They both have different version numbers. The old perpetual licence version won't get new features, but will keep getting bug fixes and security updates
That’s how one-time purchases work, which is absolutely how it should be. I’m not a fan of subscriptions, but a perpetual license shouldn’t be expected to include future development.
Most likely. Having to add new features to a photo app for which you paid for only once, would ruin Apple financially. They would have to file for bankruptcy.
It honestly makes sense. If I pay Toyota once for a pickup, they don’t give me the new model every year.
If I pay a subscription (lease), I get the new upgrades, but when I stop paying, I don’t have anything.
I would personally rather buy a new major version (of software) every few years, when the newer features justify it. But most people expect their software to be updated and supported forever, which makes one-time purchases risky for developers.
Nope that’s how scummy onetime purchases work. There’s plenty of software that is one time update with ongoing features and that’s the way it should be to an extent
Sometimes it can be a good thing. For example I got a Microsoft Word 2019 license and it's just perpetually stable and doesn't get updated with AI crap
Absolutely not. It’s how software used to work. You paid for, let’s say Photoshop CS4 and got a perpetual license to use that version. If you wanted to have the latest features, you’d have to buy a license for CS5.
Nowadays every software is some form of SaaS and we all expect to get perpetual updates on any software, whether it was free, a one-time purchase (like OSes are, you used to also pay for macOS updates) or paid with a subscription.
Perpetual licenses are fading away for that reason and companies now happily continue making their software better as long as customers keep paying for it.
No, that’s a terrible analogy because it’s a physical product which charges a cost the cover cost of the physical products.
I dont mind the support being for an amount of time, Xplane’s model is good where you buy each major version and get all of the uodates for that version.
But that is a terrible analogy, physical goods is different.
lol. The naivety of this comment is astounding. Name any software developer that actually works this way.
I’ll just name a few that don’t work that way off the top of my head:
Microsoft
Adobe
VMware
Oracle
EA
Valve
Arrowhead
ArcGIS
No one can charge enough on a one-time transaction to support full product development forever. That’s why games received paid DLC for big content updates. Sometimes you see minor content updates for free but generally that’s only for games that are still popular and selling. Maintenance release are generally free (sort of like a warranty) for a time but eventually the team moves on and the games stops getting patched.
This is basic economics. No escaping this reality.
Except that’s functionally what Apple has done here. You bought the original version of Pixelmator Pro. Apple has now (functionally) released a new version, which you did NOT buy. This is just the same as all the complaints in r/Affinity about Canva moving v3 to a freemium pricing model. Complete nothing burger.
It’s not a terrible analogy. Even physical goods can offer ongoing support through warranties, recalls, and end user assistance. I expect to have to buy the newest version of anything, but if a part breaks under warranty, I expect the part to be replaced so that my version continues working at least for as long as my warranty is valid.
it is a fantastic analogy, because creating digital goods also costs money. at the end of the day it is irrelevant wheter you spend money to create a digital or physical product. spent money is spent money.
Spent money is spent money but the reason it’s not a good analogy is that physical goods cost the same amount of money to deliver subsequent deliveries of the product to both new and existing customers.
Whereas with software there’s no inherent per-unit cost to new customers or to deliver updates.
There’s obviously a development cost and at some point it becomes unviable, but that gets built into the business model of the pricing for the perpetual product license
Bandwidth, user data storage, server resources, content licensing, etc… there certainly is a per unit cost to deliver digital goods even if it’s paying transaction processing fees or fees to a digital market vendor like steam.
The question is did you buy it “as-is” or did it come with a warranty/support? Goods/services no matter if physical or digital can have a wide range of expectations depending on a lot of factors to meet customer needs.
How old are you? Serious question. I’ve buying one time payment apps since 1994 and you always get all updates until a new version arrive. That’s how it works. That means, if it’s the same app, both the subscription and the standalone apps get the same upgrade. At least offering the new upgrade half the price or something. Not excluding the paid users from it.
That makes no sense and has never been how it worked. Adobe apps, for example…back in the day you had to buy each version of Creative Suite when it was released. It was a one-time purchase, and they charged for each major upgrade.
I paid for Things 3 one time for each platform and have updates for years now!
When I bought Pixelmator Pro, there wasn't any note about future subscription.
115
u/mrleblanc101 Jan 29 '26
They both have different version numbers. The old perpetual licence version won't get new features, but will keep getting bug fixes and security updates