[Solved] Question on renewal licence

Hi Sara,

Thank you for your question 😉

The renewal system works like this:

1. First you buy the Pro License, this will give you 365 days in which you will get support from me and always access to the latest APP version.
2. After 365 days this license will expire, but your account on my website will not. This means you can still download newer versions, but the application will not start anymore since the license is epxired then. You will get a clear warning message about this.
3. To be able to start APP again, you can then buy a renewal license. In this case your old Pro License code will have it's expiry date adjusted with another 365 days.

In both cases, having the initial Pro License or the extended license, will give you exactly the same. You will still have support from me and always access to download the latest version.

So the only difference is that once the license is expired, you aren't able to start APP anymore. (Technically speaking, the license is granting you to start the application. So you buy the rights to be able to start and use APP)

Does this answer your question completely?

(I might need to write it down, a bit more clearly, at the product description ?)

Kind regards,

Mabula

Yes this is clear.... what wasn't clear on the website write up was whether the renewal licence only enables you to updates or whether you actually needed to purchase it to be able to run the software.... so once you buy APP you are actually tied into buying the renewal licence to even use the software. 

Okay thank you Sara,

I'll adjust the product information to make this a bit more clear.

"so once you buy APP you are actually tied into buying the renewal licence to even use the software."

If you want to keep using APP after the first 365 days, then yes.

If you have a system where you can buy once a life-time license, it's simply practically irrealistic to have support for a life-time off course 😉 You will never get it.

So for each year that you would renew, you would have support and you would be assured that APP continues to grow technically and expands with more features.

Bear in mind the fact, that in a couple of years time, the product can significantly grow and develop. The development of APP has just started 3 years ago... 😉

Kind regards,

Mabula

What a pity! Certainly if one has to renew the license every year (to keep running the program) this will be a big turn off.

I have no idea at this time whether this is a fair ask....I'll have to wait see how things go with the trial....and whether or not this software becomes indispensable in that time.

Brendan.

Hi Brendan, 

Thank you for sharing your concerns.

Kind regards,

Mabula

Interesting that there has been a few conversations on FB and there's some comments on CN as well saying that however good the software is, people will not buy into the renewing the licence every year just to open the software, especially when one of the big competitors (which must be PI) does not charge more than once. I think this is a real problem for many and a shame as it will stop many people from experiencing how good this is.

Personally I would rather pay a higher one off initial price.... but I respect that it's down to the software developer how they want to charge.... but to alienate many based purely on the pricing structure is a shame. 

Thank you Sara for your feedback as well.

First of all, I am creating APP for all of you to help you in improving your images 😉 

I am open to suggestions though, so from your feedback, would it be more attractive if I increase the full pro license to 200 euros for instance which would work forever and drop the renewal system and in that case, you will not have unlimited support  which simply can never be offered in that case practically speaking. Would it be fair to ask an upgrade fee then if I were to introduce a major upgrade?

Kind regards,

Mabula

In my opinion (and I cannot speak for anyone else) that sounds like a better proposal. If the software takes off as I hope it does as you have clearly worked very hard on it, then the support on this forum with the current users is all that people will need.... along with some input from you as well 🙂 

I think that a renewal fee based on major upgrades sounds like a good idea.. that way people can decide whether they chose to update or not. I think that to have software that will stop working after 365 days UNLESS you purchase another licence sounds rather like Adobe mentality and there are many who will not buy into that.

Can I suggest that you open it up to discussion, perhaps on your FB page and CN forums for example... Don't base such a major change on my voice alone 🙂 

Posted by: Sara

In my opinion (and I cannot speak for anyone else) that sounds like a better proposal. If the software takes off as I hope it does as you have clearly worked very hard on it, then the support on this forum with the current users is all that people will need.... along with some input from you as well 🙂 

I think that a renewal fee based on major upgrades sounds like a good idea.. that way people can decide whether they chose to update or not. I think that to have software that will stop working after 365 days UNLESS you purchase another licence sounds rather like Adobe mentality and there are many who will not buy into that.

Can I suggest that you open it up to discussion, perhaps on your FB page and CN forums for example... Don't base such a major change on my voice alone 🙂 

Okay I can clearly understand the argument about Adobe 😉

I will give it more thought.

Anyone wishing to share their thoughts about the license system, let me know 😉

Mabula

I send you a PM Mabula (SN). In short:

1. Go to the market (fast a possible) with a light version for a relative low price, say €75,-
2. Keep the Pro version on €150,-
3. Drop the renewal system.
4. Charge a reduced upgrade fee for current customers when a major upgrade is released (V2 and further), but let older versions run.
5. Make it possible to upgrade from Light to Pro
6. and finally, differentiate (in the future) with new features etc and pricing

all in order to take the market that PI can't serve due to the high pricing.

