Perhaps all the software you bought in the 80s and 90s was sold with upgrade pricing, but that doesn't mean all software sold in the 80s and 90s was. You may want to think about that before you make blanket statements and call people liars.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Mac and iOS Writing App 'Ulysses' Transitions to Subscription Model
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Perhaps all the software you bought in the 80s and 90s was sold with upgrade pricing, but that doesn't mean all software sold in the 80s and 90s was. You may want to think about that before you make blanket statements and call people liars.
The vast majority of software sold in the 80s and 90s offered upgrade pricing.
Most major software packages offered competitive upgrade pricing, so they gave you a discount even if you were upgrading from a competitor's product.
You may want to think about making blanket statements about things you seemingly weren't alive to experience. What you've stated is blatantly false.
Also, no where in my post did I state all software in the 80s and 90s was sold with upgrade pricing. That's something you're making up to save face. Try harder.
Again:
1. All major software, and a vast number of Shareware, Indie, and Entrepreneur products offered upgrade pricing. This was beyond "common" or "normal" in the industry. It was fairly expected in many if not the vast majority of cases.
2. If you didn't offer #1, then a competitor would offer competitive upgrade pricing and businesses would move away from your product because the alternative was cheaper, as these competitors often offered upgrade pricing as well. Therefore, not offering upgrade pricing was business suicide in most markets, unless you were selling an app that had a ridiculously low price tag.
3. Both Upgrade Pricing and Competitive Upgrade Pricing were normal in the industry back in the 80s and 90s. It was actually far more common than today, and the upgrade prices were actually more lucrative back then... Why?
4. Because the market wasn't nearly as dominated by a few players in the way it is today. You didn't have "Excel or bust"... There was Lotus 1-2-3, Quattro Pro, Excel, etc. There was WordPerfect, Word, AmiPro, etc. There was Access, Paradox, dBase, DataEase, Fox[Pro], etc. There was Brief, Epsilon, SlickEdit, CodeWright, Qedit/SemWare, etc. There were a ton of competing products. They competed on price as well as functionality - and many did not have the luxury of brand and "platform dominance/ownership" to make them the obvious/default choice.
If you didn't want to reward your loyal customers with lower upgrade pricing, they would happily steal them from you.
So no one DIDN'T offer upgrade pricing, except for some smaller/indie developers (and many, if not most of those, did as well - for the exact same reason: competition).
Upgrade Pricing was normal, and [especially] Competitive Upgrades are actually LESS COMMON today than they were back then. The upgrade pricing is often less lucrative, as well.
Last edited:
I propose that subscription pricing would go down easier for everyone if devs reciprocated their customers' monthly payments with monthly update releases. Then subscribers wouldn't feel like they were paying for updates on faith.
Then you won't be doing software for very long.
[doublepost=1503164037][/doublepost]
Probably... but we can't expect developers to be adding features every month. It's just not sustainable. And on top of that, it would quickly devolve into people complaining about the quality/usefulness of the features being added being worth it. Then we're right back to where we started.
The bottom line is people expect everything, and simply don't want to pay for anything, or pay as little as possible.
Have you considered paying annually instead of month-by-month? It's cheaper - also cheaper than Ulysses for iOS + macOS used to be - and you're giving the developers a whole year to show you where they are taking the software.
I fully understand that. But I am not playing that game. Let me buy a license to use your software as long as it continues to function and do the job that I expect it to do. If you want me to pay for an upgrade, fine, let ME make that choice. These subscriptions for $3, $5, $10, $20/month are nothing but obscene money grabs. I've said it before and I will continue to say it.
I am not opposed to paying for good software (I've paid $20 for Tweetbot, $50 for Fantastical 2, $50 for BBE, and others)... but I will not open my wallet for these companies to bleed me dry because they "changed their software model".
I am particularly offended by these companies who demand the subscription payment for "ongoing updates"... those same "updates" that that may come once a quarter or once a year.
[doublepost=1503169239][/doublepost]
This is part of my objection to "subscription software" - they get my money and the updates go lacking...
So, how is $120/year better than $10/month? Same outrageous never-ending wallet bleed for maybe one or two updates a year? No thanks. I will decide if and when I upgrade the software that I choose to pay for.
