When I posted here, I also wrote the iMazing folks and said I didn’t want to continue with this licensing scheme and requested a full refund. I also pointed them to this topic.
I did get the refund, along with this email from one of their other support folks (my reply is below).
Hello Howard,
Thank you for sharing your thoughts on TidBITS.
I understand that you are not satisfied with the iMazing licensing model. I would like to explain why we chose this model and the reasons behind it.
iMazing 3 represents our biggest upgrade ever, and lays the foundation for a host of additional capabilities we’ll be adding in the coming months and years.
Version 3 is also the last “paid upgrade” that we ever release, having implemented this new license model in October 2020 that ensures every iMazing user who purchases a new license will always have access to the latest version.
Which license should you choose?
If you prefer perpetual licenses, have limited needs, or don’t connect many devices to iMazing, our Device-based license is the route to go.
If you replace or add devices frequently to iMazing, our Subscription license may be the more cost effective route.
Why did we make these changes?
Our motivation was to strike a balance between two important considerations: the convenience and value we provide for our users, and the sustainability of our business.
Software has traditionally been sold with a model centered around paid upgrades, which results in features being held back until enough are ready to justify charging users for a new version.
For an app like iMazing, which is continually updated to maintain compatibility between devices and OS releases, as well as new features, this model presents several challenges. In the 7 years since we released iMazing 2.0, we delivered 17 updates that added key features or compatibility, all at no cost to our customers.
Adopting this licensing model three years ago has ensured that our fiercely independent firm can continue to deliver the world’s best iPhone, iPad, and iPod manager for many years to come—and that our users always have access to the newest version of iMazing at no additional cost.
More details about our decision to choose this model can be found in our blog post: https://imazing.com/blog/imazing-3-mac-beta
The only alternative to the device-based perpetual license model would have been to offer only subscriptions. However, we considered that many users use iMazing only once, for instance, to extract their messages for a court case. A subscription model is clearly not suitable for one-time usage.
In the future, we might propose a different model based solely on subscriptions, but with the option to pay monthly. This could potentially be a solution, as users today are accustomed to canceling a subscription if they don’t want it to renew. Would this model seem more suitable for you, or do you have other ideas to share?
Kind regards,
Jérôme
My reply:
Hello Jérôme,
Thank you for your note. I understand your discussion of the licensing model, both in your email and the blog posting you provided.
More than the model itself, my concern stems from the disclosure and clarity of language in the company’s description of the model. I believe I am not alone in believing that the intended meaning of references to “devices” with regard to software purchases is how many copies of the app can be installed and used at one time. My iPhone is a device, my iPad is a device. Two devices. This is further confused by the use of the word “slots” rather than “devices” in the iMazing Licensing table provided by Oleg. What is the difference between a device and a slot? As with the word “seats” with commercial software, the traditional definition is that devices can be swapped out as long as the number of devices does not exceed the number of slots.
The fact that your licensing model is not traditional in this way appears, as far as I can tell, in only one place - in the licensing table with the sentences "Device slots are not reusable; once linked, a device cannot be unlinked” and "Additional device slots can be purchased when needed”. The first sentence is linked to a footnote(!) that says "Don’t worry, we’re here to help: If your device is lost or broken, contact our Support team and we’ll assist you”. This is hidden in a footnote and is completely ambiguous. Will you, or will you not allow a device to be replaced without further expense? If you will, under what circumstances?
The issue of disclosure is what made me decide to no longer support your product. I got the popup notice offering the beta version. I downloaded and installed it. I went through the upgrade process. The “Device License” section defaults to 3 devices, which is how I accidentally purchased additional licenses - I had changed the dropdown to one, but navigated away and then returned and the dropdown had reverted without my noticing. The explanation says "Connect up to 3 Apple mobile device(s); purchase more device slots when needed”. Again, it is reasonable to assume this is using the traditional model of three devices simultaneously. And again, the inconsistent use of the words devices and slots. I have only one device - my iPhone - so I’ll never need additional slots, right?
Only after I’d completed my purchase did I realize I’d bought 3 licenses and that’s when I wrote in asking that it be corrected. Oleg’s email, with its link to the license description document, was the first time I was shown the full explanation of “devices”. I think it’s fair to assume there has been previous confusion, or Oleg wouldn’t have taken the precautionary step to make sure I’d seen the policy.
There were several opportunities to make your policy clear. The blog post could have mentioned the new licensing model, with a link to the licensing table. The Store page, instead of just saying “Connect to x Apple mobile device(s) …” could simply add the same explanation from the table: Device slots are not reusable; once linked, a device cannot be unlinked (with a link to the table itself). As you yourself said, there have been no upgrade charges since version 2.0 was released, and therefore it’s reasonable to assume upgraders are not familiar with the change you made in your licensing model in 2020. It shouldn’t be possible to make a purchase without clear, informed, consent about the new licensing model. Had this been presented to me (including a clear description of lost/broken rules) I might very well have made the single license purchase I intended.
One last thing to consider about your model - if I do choose to upgrade my phone (which I do on average every 3 years), I will be paying an additional $40 if I hadn’t chosen to give you my money for hypothetical future device replacements up front. What if many apps did this? Why should replacing a licensed device cost tens of dollars for a new licenses to software I already paid for? (Particularly when the application is installed on my computer, not the mobile device). Will I even remember, three years down the road, that I’d have to do this?
In short: The licensing model is curious and as a consumer, since it was not made clear until Oleg’s follow-up email, I couldn’t help but be dubious. Your customers deserve to have a clear understanding of how it works, but the current presentation of the upgrade and the store page do not provide it.