Further details as explained in my PM.

As far as I can remember, PixInsight does not guarantee one payment and forever usage.  A major update can require users to re-purchase, but this hasn't happened in PixInsight's history.  So over the past few years, PixInsight users only need to pay once.

At this moment, I think it is fair to say that APP works better than PI in some functions, but PI has more functions than APP.  The users will judge when it will take for the total cost of APP (first purchase + renewal) grows to a point higher than PI. I think it is about 2 to 3 years. After that, the cost of using APP will continuously grow and the cost of using PI will probably stay the same. For this to be a worthwhile investment, APP will need to be more powerful than PI overall after 2 to 3 years. From users' point of view, there is no guarantee whether this will happen.

I personally would prefer an unlimited usage of the program after purchase, but no updates will be granted after the first year unless a renewal is purchased.  In other words, the purchase is for the updates, not for running the program. The users can then judge whether they need to purchase an update every year (if you add new important features to APP every year), or purchase an update every few years (if the development is slow). 

Cheers,

Wei-Hao

Hi, I have a few other licensed (astro) software.  Most/some of them offer the licence including a time-limited update and support, e.g. one year.  However, after the license/support time expires the software does not stop working (which is not funny) but you can't get support or upgrades anymore (which is normal).  So, if/when one decides not to buy a renewal, the software should just continue to work as is but one can get no more support nor upgrades until one buys a new license/support extension.  I  see two parts in this: first part is the license to download and use the software as it is at the date of purchase and the second part is the support/upgrade fee.  I don't understand why the end of a support/upgrade period should  cause the software to stop working once that period is expired but I can understand that a fee is to be paid to extend a support/upgrade period?!

Best regards,

Geert

Posted by: Marc Theunissen

I send you a PM Mabula (SN). In short:

1. Go to the market (fast a possible) with a light version for a relative low price, say €75,-
2. Keep the Pro version on €150,-
3. Drop the renewal system.
4. Charge a reduced upgrade fee for current customers when a major upgrade is released (V2 and further), but let older versions run.
5. Make it possible to upgrade from Light to Pro
6. and finally, differentiate (in the future) with new features etc and pricing

all in order to take the market that PI can't serve due to the high pricing.

Further details as explained in my PM.

Hi Marc, thank you for your thoughts on this topic 😉

Who would be interested in a light version, without the multiple-view mosaic algorithms and Local Normalization Correction capabilities? Those 2 features would be the discriminating features I suggest.

Mabula

Posted by: Wei-Hao Wang

As far as I can remember, PixInsight does not guarantee one payment and forever usage.  A major update can require users to re-purchase, but this hasn't happened in PixInsight's history.  So over the past few years, PixInsight users only need to pay once.

At this moment, I think it is fair to say that APP works better than PI in some functions, but PI has more functions than APP.  The users will judge when it will take for the total cost of APP (first purchase + renewal) grows to a point higher than PI. I think it is about 2 to 3 years. After that, the cost of using APP will continuously grow and the cost of using PI will probably stay the same. For this to be a worthwhile investment, APP will need to be more powerful than PI overall after 2 to 3 years. From users' point of view, there is no guarantee whether this will happen.

I personally would prefer an unlimited usage of the program after purchase, but no updates will be granted after the first year unless a renewal is purchased.  In other words, the purchase is for the updates, not for running the program. The users can then judge whether they need to purchase an update every year (if you add new important features to APP every year), or purchase an update every few years (if the development is slow). 

Cheers,

Wei-Hao

Hi Wei-Hao,

Thank you very much for your contribution in this discussion.

I agree, the renewal system creates uncertainty for the user, APP is totally new and it needs to prove itself. And I, as the main developer (and the only one at the moment), need to show as well that the current features of APP are just the beginning of more improvements to come 😉

Cheers,

Mabula

Posted by: Geert

Hi, I have a few other licensed (astro) software.  Most/some of them offer the licence including a time-limited update and support, e.g. one year.  However, after the license/support time expires the software does not stop working (which is not funny) but you can't get support or upgrades anymore (which is normal).  So, if/when one decides not to buy a renewal, the software should just continue to work as is but one can get no more support nor upgrades until one buys a new license/support extension.  I  see two parts in this: first part is the license to download and use the software as it is at the date of purchase and the second part is the support/upgrade fee.  I don't understand why the end of a support/upgrade period should  cause the software to stop working once that period is expired but I can understand that a fee is to be paid to extend a support/upgrade period?!