Last edited:
The point is that the current subscription mode offers no quid pro quo for the user's payments. Users are paying for the right to use software that's time-limited by fiat, which is different that an actual SaaS app.
I don't have a stake in this. I have licenses for Scrivener and Ulysses—both for macOS and iOS; I even purchased Daedelus Touch, which was The Soulmen's earlier Ulysses iOS client. I like both, but prefer Scrivener. I subscribe for TextExpander and Office 365. Both of these apps have Windows support, which is important for those of us how use Macs and iOS devices personally but have to use PCs at the office.
If Scrivener went subscription only, I'd be more likely to continue with it than I would for Ulysses, since Scrivener has a Windows client, supports Fountain (something that's been on Ulysses declared roadmap for years), and has a richer array of view options. That said, I do like Ulysses, but I use it seldom enough to be satisfied with the versions I already have.
Without indications otherwise, I understood Gameboy70 to be talking about Ulysses' subscription specifically. That is 40 euros a year, or 30 if you are an existing customer. Month-by-month it costs 60 euros, so that's how it's better.
If Gameboy70 meant otherwise, then I'm sure they'll amend their message. I do not know what software or combination of you're talking about with the above prices.
[doublepost=1503170005][/doublepost]
I can see that point of view certainly. There is the aspect of not being able to continue using the full feature set once you stop paying. I'm coming from a point of view where, if I find a software to fit my needs, I budget a major version upgrade's worth of money for it annually. In Ulysses' case this was 75 euros a year prior to them moving to the cheaper subscription model.
I paid 75 euros up front, not knowing what updates (if any) I'd get in the coming year. So far I've been happy with the software, but it remains to be seen if in a year or two I agree with the direction the software is going or if something else comes along that's an even better fit for my needs. That's the same as with any software, of course; that's how Ulysses replaced Scrivener in my case.
Last edited:
The actual amount is irrelevant... my point was simply that 12 time X is the same, regardless of the value of X. Paying 3.33 euros/month is still 40 euros/year. It's still a perpetual wallet bleed.
This conundrum stems from Apple's decision to allow subscription pricing but not upgrade pricing, but subscriptions offer no added value to users in the interim between updates. Because the software's functionality is disabled by fiat when users cease to pay ongoing fees, they have to constantly reevaluate the value proposition of renting software.
I pay for Office 365, and even though Microsoft still offers the option of an upfront purchase, their subscription pricing is an insanely great value: $10 a month for cross platform use on up to five Mac, iOS, or Windows devices for the entire suite (though I only use Excel and Outlook). I subscribe to TextExpander, which is rather pricey, but I use it all day, every day, on Mac and Windows. I could've kept using TextExpander 5 on the Mac and replicated my snippets on Windows for free with AutoHotKey, but having a single synced app for text macros is worth the money, and I use it all day, every day.
Users fall into three categories: those who never pay for software, even if they have to resort to kludgy alternatives; those who always pay for software, even in low-ROI use cases—when it amounts to "support the developer" charity rather than expect equal value in return; and the gradient in the middle who look at the prospective exchange of value, and pay for software on a case-by-case basis.
I purchased the macOS and iOS client for Ulysses, but without Fountain support, a Windows version, I'm fine with the versions I've already paid for. If I see that they even add some must-have feature, I'll reconsider.
Hyperbole aside, that's the beauty of owning perpetual licenses... the customer gets to use the software for as long as they desire. Depending upon one's needs and the particular app, the user can be in full control of how long they use their software.
Having said that, there are things that can force one to have to move on from the current software... operating system versions, hardware, file compatibility, etc. Over time these become more challenging to overcome but one thing that history has shown us... there is always SOMEBODY out there that will do something differently to provide an alternative. There is no need to surrender to subscription pricing until/unless it becomes unavoidable.
I sound more critical of subscription than I probably am. For me to subscribe to an app, it has to be decidedly superior to competitors or be an a category of its own. I was ambivalent about subscribing to TextExpander, but it's the only cross-platform option for text macros. The Windows client keeps developing at such an impressive rate that my reservations about subscribing have vanished.
