows a close-out download that doesn't have the DRM, or similarly freed versions would exist.

For everything else, I prefer free to license and use forever where possible. Like Linux and LibreOffice.

Depends on the company. Complete startup with zero history suggesting they're still around?

Or a company that's been at it for 30 years, happily paying their employees to have a life, and no interest in IPO or selling?

Because the former: that's buy once, never upgrade, because it's gone. The latter? Buy once, enjoy forever, maybe upgrade once there's a feature that actually makes a difference to you personally 5 years from now. If you ever need to pay for that update at all rather than just getting lifetime free update (VueScan, FL Studio, etc)

Please tell me why Apple should’ve kept supporting 32-bit apps forever. Do you have a good, well-reasoned justification?

Your comparison to Windows doesn’t make much sense. Windows is by far the less powerful and far more annoying to work with platform as a developer.

just because web developers like to ship bugs doesn't mean that browser APIs break? Realistically web apps will keep shipping new versions that use new APIs, breaking old browsers. But that doesn't really speak to the platform—e.g. an electron-like or webview based app will probably keep working.

Really, if you're using an online app, you should be updating your browser for security patches.

> Please tell me why Apple should’ve kept supporting 32-bit apps forever. Do you have a good, well-reasoned justification?

Because there are many 32-bit apps which work great offline and require no further updates. They should continue to work with new hardware purchases regardless of OS installation.

> should software with a server-side component that needs to keep working be counted as "buy once"

If they release the server side component so it is self-hostable, yes.

> Serious question, because I'm not sure how I feel about it... should software with a server-side component that needs to keep working be counted as "buy once"?

No, and this is a valid reason for a subscription pricing model.

However, if the software does not need its base / local functionality to reach out to servers, then it should have a one-time (per version, more for major upgrades) price and a separate subscription price.

Personal example: I purchased YNAB4 and was happy with it. Would gladly have purchased YNAB5, but 5 had all sorts of cloud-y functionality that I had no interest or use for. I just wanted a decent local app for expense tracking and 4 had that but 5 did not.

In a similar vein there is a whole bunch of tax-filing software in Canada available , but all (?) of the free stuff is online, which I have no interesting in doing:

* https://www.canada.ca/en/revenue-agency/services/e-services/...

So I pay about CA$ 20 for Studio Tax so that I can have things completely local (CRA is piloting their free tax filing system, we'll see if third-party stuff will be needed in the future).

Are you still using YNAB 4? If not, what did you replace it with?

> Browser APIs are all over the place and things get broken constantly.

Not really. ES5 (2009, but realistically supported in 2012-2013) still works perfectly fine in pretty much all browsers. There's massive churn in JS frameworks absolutely, but that's not a browser thing. There are even languages still being transpiled to ES5. Just because there's a new js package manager twice a year, it doesn't mean you need to use it :)

> Please tell me why Apple should’ve kept supporting 32-bit apps forever.

Breaking user's apps is a bad experience for them. Worse, it's not even something they can do something about... except by not updating, which is a lose-lose.

Services should not be sold as a one time deal. If it is a product as a service such that the product can be distributed to the user directly, then it seems fine. For example, I run https://pinggy.io , and I can't think of any way to sell it in a life time deal.