Ask HN: Is it ethical to sell subscriptions to software without a cloud?

[internetter]

Hello! I'm working on a novel service that feels most likely to materialize as a cloud based SaaS application. I'd like to provide a cloud component as that does present advantages, however for privacy I'd like to provide a cheaper option that runs locally on a person's device (say, 1$ a month vs 3$).

I'll say, renting local software, such as the adobe suite, is a very frustrating experience. I'd much, much, much prefer to own it outright. When presented with a subscription that doesn't have an obvious reason (such as streaming services), I tend to look for alternatives.

But at the same time, the program is the sort of thing you'd see as a SaaS. The local option is certainly not the primary option, it's more like a "if this can't work for you, we might be able to offer this, which comes with plenty of it's own issues". Certainly, very much a secondary option.

I've considered offering it for free, but if I wasn't thinking about a local option for privacy this thought wouldn't have crossed my mind. It really is just for people who would have paid for this in a world where there isn't all these privacy questions.

A one time purchase feels difficult as the recurring cost funds reoccurring development. I wouldn't be scared of that for things without this SaaS feeling, small apps with a small scope. But for something that is primarily modeled as a subscription, it feels like at that point, I might as well just give it for free. If users pay for an app, want to convert to cloud, and then have paid for the app they would have gotten for "free" with the subscription, that's a hard sell.

Anyway, I'm curious about your thoughts on the matter.

[jessenaser]

The original iMazing license model was to charge a one time fee for X duration of updates. When a next major version released, you would pay to upgrade (at a reduced cost if you already paid for a previous version).

So, for the local app, there should be a fee. The fee includes updates under 1.X.X. If they want updates to 2.0, then they need to pay an upgrade fee (this covers your reoccurring development). (Also you should have a recovery mechanism if they want to install it on a new computer and invalidate the old one).

Then if you add a cloud component, you charge separately for the cloud features. Using the software sync, or in browser, or x, y, z...

I don't mind paying for software that does its job, because good software rarely exists and I want the devs to keep making it. But if the software has no way to purchase it outright, then it is less ethical. At least allow payments for X amount of updates, so I can always run 1.5.2 as long as I need to. That is stability needed to trust the software.

[internetter → jessenaser]

I like this idea. What I might do is sell a license to the software for + a year of updates for 25$ or so. People on the subscription get updates free of charge for the duration of their subscription. People on the one time purchase can get the cloud features for a discount (and people on the subscription can get lifetime access for a low fee)

So maybe local: 25$, cloud: 30$/y, local -> cloud: 10$, cloud -> local: 5$

Need to play with numbers but good food for thought.

[JohnFen → internetter]

This is exactly how most software did it before the internet made subscriptions a technically viable thing. Huge companies managed to be built on this method.

[megraf]

~~~I do not condone online video game cheating~~~

Way back when (2006?), a friend of mine sold wallhacks for online games. It was his software, written in C++, and it was considered to be pretty much on a level of its own.

Anyway, IIRC, Casper had a piece of software wrap his executable which would generate a hash from the purchasers PC, I believe it was hardware- Hard drives, graphics cards, whatever.

It was extremely difficult to determine who was a new customer, and who was a customer who upgraded their hardware. It ended up being a lot of maintenance - but it was cool to see behind the scenes, so to say.

It was also interesting to see another league of players form: dedicated cheating servers. Who had the best hacks amongst the hackers. At first, it was walling (seeing through walls), and then aimbots. Aimbots got better, and finally aimbots which calculated the spray patterns.

He ended up having a baby and taking a professional software job

[squigz → megraf]

This is probably the origin story for many engineers on this site

[mortallywounded → squigz]

It was also my origin story. I created bots that played MMORPG games ^____^

[DANmode → squigz]

I know you didn't mean the having a baby part, but...

[shoo]

> I'd like to provide a cheaper option that runs locally on a person's device (say, 1$ a month vs 3$)

separately from pricing and ethics, another aspect is your expected support costs. one classic attraction of SaaS (to the service operator, not the customer) is that it avoids the higher support burden associated with supporting software deployed on machines that are controlled by your customer and outside of your control.

another licensing model is something like jetbrains perpetual fallback license -- you pay an annual or monthly subscription, if you cancel but you previously subscribed for at least 12 months you get a perpetual license to some fixed version of the software -- with minor bugfixes included but no license to use new major versions

c.f. https://sales.jetbrains.com/hc/en-gb/articles/207240845-What...

[sharemywin]

I wouldn't even begin to worry about this until a customer or potential customer brings it up and wants to pay extra for it.

focus on the main problem your trying to solve.

if someone is only willing to pay $1 a month for something they probably don't care enough.

[wsh]

If customers know what they’re buying, and unsubscribing is convenient, then I see no ethical problem with selling limited-term licenses—but as you mentioned, some potential customers might choose not to buy.

Depending on the purpose of the software, it might be reasonable to require a current subscription only to enter new data or to perform new calculations, while allowing customers to view and export their existing data in perpetuity.

[JohnFen]

Personally, I don't think there's an ethical question here. While I would never personally subscribe to software, I don't see an ethical issue with companies that want to go that route. I just won't be their customer.

[JoeMayoBot]

Software component companies have done this for a long time. The subscription is generally for 1 year in includes some level of support and updates during the subscription timeframe. The renewal is often discounted.