I can't say the same about Ulysses, which never seems to get around to adding the features I've wanted that have been sitting on their roadmap for years. They do add major features, just not the ones that I care about. If it was something I used all day, every day, I could justify paying $40 a month for the desktop and mobile versions, or more likely, getting them in a subscription to Setapp; but, alas, subscription software is designed to winnow out casual users—like me, in the case of Ulysses.
I could be wrong. Software subscriptions might work like rebates. Most casual subscribers might end up forgetting to cancel their subscriptions rather than reevaluate them monthly. I'm curious to see what the subscription software market looks like 18 months from now.
I understand your perspective and can respect it. I paid for TextExpander many years ago, and paid for a couple of upgrades... but when they went to the subscription model, I stayed on version 5. Version 5 has all the features that I need, and I don't need the new features added to v6/subscription. Again, that was my choice. Likewise, I paid for the Mac version of Office and am quite happy to be running 2011... I suspect that some day I will need to upgrade, but for now, it meets my needs.
As @sracer stated above, with the perpetual version, I can pay once an use it as long as it continues to run and meet my needs. With the monthly subscription model, as soon as I quit paying, I loose access to the software. That's BS. If I paid $149 of front for a Home/Student copy of Office, I can run it forever... but if I'm on the $10/month subscription, after 15 months, Microsoft has received the same $150, but I can no longer use the software if I stop paying. Where's the value for me?
The problem, as I see it, is that Adobe went that route for Creative Cloud and suddenly, every developer decided that was the only/best way to do business. That's just not true. While I understand that software companies need a steady stream of revenue to stay in business, they are not entitled to it because you happen to prefer one of their products. Look at the cellular industry and the satellite TV industry... they keep customers locked into contracts to keep them from leaving. I've always said that if they (software developers, cellular providers, satellite TV companies) created real value for their products, people wouid line up to give them money. But in many/most cases, they choose the contract route to keep you locked in. Shame on them all.
It's risking splitting hairs, but what I think we're both looking for here is that the software isn't so much objectively superior, because that's a tricky thing to define and brings all sorts of arguers out of the woodworks, but rather subjectively a better fit for what it is we're each trying to get done individually. Ignoring for the moment how the payment is made, I'm certainly with you there. When it comes to software I pay when I see that something's useful and valuable to me.
I think we're much alike here, too. I mean, you could basically be me in two years' time. I don't claim to constantly re-evaluate my needs, because I have better things to do, but when enough things start to bother me about something I am getting things done with every day (even if it's for a hobby, as with Ulysses), I start considering alternatives.
And sure - price is one of the things I take into consideration. It's probably telling however that I went through this process with Ulysses and in the end did not consider 75 euros to be too big of an investment to give it a chance. That doesn't hold true for everyone. In that sense the other thing they did alongside their pricing plan change will definitely help new user acquisition: I would not have objected to trying the software out for two weeks before handing over my money. I think it's smart to do all you can to make sure you're making informed purchases.
The way I pay for software that continues to be useful and valuable to me is simply less important than it is for some. Different things go into these considerations for each of us and on forums like these we usually only see the end result with little to no understanding of where someone else's opinion is coming from. If someone's paying for a car they're probably doing it because it's important to them, and with finite financial means, next to that a subscription to software they don't really use can seem like a bad deal.
What I want my money to be a signal of is "I like what your software does and how it does it, and how you're continuing to develop it, and I want both it and you to be around for a good while yet". That signal's going to be weak if I just pay once and then use the software until incompatibility forces me to pay again. Historically this has meant paying for major releases even if the previous version has been "good enough". Increasingly, it appears, it's paying for an annual subscription. If Apple ever gets around to it, maybe in the future it's going to be app upgrades. As you wrote, it's going to be interesting to see how this thing continues to develop over time.
Just as before, though, evaluation of what I'm paying for will continue. That money needs to go towards things I find useful and valuable to me.
Thanks for shedding light on where you're coming from.
Thanks for clarifying your point of view.