Best regards,

Geert

Hi Geert,

I thank you as well for your thoughts in this matter 😉

The license system that I have proposed now is known as SAAS (software as a service). You don't buy the software, you buy the right to use the software. So it's a different concept and unlike the traditional way in which software was sold.

But from all the reactions that I am getting, which are plenty, this SAAS system doesn't seem the way to go with APP in this niche market.

Your explanation of licensing together with support and/or being able to get updates is clear to me and sounds very reasonable.

Kind regards,

Mabula

 

Who would be interested in a light version, without the multiple-view mosaic algorithms and Local Normalization Correction capabilities? Those 2 features would be the discriminating features I suggest.

Hi Mabula, I would only "drop" the Mosaic function since this is the USP (functionality) in your product. LNC is an image enhancement function and should be part of the "light" version in my opinion.

Hi Marc,

Okay, thank you for your feedback.

I personally do consider LNC a USP as well, but I do agree that the mosaic functionality is more unique.

Mabula

 Hi Mabula -  As you know, I am a BIG supporter of APP and personally would willingly pay your current pricing model (in fact, after I post this message I'm going to do just that).  That having been said, I can assure you that I am a relative oddity.  I don't mind paying for astronomical software, as I know that the money I have spent on my software is a very small investment compared to my equipment (I own about $1,500 in AP software as compared to more than 10 times that amount in cameras, lenses, mounts, guiders, etc.).  And, I believe that my AP software probably accounts for 70% of what makes for better images.

But, as I mentioned, I'm pretty sure that my beliefs and spending habits are not typical.

I think your current pricing model is not a good one, as the price of admission ($150 Euros) will be too high for the very vast majority of potential users.  Add to that problem that APP does not currently have a reputation in the marketplace (since it is brand new), so it would be hard to convince a potential new user that it's worth giving the program a try.

Fundamentally, in it's current form, APP is an excellent (i.e., probably best in class) program for preprocessing and stacking AP data, plus an excellent program (again, probably best in class) program for assembling mosaics.  There ARE alternatives to APP that do some or all of these functions.  Deep Sky Stacker (free) doesn't do mosaicing, but does a competent job at preprocessing and stacking (again, not as good as APP, but good enough for most).  Pixinsight does an excellent job with preprocessing and stacking, plus decent mosaicing, plus top of the line post processing tools.  Again, I think that APP is better than PI at both preprocessing and mosaicing.  But, PI has an excellent and long established reputation in the marketplace. You might say it's the de facto standard for almost all aspects of AP processing.  PI's downside is that most people view it as fairly difficult to learn (unlike APP)  And, of course, there are other choices as well (Nebulosity, Images Plus, etc.).

I think the most direct competition for APP is PI.  Keeping in mind that most people are not like me - looking to use a little bit from this program a little bit from that, etc.  Most APers are looking for 1 or 2 programs to cover most (or all) of their AP needs.  So, with PI costing $230 Euros and APP $150 Euros + $50 Euros per year - it's not long before my APP investment far exceeds my PI investment.  And, again, APP doesn't do as much as PI (minimal post processing tools currently).

I think if Pixinsight (with it's highly regarded reputation) decided to implement your pricing model, it could be successful.  People know that there's a great deal of value in PI. However, almost everyone in the astronomical community is unfamiliar with APP's value.  So, with the current pricing model, most APers simply aren't going to try APP - even with a free 30 day license.  Keep in mind, a free trial license doesn't help me if I could never afford (or am not willing) to pay the price for the product after the trial.

My suggestions (and these may not be in line with your economic needs/goals, but I think they may be more acceptable to the marketplace) -  Have 2 pricing models - one that is subscription based (this provides you with ongoing income) and one that is a one time purchase but the user pays for major upgrades.  What I would propose (what I think will maximize APP sales and therefore maximize your income):

Subscription based - somewhere around $40 Euros per year.  The same price per year, though - not an initial higher fee.  Keep in mind, if it's fairly cheap to buy the first year subscription, I'll at least try it for a year to decide if I want to continue using it in subsequent years.  You can keep the subscription service restricted to requiring an internet connection (i.e., no need to worry about my 7 day without an internet connection proposal).

Purchased based - $125 Euros ($200 Euros tops).  I think the majority of people who would buy this option would be either people like me (place a high value on APPs capabilities) or people who would require the ability to use APP when not internet connected (since this option would not require license validation).  With this type of purchase, you would charge for major upgrades at prices to be announced, but most likely 1/3 to 1/2 the price of a new subscription.  I know you're concerned about people sharing APP without paying for it, so you want to implement the license validation.  I think there are those who will do that, but they're probably a small part of the market. Keep in mind that most of us don't actually see much of our APer friends - most of us are just cyber friends.

