I had such a bad experience with Filmora in the past that I am not the least bit surprised by their lack of honesty and integrity here. I’m also consistently disappointed by the number of folks on HN that are so quick to defend clearly fraudulent actions on the part of a company. It makes me really sad because these are the same kinds of people applying for YC or who call themselves “entrepreneurs”. It’s terrifying how fucking spineless some of you really are.
Lifetime free upgrades are a dumb thing for developers to offer because it means you’re obligated to deliver infinite future value for finite compensation. Even worse, they create the perverse incentive to focus on selling to new users rather than building features existing users want, and actually make it desirable to chase off existing users to reduce costs.
But what’s done is done. A business unwise enough to offer lifetime free updates is still obligated to live up to that promise. Or to refund it otherwise buy back the obligation.
I bought lifetime email, domain and couple other things from my webhosting provider in 2000 for 3 times the annual price for these services. They were a new company back then and probably needed some cash quick.
They are still honouring their commitment, almost quarter of a century later and I believe it is fair.
I have no idea what was their situation at the time or whether they used the money well. But you could think about it as if you have invested a little bit of extra cash in the company and you got lifetime service from them.
The extra money I gave them probably helped them build the company and may have had at that moment the same present value as all those discounted future maintenance costs.
In any case, the deal was clear and whether it makes business sense is not customers' problem.
I like that idea, that your 'investment' pretty much made you a 'founding member/investor' and you get basically board-level perks while the company stands.
You are missing the point of lifetime deals.
The early adopters pay a price more than the actual money - risk and time.
Venture capitalism is the same. The money does not matter, the risk undertaken is the true cost when investing in a very new product just launched in the market.
The early adopters and payers actually fund the most crucial development period of the software.
Also, downloadable software does not cause any real loss (except opportunity cost) to the developer unlike cloud based / SaaS where operational costs matter.
Once offered, any lifetime deal has to be honoured because credibility matters a lot.
Lifetime deals bring in the initial financing that companies need. Without lifetime deals, some products might not take off.
An ideal situation is where a developer offers lifetime deals for a developing software, pulls in revenue and traction and thereon, goes on to achieve comfortable monthly membership revenue that can sustain the lifetime deals. THere are many examples of successful software that got launched and found success by raking in LTD money.
Most importantly, the lifetime deals can be a viable option against venture funding at the cost of giving up stake in the company.
On the side, Remember the time airlines offered lifetime tickets?
Yes to frontloading revenue and paying a premium. But, as the airlines learned, never ever ever under any circumstances should you ever do that. Set some sunset. 10 years? 20 years? 100 years?
Open ended liabilities are a terrible idea for exactly the airline lifetime ticket reason.
> Lifetime free upgrades are a dumb thing for developers to offer because it means you’re obligated to deliver infinite future value for finite compensation.
A good LTD offers basically the same as the average customer lifetime value (CLV) discounting by maybe some small percent due to the fact that money now is worth more than money later, and that money in full upfront is also worth greater than the same amount (or even more, for some definition of "more") in recurring payments.
If you offer a good LTD, you should not be losing any money on average than you would have otherwise gotten from recurring payments.
> They recently changed this from calling new versions "software updates" to "upgrades" so they don't have to honor their lifetime licenses they previously sold.
I've got my popcorn out for this maybe. Are these terms defined in law? If not, they probably should be since this is bound to come up more often as software transitions to subscription based models.
Even if this distinction ends up being legit, it probably should also mean all previous versions will continue to work. Or maybe not... "lifetime" is big word. Seems to imply the lifetime of the user, but I could see them argue it only means the lifetime of the older version.
In law, no, but they were defined in the original license agreements that the buyers of the lifetime licenses accepted. And by that definition, those people are absolutely entitled to Filmora 12 for no extra cost. Wondershare changed the definition at some point, though, and they're now trying to get away with making that change retroactive, instead of only applying their new terms to the people who actually accepted them.
I have zero prior knowledge of Filmora or this situation, but seeing their original pricing it's clear they fucked it.
$60 for a lifetime license when the yearly subscription is $40? That is way too cheap. I would expect a lifetime license to cost at least 5x a yearly subscription, if not 8-10x.
If I was a user who was affected by this I wouldn't even care. You probably already got insane value and it's clear from looking at their pricing this was eventually going to end.
A good solution here could be to give lifetime license holders a perpetual license for Filmore 12 as a buffer. I'm surprised they didn't do something like this already.
tl;dr: Wondershare sold Filmora licenses that they said were "lifetime" and "All software updates are completely free", and even specifically mentioned that having such a license would let you upgrade to Filmora 12 for free, but then entirely and unambiguously broke their word.