Last edited:
What if the developer doesn't release monthly updates? What if the software continues to function well and there are no updates for a year? Subscriptions can put pressure on developers to continuously move the app forward simply to keep the income streaming in. That could have a deleterious effect on the software... creeping-featuritis, increasing bloat, broadening of the apps scope and mission, etc.
A subscription can give the message that you've stated, but it can also say, "I continue to pay monthly extortion because I'm held hostage to the proprietary file format your software uses."
I deliberately used hyperbole in the wording but the underlying premise is true.
I don't pay for SaaS monthly because it's more expensive than the annual option, so I don't think I'm the right person to comment on what message that might send to developers. However, if we ignore the subscription part of that equation, even software that's "bought once" faces the same problems of featuritis, bloat or just going in a different direction in general that I as a customer might like. Day One used to be a premium app, but when they removed support for Dropbox and iCloud syncing - far before they moved to subscriptions - I determined it was no longer the right software for me because I found those features important. Rather than upgrading to 2.0 I dropped 1.x and informed the developers why I had done so (because that's still useful feedback - money isn't the only way to communicate with devs).
In the end whether the software is paid for via major updates or a subscription, my reaction is still the same - as long as the software remains useful and valuable to me I'll support the developer, barring any problems with the company's culture or values or what have you.
A subscription can give the message that you've stated, but it can also say, "I continue to pay monthly extortion because I'm held hostage to the proprietary file format your software uses."
I deliberately used hyperbole in the wording but the underlying premise is true.
Retaining access to content you create is absolutely a valid concern. Everyone should consider that, and I certainly do. I know I've informed AgileBits of my thoughts on that and how glad I am that they consider it super important, too. Ulysses' developers have also already stated their support for having access to your content even after your subscription lapses. Like Day One's Dropbox and iCloud syncing options, removing this would be a custom ending move for me. Not because it would impact me immediately, of course, since I'd still be a subscriber at that point, but because it would speak tons about the customer-unfriendly values the company now held.
It is pretty much black and white for me: I won't do software subscriptions. There is no piece of desktop software that I use that I couldn't replace with open source alternatives, if I have not already switched to them over the years. I would be fine with using a Linux as well. Granted, depending on one's job and needs this may not be an option for everyone, but I think enough of us enjoy that freedom and flexibility.
Open source isn't a viable option with iOS apps, but I doubt I would ever be without non-subscription alternatives to the apps I use. I was fairly unhappy about the stunt that Soulmen pulled with Ulysses, but I cut my losses and ended up buying iA Writer, which works just as well for me, if not better, than Ulysses did. There are other alternatives also. Needless to say, I will never again spend any money on anything Soulmen produce.
There will always be developers or companies who seize market opportunities when they arise. If competitors conclude that their apps are subscription material and then alienate at least a portion of their customer base, someone else will come along and pick up those customers -- and their money, too.
I don't mind paying for substantial upgrades, if the cost is reasonable, and would like for Apple to support this approach better. I just won't do monthly or annual subscriptions for software, especially not if you are left with nothing once the subscription lapses.
Open source isn't a viable option with iOS apps, but I doubt I would ever be without non-subscription alternatives to the apps I use. I was fairly unhappy about the stunt that Soulmen pulled with Ulysses, but I cut my losses and ended up buying iA Writer, which works just as well for me, if not better, than Ulysses did. There are other alternatives also. Needless to say, I will never again spend any money on anything Soulmen produce.
There will always be developers or companies who seize market opportunities when they arise. If competitors conclude that their apps are subscription material and then alienate at least a portion of their customer base, someone else will come along and pick up those customers -- and their money, too.
I don't mind paying for substantial upgrades, if the cost is reasonable, and would like for Apple to support this approach better. I just won't do monthly or annual subscriptions for software, especially not if you are left with nothing once the subscription lapses.
One aspect that I think some proponents for subscriptions are missing is that subscription pricing, at least in the case of Ulysses, encourages users to pay for promises.