I think these prices are more or less in line with what alternatives can offer and recognize that APP has a unique position in the marketplace.  You need to prove (via lots of sales and APP users telling others about how great it is) that APP is the best program for preprocessing and mosaicing and (in it's current form) a great supplement for other programs like PI and Photoshop, etc. to complete a user's astronomical software suite.

Hope this helps - you know I'm hoping for great success with APP,

Scott

http://www.astronomersdoitinthedark.com/

I am concerned about the pricing structure also. I'd like to by a program, not a contract. We are all already having to shell out $100/year for Photoshop. If we are to use this program for long term, its gonna be expensive. This is a tough one. The program is really functional and smooth, but doesn't negate the need for PS still. I think $189 is a good one time price, but then I worry about the incentive of the developer to keep improving it if nobody is going to be paying yearly and most who want the program already have it. How about $50/year OR ~$175-$200 USD, but not both?

Posted by: Scott Rosen

 Hi Mabula -  As you know, I am a BIG supporter of APP and personally would willingly pay your current pricing model (in fact, after I post this message I'm going to do just that).  That having been said, I can assure you that I am a relative oddity.  I don't mind paying for astronomical software, as I know that the money I have spent on my software is a very small investment compared to my equipment (I own about $1,500 in AP software as compared to more than 10 times that amount in cameras, lenses, mounts, guiders, etc.).  And, I believe that my AP software probably accounts for 70% of what makes for better images.

......

 

Hope this helps - you know I'm hoping for great success with APP,

Scott

http://www.astronomersdoitinthedark.com/

 

Thank you Scott, for your appreciation 😉

I agree and fully understand your arguments.

Your proposition of giving everyone the choice of a license model, either a

• 1 time purchase with possible future upgrade purchases (not yearly, but only for big and structural upgrades) or,
• a yearly subscription with a fixed yearly price including all future upgrades where the price initially is the same as the other years.

is a proposition I definitely could adhere to. It's probably the most friendly of all by giving each astrophotographer the choice.

Regarding the active internet connection requirement, I will remove this in a future upgrade and will replace it with another form of application security. The internet requirement would be something that's better to be removed for both types of license model following all heard and known arguments against it.

Once againg ;-), thank you very much for your appreciation Scott, and for contributing to this matter with your thoughts.

Kind regards,

Mabula

Hi Greg,

Thank you for sharing your thoughts and concerns 😉

How would you feel If a implement both options, like Scott suggested?

In response to Scott's post:

Your proposition of giving everyone the choice of a license model, either a

• 1 time purchase with possible future upgrade purchases (not yearly, but only for big and structural upgrades) or,
• a yearly subscription with a fixed yearly price including all future upgrades where the price initially is the same as the other years.

is a proposition I definitely could adhere to. It's probabIly the most friendly of all by giving each astrophotographer the choice.

By giving this choice to the user, it's very likely that both licenses will be bought and it will definitely give me the incentive of further improving and expanding APP.

(Prices per license model then would be like you and Scott suggest.)

Cheers,

Mabula

Hi Mabula, 

Congrats with the launch of APP! It seems to be a nice piece of software 🙂 

I agree with the 6 points stated by Marc Theunissen. USP of APP seems to be the pre-processing tasks (calibration, registration integration) and the Mosaic function.

For now, most likely I would use APP for pre-processing and further postprocessing would still be done by me in Pixinsight. Currentlyt PI simply offers more functionality with respect to post-processing. Next to that, in general, users have invested a lot of time in finetuning their processing skills with PI and/or PS. The decision to switch to a new application will be a very tough decision. The same thing happened after the release of PI. A lot of PS users nowadays use PI for pre-processing and are still using PS for post-processing.

Given that I would opt for a competitive priced  (75,-?) Pre-processing module . My guess is that significantly more PI users would in that case instantly decide to switch to APP for preprocessing. Next to that a Mosaic module could be offered (75,-?). Meanwhile you could develop the Post-processing module to become more competitive :-). At some point it would hopefully become a nice fully functional software package and you could charge a price simular to what PI charges (230,-).

After reading the previous posts in this topic I would like to suggest to make a clear distinction between updates and upgrades. Updates should  be free of charge. They consist of bug fixing etc. Adding new functionality or changing the user interface should be handled by a paid upgrade.

Hi Dick,

Thank you for your compliments and sharing your thoughts 😉

I understand your reasoning completely. I know that post-processing workflows and patterns are difficult to replace when you make the switch between applications.

