I suppose the alternative would be to follow Microsoft’s example. Issue bug-fix/compatibility updates to existing customers but require a new license (or a subscription) to get new features.
The problem with this approach is that the company now needs to maintain multiple releases.
For example:
Version 1 ships
Compatibility updates are released to support new versions of macOS and new devices
New features are released to subscribers, but are held back from perpetual licenses.
Which means two versions (1 and subscription) must be maintained
At some point, version 2 ships, with the new features previously available only to subscriptions
Compatibility updates need to be applied (and tested and supported) for versions 1 and 2
New features continue to be released only to subscribers
Now, three versions (1, 2 and subscription) need to be maintained
At some point, support for older versions (including bug fixes) will need to be dropped, but we can probably expect that at least three versions will need to be maintained at any given time.
Depending on the specifics of what specific updates are released for each version, the amount of testing required for releases, and the number of available engineers (both developers and testers), this may or may not be practical. A big company like Microsoft that has a very large revenue stream can probably do this without any problem. A small company may be unable to do this without hiring additional staff (and therefore needing to raise prices).
Since I don’t know the particulars of iMazing’s staffing and revenue, I have no way of knowing if this approach would be viable for them or not. But it’s definitely not something that comes for free.
In other words it does not differ from an ordinary license. Frankly, the only thing hard to understand is why they put the word ‘perpetual’ in there at all!
It’s a retronym, a backformed expression used to distinguish something from a newer something that uses the same term. It’s the same as “manual” in “manual transmission”, which was once what all automobile transmissions were, but needed to be distinguished from an “automatic transmission” later.
Since a “subscription license” became a thing, a retronym was needed to distinguish the old type of license. Thus, “perpetual license”, which doesn’t need to be repeatedly paid to continue using the same version of the same software.
A “perpetual” license may also be a “forever” license, one for which once paid, you never have to pay for a new version in the future. These are extremely uncommon, mainly because the cash flow stops once everyone who will pay for the software has done so. This appears to be the concept to which you have previously attached “perpetual” to.
This thread, and the license structure of iMazing, makes me consider the business of software. They’re introducing the new licensing to sustain their business, not to better service the customer. I know this will sound very harsh but surely this brings into question the viability of their business model.
If they can’t sell enough licenses to exist, or if their software reaches feature saturation where they can’t charge for upgrades, I’d suggest it’s time for them to develop other apps. Customers shouldn’t have to pay to sustain a company which has effectively run out of ideas. iMazing is a very niche product and I’m not sure there’s a massive market for it (I do have an old copy here).
They can always keep selling their current version and charge for updates which add features or provide updates for newer systems, but this is the flaw in most subscriptions. Many times the user is only paying for bug fixes which shouldn’t have been in the first place (putting aside for a moment there’s no perfect software).
For dozens of years developers survived selling licenses and upgrades and the user could determine their worth. I suspect the biggest driver of subscriptions is the simple vision of greater profits for less development - any other ‘explanation’ is pure marketing (imho).
Ps, we bought iMazing and used it exactly once - and yes, it was for a court case.
I suppose the model is the iPhone itself. Buying one once does not entitle you to all future iPhones that Apple makes - you have to pay to buy a new one. iMazing have decided that their software is best paid for by requiring users to purchase a license for each device that they intend to use with the software from now on. When you buy a new iPhone, you buy a new access license for that device (unless you have one spare already.) This seems to scale well to me. If you have only a few devices, you pay whenever you upgrade them. If you are an enterprise supporting a lot of devices, you pay a lot more.
At this point it’s up to you - if you don’t like this business model, don’t use the software anymore, though I’m not sure that there are too many other companies that make the same sort of software. I know of Decipher - I have used one of their tools before, a few years ago - and they charge a fee for each individual module that you want to use (it looks to be $30 per module.)
Sorry but I disagree with your analogy. When I buy a phone, I do with it as I wish, for as long as I choose, with the knowledge Apple will provide me with updates - quite probably until I’ve purchased a new phone. I have no expectation of a new phone, nor an expectation it will work in any way other than it did when purchased.
On the other hand, if I buy software to access the backend of an iDevice I would reasonably expect it to work with any iDevice I own. If I buy a new phone and the software doesn’t support it due to a change Apple has made then charging an upgrade is reasonable. If however the new phone is fully supported by the software and they charge a new license fee “just because”, then that’s not a company I would support.
Exactly the problem with this model. What if every time we bought a new Mac or iDevice we had to repurchase every piece of software on it?
This is a fiscally dangerous concept. I never thought subscriptions would spread much, as there was no guarantee the user would get anything for their dollar, and that software was only “rented”. But here we are.
