Recent Posts1601
General Software Discussion / Re: Another 'Lifetime' license bites the dust
« Last post by Dormouse on December 16, 2008, 04:22 PM »a developer has to fund themselves in some way ... When the sales tail off, either because the market matures, or like now, people rein in their spending then we have to expect people to change their models.-markan (December 16, 2008, 04:57 AM)
The problem is the idea that a change of model will solve the income shortage. The best model for a product is the best model for that product whatever the state of the economy. There are things that can be done to bring income forwards, but moving to a different model will not improve things unless the wrong model was used in the first place. The danger of making an abrupt and major change is that it will affect the perception of customers and future customers in a way that can't be undone.
As you say, a lifetime model only really works if there will always be a supply of new customers. It can make people more likely to buy (sometimes much more likely) and can be a useful differentiator from competitors. So it is not necessarily a bad model for many products. And many people lose their license details and still upgrade their hardware from time to time - can be tempted to buy a new license. Usage of a program is often short or medium term (say between 2 and 6 years) - so there may not be a huge loss compared to an Upgrade cycle model (and on upgrade models, many people have another look at the competition every time they are asked to fork out again).
Annual licenses generally play poorly in the consumer market except for AVs - and then only because people are scared into it. I would be surprised if many products can increase their long-term income by moving to this model, wherever they start from.
