lifetime subscriptions

are they really lifetime? i heard ad-aware was lifetime back in 2001 and i was looking up posts that people said that they just claimed there product is different now so there lifetime on the ad-aware product back in 2001 doesn't apply anymore? this happened around 2006-2007 so if you had a lifetime sub before 2007-2006 it didnt matter you still had to pay year by year after 2006 or so, so with that it seems like companies would just put a different name or modified name on the software and claim its different whenever they want to and then your lifetime sub isn't lifetime anymore

i heard people were complaining about this who were ad-aware sub's back in the day and ad-aware offered them only a free 1 year sub as a sorry

 

Hi:

Lifetime subscriptions ? true or else is MERELY at Vendors' mercy/descriptions.

Often, I regard it as the foolish marketing policy parallel to " killing goose to get the eggs".

Sometimes during the course, Vendors feel regret, they deploy unethical tactics such as changing product name, selling product or simply re-brand with other product.

My simple guideline to go ahead with this type of product is to ask yourself this question : is the fee worth TWO years or more.

 

i see. what products have a lifetime sub right now that have had them for a long time and do you know the year date from the creation to the present? im just curious


i see no problem in changing the product from lifetime to year(s) sub's but they shouldn't screw over the customers that have a lifetime sub, if you signed up while it was still lifetime then they should have lifetime

 

lifetime subscriptions are BAD!!

IMO lifetime subscriptions are bad for developers and bad for users.

It is a destroyer of motivation.

How can a user who cares about a software be happy that said software has a lifetime license?
It is simply foolish to try to make something definite out of something so indefinite.

I have disdain for any user who is pleased that products have lifetime licenses, and suspicion of the developers who offer them.

 

Hi,
To name the NAMES may take a deep/ thorough search. Perhaps some members here can fill these in .

Theoretically, morally and normally, these lifetime promises(?) should be kept/honored. However, these vendors often have above-average (IQ wise) attorneys on the leash. They will find the Ways if their masters have such Wills( lifetime deviation).

After all, this is the real world, only the Smart Ones prevail.

 

I have had two; Ewido and SuperAntiSpyware. Although Ewido went away in a sense, I got my money's worth out of it and subsequent changes to AVG.

SAS has continues to honor their commitment to the lifetime license. If it changed I would have gotten my money's worth.
Frankly, I do not expect a lifetime license to last my lifetime. The company might go under and I would lose it anyway, or it might be sold as was Ewido, and the new company might change it.

Depending upon the cost and trade offs considering the vendor I would go for a lifetime license if it was for an application I wanted.

Regards,
Jerry

 

Even if it poses a risk to the application's long-term sustainability?

 

Hi Wildest,

Yes, I will let the makers determine how they want to run their businesses, and that is a business decision.
I admit I don't see how they stay in business with free versions and lifetime licenses, but I will let them determine that.

Regards,
Jerry

 

There are various business models, and the developers know best. Many people using free products jump in to get a lifetime license for a paid version, a great way to convert fence sitters. This is just one that I am aware of. May be other reasons too, that I dont know.

But then why do they provide excellent free products when they sell the premium versions of the same? And still get subscriptions? So better to leave it to them.

 

i know where your coming from wildest, but rather than have free users sit and be happy without upgrading because of a yearly fee, its better to have them atleast pay a one-off fee than stick to the free version, times are hard up and buying software each year is sometimes too much.

 

If times are hard up, wouldn't it be more effective to lower the entry barrier by having, for example, a $15 yearly fee than a $40 lifetime fee?

For some software that has a high churn rate, isn't the lifetime license an effective way of getting the loot before the user has the chance to realise that the soft is crap?

 

I understand and respect your position; I am just not sure if I would be safeguarding my investment by watching passively as a developer shoots himself in the foot, like the developer of System Safety Monitor did...

