Buy once, use forever A directory of one-time purchase software
104 comments
·March 30, 2025danpalmer
ryandrake
> 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".
rapind
> 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 :)
tkzed49
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.
blackqueeriroh
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.
inetknght
> 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.
yjftsjthsd-h
> 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.
throw0101c
> 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).
oidar
Are you still using YNAB 4? If not, what did you replace it with?
mjevans
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.
II2II
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.
Aachen
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
danpalmer
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).
TheRealPomax
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)
ghoshbishakh
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.
teeray
> 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.
ricardobeat
As others have also expressed, a lot of the software here doesn't really live up to the what most people mean by 'one-time purchase'.
Screen Studio: $9/month vs $220 "one-time purchase" with only one year of support.
Sizzy browser: $12/month or $499 one-time purchase.
Then you often have a one device limit - I can't be two places at once but I do have both a laptop and desktop machine.
Who in their sane mind would choose these? Note that the problem with "one-year of updates" is not that you'd want free access to a newer major version of the app, but a year+ is enough time to have a new OS version make your app unusable or subject to security updates. While companies in the before times would quickly release a patch to keep their old users happy, the one-year term just ensures you'll be left hanging.
This is just paying lip service to the idea of a one-time purchase.
jwagenet
It used to be that one time purchase never came with any updates and a new version came out for the same price the next year. I’m all for pushing back on subscriptions, but the expectation that users should get indefinite support without paying for it is silly.
ricardobeat
I mentioned that in my comment. You wouldn’t get new versions, but in case of security or compatibility patches you could download them for free to keep running your old version, not just for one year.
c22
QCAD uses this pricing model. I bought QCAD once over ten years ago. Since then I've bought it a couple more times to get some new feature, but even the original binaries I downloaded over a decade ago work fine on my modern linux/windows installs.
I'm not sure which operating system is obsoleting all your software on a yearly basis, but it doesn't sound like a very stable computing environment.
null
0manrho
Regarding Screen: Agreed.
Originally I was going to say that's not what I'd assume "Support" to mean (Personally, I would differentiate between patches/updates and support, as in, customer support), however, we should point out that in their own words, on Screen Studio's own site, the fine print under "Pay Once" Says:
> Renew to get the latest updates or keep using the version you have forever.
So indeed, that's disingenuous in my opinion as a "one time purchase" option for the reasons you point out.
Sizzy however states:
> The lifetime plan includes all future updates
So I would think that passes the muster of "one time purchase", not just paying lip service.
Broad picture, I think you bring up an important distinction regarding "one-time purchases" and the expectations therein.
danpalmer
One of the items on this list "FridayGPT" doesn't actually do anything unless you plug in an API key from a subscription service. While I understand that technically the app itself is buy-once, it doesn't feel in the spirit of the website, or maybe should be called out on the page, as it could be quite misleading.
mixermachine
FridayGPT is also not really open about the need for an API key on their landing page. Only in the FAQ they mention it. Seems a bit shady to me.
There are also other AI tools listed there. https://buyoncesoftware.com/?category=AI
As soon as the AI models run on an external server a buy once model does no longer work (or atleast not with an acceptable one time price). The constant server cost is just to high.
danpalmer
> As soon as the AI models run on an external server a buy once model does no longer work (or atleast not with an acceptable one time price). The constant server cost is just to high.
Tell this to Rabbit and their R1 device, which comes with unlimited LLM usage. I guess they just rate limit through having a bad UX though. /s
But yes, you're right, this is what I was getting at, LLM usage is expensive enough to need a subscription model.
naveennaidu
Hey Dan,
I'm naveen, solo developer behind fridaygpt. thanks for pointing this out. you're absolutely right. api key requirement wasn't clear enough on the landing page. honestly, i hadn't realized this was causing confusion since current users didn't flag it until now.
i've just updated the landing page to make the "bring your own api key" requirement explicitly clear. if i'd noticed this earlier, it would have been fixed sooner.
gbraad
"Get featured for $99", "Add entry for $20". Doesn't sound very independent, but rather one big ad.
oefrha
From a self-promotion-only account no less, breaking HN's rule on self promotion. Also others have pointed out that some of the listings are bullshit, but why let that get in the way of collecting the fee. What a grifter.
gbraad
If not mistaken, the person behind the post, is a former colleague of mine. He might not have been aware of this.
The post is now flagged.
Note: In this case, the label "Show HN:" might also not have been OK.
christina97
How much for lifetime feature?
Aachen
> you can submit it to our directory for a fee of $20. This is a one-time cost
Well at least that's consistent. Feels a bit hidden after the invite in the title, though
jsheard
The featured placement being a weekly subscription isn't quite so consistent, though.
tonyhart7
20 bucks for submitting??? damn bro
gslepak
I've been maintaining Espionage (macOS folder encryption + plausible deniability) since 2008 as part of a small Mac shareware business.
$29.99 w/o lifetime updates, and $49.98 with.
As appreciation for this thread, here's $10 off for HN readers (expires April fools): HNONCE
II2II
While the directory is a good idea, the FAQ did not address the one question that immediately came to mind: how is software that requires online activation handled? I've been bitten by vendors who offered perpetual licenses before, only to discover that they dropped support for perpetual licenses and have them push a subscription license on me. (To that software vendor: sorry, but you reneged on your promise. I'm not going to be fooled twice.)
ryandrake
While the web site author can't predict the future to know what kind of rug-pull is coming, I'd agree that any software that has any online dependency whatsoever should at least have an asterisk next to it on a list like this.
fredol
You have to pay to submit your app. Waste of time.
makeitdouble
Something is better than nothing, but this feels ripe for abuse. If this gets any real traction and trust from a large user base
- baiting into an expensive one-time-fee and pull the rug becomes that much more viable. In particular it becomes a good place to promote FOSS projects reskins that will be left behind once it gets exposed.
- having a crazy high one time fee and 99.9% operate the subscription tiers will be enough to put the name on the list, which could enough publicity to cover the entry price.
The directory management still gets the money, so I'm also not sure how much incentives they actually have to stop the abuse. What am I missing ?
TheRealPomax
You need some kind of special decoration for "you buy a license to use the app, not a specific version of the app", like VueScane or FL Studio (you pay for a lifetime license to "the thing", not "whichever version of the thing happened to be the current version when you bough it").
And maybe a badge of shame for "buy once, and yeah, you own that version, but you get punished for not upgrading by skipping a version meaning you now pay full price again" like DxO... Yeah it's "you own it" but my goodness is it the worst possible way to offer that.
crawsome
There's a ton of shovelware in here and there's currently no good method of filtering it out without manual comprehension. For example, there's an LLM interface that "Lets you access multiple LLM models" (https://buyoncesoftware.com/fridaygpt) But you obviously will not have access to these and it's clear self-promotion spam of over-eager people looking for exposure for their commonplace apps.
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.