Most applications work differently in most aspects and you will usually be forced into investing considerable time to get up to speed with the new application. I have been there myself 😉

Splitting up the application into several modules is something I will need to give some further thought tough.

Regarding updates/upgrades: indeed,

• updates will be free of charge and there will be plenty 😉
• upgrades however, would mean new functionality and / or structural changes to the application like integration of GPU acceleration for instance or big cosmetic changes to the user interface. And yes, those would warrant extra payment possibly.

Thank you Dick for your contribution 😉

Kind regards,

Mabula

Mabula,

One of my favorite pieces of 'astro' software is Sequence Generator Pro. SGP is for image capture not processing BUT two guys with a passion brought this software on the market at a very reasonable (low even) initial price. My guess is that they got plenty of people interested because it was a 'good deal' to start with. Especially on the 'capture' side of things, a 30 days trial will not cut it but still they pulled in the punters....simply because it was not too painful to PURCHASE the software. They continue to improve the package but certain parts are as 'add ons' to the base software. People who want those add-ons, purchase them separate to the main package.

Something on their model will in the long run be a safer bet for you. Better to have many paying less than a few paying more. I'll say it bluntly.....the customer will want to BUY the software package....not rent it out yearly. As you improve and add to the functionality, then you can sell 'add ons' to the base software.

That way, you, if you continue to work on and add to the overall package, you will have a means of getting paid for that work. People who do not need or want certain aspects of the software will not buy those add-ons ......but in any case (thinking of myself for one) if the cost entails paying every year just to continue using the software....then I wont buy it in the first place.

They have a registration process for that software also. It still functions if there is no internet connection to check the registration....but will do so at 1st opportunity. However, with a relatively low initial price....I don't believe they have a piracy problem (though of course I cannot know this for sure). Those of us wanting an 'astro' software package generally are not inclined to go for a dodgy pirated piece of software that may mess up our work.

Bottom line - sell the software, sell add-ons (modules) if you improve it. Do not look for a yearly fee or many will not even bother beyond the 30 day trial.

Brendan.

Hi Brendan,

Yes SGP is really nice, I use it myself.

I understand now that the Software As A Service model I proposed did upset some interested astrophotographers. But others don't seem to mind at all I also understand.

I will definitely change my license model having heard and read all arguments from the astrophotographers on this forum and several international fora  ;-).

I am still waiting for more reactions before I proprose the new License model(s). I will probably announce that change within a week or so.

Thank you for your thoughts and concerns Brendan, it's highly appreciated.

Kind regards,

Mabula

Hi Mabula,

Here is my take on this topic.

You enter a niche market with a new product where some other softwares are already well established and usually based on one-off fee to get the software or simply free (think of APT where Ivo and his wife develop a hugh software for free with several updates a year).

Add to this that the community has taken time to learn the existing softwares so there might be a high psychologic cost to accept to switch to a new software (without talking about any price).

At this stage your initial pricing structure does not seem adequate at the moment with respect to the development of your product because:

1. you have virtually no pricing power for the moment and the software is not yet fully polished even if you plan to do so,
2. this is a one passionate man company but there is a risk that for some reasons you have to stop develloping it in the future,
3. your customer base is not yet existing even if there is some momentum picking up because it is fundamentally a good pre-processing software

I think a model based on the following would be more suitable to get some market shares:

1. a one-off fee (limited to the pre-processing module + unlimited acces but no access to upgrades) of let say €75 - €90 range would be a fair pricing
2. upgrade fee for new modules (post-proc + special features...)

But bear in mind that PI is charging €280 for the whole package so people will keep this in mind.

Competition is healthy and thank you for having develop this software and I wish you great success!

Best
Axel

Thank you Axel for your take on this 😉

Kind regards,

Mabula

Posted by: Mabula Haverkamp

Hi Greg,

Thank you for sharing your thoughts and concerns 😉

How would you feel If a implement both options, like Scott suggested?

In response to Scott's post:

Your proposition of giving everyone the choice of a license model, either a

• 1 time purchase with possible future upgrade purchases (not yearly, but only for big and structural upgrades) or,
• a yearly subscription with a fixed yearly price including all future upgrades where the price initially is the same as the other years.

is a proposition I definitely could adhere to. It's probabIly the most friendly of all by giving each astrophotographer the choice.

By giving this choice to the user, it's very likely that both licenses will be bought and it will definitely give me the incentive of further improving and expanding APP.

(Prices per license model then would be like you and Scott suggest.)

Cheers,

Mabula

  Yes,I like this pricing structure best so far. It sounds really fair. 

Thank you Greg 😉

Mabula