 

I've tested and used every version of SSM since 1.86. After using all the free versions, the pro version felt less intuitive. It behaved differently than I thought it should have and was unnecessarily complicated. The layout and behavior of the free version just made more sense. The paid version targeted a very limited user group, too small of a group to keep it viable. It didn't help the matter when the free version was fully functional, unrestricted, and just as capable of defending an OS. It was too good as a free version and definitely hurt sales of the paid version.

I don't have a problem with lifetime licenses for software that doesn't require constant updating. I'll gladly pay for an app that suits my needs, once. I won't pay yearly. Would anyone here lease Windows for one year at a time? With apps like AVs and antispywares, the vendor need to realize the financial consequences of a lifetime offer before they offer it, unlike the bad joke of a company mentioned in the first thread. Companies that look for ways to void their agreements don't deserve to be in business. If you offered a lifetime license, honor it. If they don't intend to make it a lifetime offer say so up front. That's another of many reasons I've stopped using signature based security-ware, dependence on a vendor staying in business, keeping their word, etc.

 

These are more privacy than security progs, but AFAIK SpyCop (now SpyReveal) used to have a lifetime license, PGP and Evidence Eliminator have theirs too.

 

IMO the question of whether or not life time licenses are good is not the correct question . The correct question is whether or not the license matches the companies structure .

 

Hi,

interesting enough to see an response from an expert in Malware fighting.

Your product, Malwarebytes anti-malware, has a lifetime license.

Can you ELABORATE your comment? that is: what kind of MATCH between company structure and lifetime license has to be in place ? And what will be the most optimal answer to your proposed question ?

 

Re: lifetime subscriptions are BAD!!

Then you have disdain for me (thanks a lot) and are suspicious of Outpost Firewall Pro. Congratulations on being so wealthy, hopefully some day I will be in the same situation as you are and price will be no object.

Acadia

 

We are a small close knit group of malware fighters with no aspirations of ever being a symantec sized organization . We carved out a niche as an AV compliment for the average non-techsavvy Joe and use our massive popularity generated from the completely free version as our primary advertisement . I would be willing to bet that $/# of employees we are actually doing a lot better than some of the big old names . We simply do not need to stuff (and then restuff) our pockets to do quite well .

Keep in mind that while we will not ever change things for the home market we do have yearly renewals for corporations and plans for a more professional version specifically for corporations that will have a completely different pricing structure .

 

Re: lifetime subscriptions are BAD!!

Our motivation is destroying malware (easy to verify by looking at all the free stuff 90% of our team did before MBAM , some of us for many years) .

The $ is just so we don't starve to death and so our kids can go to college

 

Re: lifetime subscriptions are BAD!!

This is very noble from your part and just for that you deserve our support.

 

You could not please some people if you hung 'em with a new rope.

Regards,
Jerry

 

You cannot force a horse to drink water even if you led the animal to it.

 

For me personally, LIFETIME means my life or that of the company.
Should the company decide at a later stage to charge me a subscription fee for something I had already paid for, I would no longer use that product.
If the company needs more cash they can get by signing up new users and charging them a subscription fee.

I disagree with the view point that if you get, let's say 4 years of good use out of a product then it's ok to start charging a yearly subscription fee.
Should a company change ownership, the purchaser should be made aware of the company's lifetime subscription holders. this should always be honoured.

Why would you want to deal with a company that has deceived you, led you to purchase a LIFETIME licence, to suck you in and then give you some BS story as to why lifetime doesn't mean lifetime

Don't ever deal with these company's again, IMOA I hope they go broke.

 

Sadly some are naive enough to believe the myth that the LIFETIME license is a sign of altruism from developers, instead of the reality that it is a ploy to create a critical mass of users by relying on the "get something for free" greed mentality of the general populace.

 

So are you guys of the opinion that the only way to do this is to charge an arm and a leg and a leg and a leg and a leg ............. ?

Are you so conditioned by what is perceived as "the norm" that you leave no possibility that there is another way ?