frontpage.
newsnewestaskshowjobs

Made with ♥ by @iamnishanth

Open Source @Github

fp.

Tell HN: 2 years building a kids audio app as a solo dev – lessons learned

24•oliverjanssen•10h ago•19 comments

Ask HN: Does "Zapier for payment automation" exist?

4•PL_Venard•9h ago•7 comments

Ask HN: How are you automating your coding work?

48•manthangupta109•4h ago•55 comments

Ask HN: When does changing pricing models break user trust?

5•skicoachapp•2h ago•7 comments

Tell HN: Claude session limits getting small

5•pragmaticalien8•6h ago•4 comments

Ask HN: How locked down are your work machines?

10•donatj•4h ago•10 comments

Ask HN: Do you have any evidence that agentic coding works?

397•terabytest•1d ago•408 comments

Tell HN: Amazon has deactivated my seller account

67•hacky_engineer•5h ago•69 comments

Tell HN: ChatGPT needs a persistent workspace layer

5•LostBeacon•2h ago•1 comments

Tell HN: The FAA is pushing to decimate small flight schools

4•salusinarduis•9h ago•2 comments

Ask HN: What's your biggest challenge with context engineering for AI agents?

3•karpathunter•7h ago•0 comments

How do you keep AI-generated applications consistent as they evolve over time?

3•RobertSerber•6h ago•0 comments

Ask HN: Is OBD-II telematics data more private than mobile app tracking?

3•insuranceguru•4h ago•1 comments

Tell HN: Claude helped me maintain my old open source project

6•nergal•3h ago•1 comments

Ask HN: What are good resources to get familiar with AI code editors?

3•northfield27•9h ago•1 comments

Ask HN: What single AI tool/technique 10x'd your productivity last year?

3•laxmena•7h ago•4 comments

Ask HN: Are you going to meetups/conferences?

3•carimura•8h ago•3 comments

Ask HN: Can someone make a CAS just checking last bit on x86/ARM please?

3•goofy_lemur•13h ago•2 comments

Tell HN: Avoid Cerebras if you are a founder

25•remusomega•7h ago•12 comments

Ask HN: Why does SOC 2 feel so hard for early-stage startups?

4•asdxrfx•9h ago•0 comments

Ask HN: What should I write about next? (CS student learning by writing)

3•Aditya_kachhawa•9h ago•2 comments

Tell HN: Bending Spoons laid off almost everybody at Vimeo yesterday

345•Daemon404•7h ago•320 comments

Ask HN: Revive a mostly dead Discord server

18•movedx•1d ago•28 comments

Ask HN: COBOL devs, how are AI coding affecting your work?

167•zkid18•2d ago•183 comments

Code review your plans and your implementation

3•mayassin•11h ago•0 comments

Ask HN: Which Matrix and Mastodon servers are you using and why?

5•fsflover•3h ago•2 comments

Ask HN: Which common map projections make Greenland look smaller?

17•jimnotgym•1d ago•17 comments

Ask HN: How do you keep system context from rotting over time?

15•kennethops•1d ago•21 comments

Ask HN: Is retreq / retspec a thing?

3•foobarbecue•11h ago•0 comments

Ask HN: How to introduce Claude Code to a team?

11•9dev•1d ago•4 comments
Open in hackernews

Ask HN: When does changing pricing models break user trust?

5•skicoachapp•2h ago
I’m curious how people here think about this.

Many apps start with a one-time purchase. Clear deal. You pay once, you own the features.

At some point, the business model changes: subscriptions are introduced, and features people already paid for disappear or become locked behind a new paywall.

I understand why subscriptions exist. Recurring revenue makes products easier to sustain.

But from a user perspective, this feels like changing the rules after the fact. Not a price increase for new users — but a retroactive change for existing ones.

I recently added GPX import to a project I work on, specifically to avoid data lock-in. The idea was simple: even if someone stops using the app, their data should remain usable elsewhere.

This raised a broader question for me:

• Is it ever acceptable to change the deal for existing users? • Where is the line between sustainable monetization and broken trust? • How do you think about “ownership” in software you paid for once?

Genuinely interested in perspectives from founders and users.

Comments

JohnFen•1h ago
> At some point, the business model changes: subscriptions are introduced, and features people already paid for disappear or become locked behind a new paywall.

If this happens, trust is immediately broken. They have taken away something I paid for. It's a kind of theft.

> Is it ever acceptable to change the deal for existing users?

Not for one-time sales. If it's an ongoing contractual arrangement, like a rental or service subscription, then it's acceptable to change the offer when the contract renews or on terms agreed to in the contract.

> Where is the line between sustainable monetization and broken trust?

There is no tension between those two things. If you make promises, don't break them and there won't be trust issues.

> How do you think about “ownership” in software you paid for once?

If I have paid for software without the terms being a rental from the start, then my expectation is that I will be able to continue to use the software forever (or as long as I have machines that can run it).

I don't expect to get free updates. If I want an updated version, I expect to pay for it. There's a gray area here about security updates, though. A good company will provide security updates at no charge, and feature updates separately for a charge.

skicoachapp•1h ago
This matches my intuition almost exactly.

Especially the distinction between: paying once to own a version vs paying for an ongoing service.

I think a lot of conflict comes from companies blurring that line after users have already built habits and trust.

The point about security updates vs feature updates is interesting too — that gray area is where many products struggle to be explicit.

JohnFen•1h ago
What I've described is also pretty much the way this worked for all software back in the day.
bobby_lea•1h ago
I see this happen so frequently, and my co-founder and I are grappling with exactly this issue. Our model will rely on subscription rev for a good portion of total rev once we are at full capacity, but we won't be there at launch. The approach we are taking now is deliberately holding back from V1 and V2 the features that we think will be the real value-ads that will entice paid memberships. That way, instead of asking people to pay for a think they previously got for free, we will be adding new features and asking people to pay if they want more - or stay on the free membership and continue doing what they are already doing.
skicoachapp•1h ago
That approach makes a lot of sense to me.

Adding new value and asking people to pay for more feels fundamentally different from taking something away and asking them to pay to get it back.

The moment users feel something was removed, the conversation shifts from value to resentment.

JohnFen•1h ago
This is the way, in my opinion.
nitwit005•44m ago
The two most prominent companies to do this were Microsoft and Adobe, but they actually still do have some one time purchase options remaining. They just stopped advertising them, and made them hard to find on their website.

MS Office: https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/microsoft-365/p/office-home-...

Adobe Elements: https://www.adobe.com/products/elements-family.html

Also, I have to be frank that both companies are trying to scam people with the subscriptions. Try a full month free, and if you forget to cancel get stuck paying for a full year. The scamming has damaged their reputation more than the actual subscription model.