And such charges could potentially increase the upgrade costs of any device significantly, depending on how much money a developer wanted to make, and what consumers would put up with.
You do not need to enroll the device in an MDM to use Apple Configurator. See the doc on exporting profile files. (Trying not to get too far off topic here, but wanted to correct the misinformation.)
This is very common terminology these days in the software industry. Is this the first time you’ve come across the term ‘perpetual licence’? This seems the most sensible description of what they offered based on how licences are commonly described across all developers.
The problem with the theory laid out is that you often get a ‘new’ phone without buying one. Apple is constantly updating iOS, and iMazing’s developer will need to put in some amount of work to keep it working with your existing phone. Because of the low level it works at, there will be constant development needed just to keep it working (let alone add new features). It may be true that on the day you buy a new phone, no updates are needed to iMazing to allow it to work with your old phone, but that’s only because your old phone is running the same iOS version as the new.
An alternative model would be for iMazing to charge for an update any time they had to make a change to keep things working due to a change in iOS and Apple’s apps. I think people would object fairly strongly to this.
It’s worked this way for decades. If there are genuinely changes required to support a new system then paying an small upgrade cost is fair (provided it’s upgrade pricing, not full license cost). I’d have a problem if there were no software changes required and it was a forced upgrade just because something new was released. I also don’t subscribe that an iOS update is a ‘new phone’. Unless it’s a full release it’s unlikely to affect the core of iMazing’s hooks. If a major release breaks it, the user does it knowing it could break things and they accept the consequences.
Having said that, I would expect any new license to cover some form of upgrade for a period of time. It’s fairly common to pay for a license and get 12 months worth of free upgrades. If you want to see people ‘strongly object’ to something, sell them a license and then ask them to pay again two weeks later because Apple released a new dot point OS update.
This however is drifting away from the issue. If I understand this correctly, they’re limiting the number of devices which can be used with an existing license and forbidding use with a new device even if there is no functional issue. They just want you to pay again because you got a new phone.
(1) Apple does stop providing OS updates for older devices. Just because your time horizon for purchasing a new phone is shorter than Apple’s iOS support window doesn’t mean that phones get upgraded forever. (And I assume that your comment about the phone not working “in any way other than it did when purchased” doesn’t actually mean that you don’t want any new iOS features ever, and only security updates and bug fixes.)
(2) From their blog post, it’s clear that one of their usage models is a situation where someone wants to use the software with a large number of devices in a short window of time. Your assumption that it should work with “any device you own” would mean that a corporate user with 100 phones would pay the same as you pay for one phone as long as they were willing to process these phones sequentially.
The case where one user wants to use the software on an ongoing basis as a single phone gets replaced over time is what the subscription license is designed for.
My point, which few seem to understand, is that I have bought perpetual licenses in the past, and they entitle me to all future upgrades. VueScan Pro would be a good example. I don’t mind buying a license for a single version if that is what is sold, but don’t call it perpetual, because it isn’t.
But they don’t drop macOS support for older mobile devices. I can still sync my old iPod Classic with my Music library on Ventura, even though this device hasn’t had its firmware updated for a very long time.
That is extremely rare and unusual. I would find that the surprising situation, and not be surprised that a perpetual licence applies to a specific version only.
But it is - it’s a perpetual (permanent, non-expiring, everlasting) licence to use the version to which it applies. If you’re really so vexed about it, read the terms of the licence at the time you buy it: that is certainly a preferable approach to alleging bad faith (“misunderstood (maybe deliberately)”) on the part of the authors.
The firms (or individual) behind VueScan and ChronoSync sell a licence which entitles you to upgrades without further payment. It’s jolly nice of them. It’s what I did, back in the dim and distant days when I wrote shareware (Apollo, PrettyC, stuff like that). But it’s not the only model, still less the only honourable approach. Keeping software up to date is a difficult and time-consuming process, and adding new features is doubly so. If there’s no financial incentive to release shiny, new, improved versions with added abilities, the urge to do so will inevitably be diminished.
No, that’s exactly what it means. Imho, buying anything with the assumption of getting new features in the future is folly. Personally I buy based on what’s in front of me.
Two things here.
We’ve already established it’s a niche product and many people use it once. It’s unlikely someone has so many personal devices (which need iMazing access) to make it against the spirit of normal personal usage.
As to corporate use, they already have a corporate license to cover this.
I don’t think anyone would argue getting shiny new features isn’t a value worth paying an upgrade for. However, if the company has stated their perpetual license INCLUDES these updates they can’t blame users for their issues.
My concern is the quite the opposite. If people pay ongoing subscriptions to simply use software and access their files, the (developers’) need to produce shiny new features will inevitably be diminished.