←back to thread

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

(buyoncesoftware.com)
222 points richbowen | 6 comments | 30 Mar 25 00:28 UTC | HN request time: 0s | source | bottom
Show context
danpalmer ◴[30 Mar 25 01:11 UTC] No.43520272[source]▶
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.

replies(10): >>43520331 #>>43520344 #>>43520350 #>>43520381 #>>43520389 #>>43520415 #>>43520450 #>>43520622 #>>43520645 #>>43524953 #
1. ryandrake ◴[30 Mar 25 01:29 UTC] No.43520389[source]▶
> 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".

replies(3): >>43520531 #>>43520553 #>>43520900 #
2. blackqueeriroh ◴[30 Mar 25 01:52 UTC] No.43520531[source]▶
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.

replies(2): >>43520616 #>>43521100 #
3. tkzed49 ◴[30 Mar 25 01:56 UTC] No.43520553[source]▶
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.

4. inetknght ◴[30 Mar 25 02:10 UTC] No.43520616[source]▶
> 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.

5. rapind ◴[30 Mar 25 03:05 UTC] No.43520900[source]▶
> 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 :)

6. yjftsjthsd-h ◴[30 Mar 25 03:39 UTC] No.43521100[source]▶
> 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.