When I bought Ulysses 3 years ago, I knew what I was getting, and I found the $45 to be worth it. If I were to give them $30 today, what would I be getting? They don't have a roadmap or even list of planned features. Are the new updates going to be more blogging platform integrations? Because those hold absolutely zero interest for me, and frankly feel like bloat. Had the app been subscription-based three years ago (we'll pretend I would actually have subscribed, which is unlikely), I'd be pretty miffed that I spent $75 on features that are of zero value (assuming $40/year, no discount, minus the $45 I thought the software was worth 3 years ago).
If you're going to do subscription, I think you have to give a roadmap. If I had assurances that this year we'd see CriticMarkup, next year we'd see front matter and MOBI export, the year after that we'd see Vellum integration, etc., customers would be more informed and more comfortable subscribing.
The problem, of course, is that there comes a point when the app is done, and you're adding features just for the sake of it. What use is subscription pricing then?
As a side note, I absolutely loathe it when developers say their product is "$x/month", then have small print letting you know it's billed annually. That's not $x/month, but $x*12/year, and there's a big difference. (To my knowledge, Ulysses isn't guilty of this; the yearly price is big and bold. It's other devs, like Agilebits, that do this.)
When I bought Ulysses 3 years ago, I knew what I was getting, and I found the $45 to be worth it. If I were to give them $30 today, what would I be getting? They don't have a roadmap or even list of planned features. Are the new updates going to be more blogging platform integrations? Because those hold absolutely zero interest for me, and frankly feel like bloat. Had the app been subscription-based three years ago (we'll pretend I would actually have subscribed, which is unlikely), I'd be pretty miffed that I spent $75 on features that are of zero value (assuming $40/year, no discount, minus the $45 I thought the software was worth 3 years ago).
If you're going to do subscription, I think you have to give a roadmap. If I had assurances that this year we'd see CriticMarkup, next year we'd see front matter and MOBI export, the year after that we'd see Vellum integration, etc., customers would be more informed and more comfortable subscribing.
The problem, of course, is that there comes a point when the app is done, and you're adding features just for the sake of it. What use is subscription pricing then?
As a side note, I absolutely loathe it when developers say their product is "$x/month", then have small print letting you know it's billed annually. That's not $x/month, but $x*12/year, and there's a big difference. (To my knowledge, Ulysses isn't guilty of this; the yearly price is big and bold. It's other devs, like Agilebits, that do this.)
Yeah, I would wager that's true for most (and I'm not just limiting myself to voices in this thread). When the developer bills it as a way to fund a steady stream of updates - and in my past experience that's been at least one of the reasons provided - and if the customer also looks at it that way, then absolutely. The difference is in the perception of "I'm paying for past work" versus "I'm paying for future work".
It doesn't have to be that way, though, regardless of how the developer sells it.
Whether I pay for major releases or an annual subscription I'm paying for a piece of software that is already useful and valuable to me (or in the case of premium apps without trials, hopefully will be). Paying for major versions even when the previous one is "good enough", or for the annual subscription when it rolls around, is my way of signalling that the software continues to be useful and valuable to me above and beyond what other options are available - because or regardless of choices the developers have made.
But in neither case do I have any reason to expect the software to continue to develop in a way that is actually beneficial to me simply due to the way the payment was packaged. The moment the money leaves my account the reasons for paying it are in the past. If afterwards the software does move into a direction that makes it a worse fit for my needs than something else on the market, that's when paying for the next version or annual subscription comes to question.
A roadmap is useful - I like information that helps me make more informed choices as much as anyone. But allow me to make an observation:
Even premium apps can have roadmaps, or not. Is this point perhaps more about predictability of future development than how you pay for software?
Regardless of how you pay for a piece of software, that money is gone. If you were not happy with what you got when you paid, then either way you are paying for future development and hope for the best. And potentially end up miffed if things don't go as you had hoped.
This also raises another question - is a roadmap really going to trump what actual, immediate use and value you get out of the software right now?
The answer to that might very well be yes - people value different things. But assuming the roadmap doesn't include things like "we're going to make it slower and more unwieldy", if a piece of software is without a doubt useful and valuable to you now, would you not pay for it if you saw features in the roadmap that don't interest you in particular?
And I mean regardless of if the payment came in the form of "premium" or an annual subscription.
Again, information is useful for making better decisions. But that information doesn't guarantee a decision to pay:
Whether premium or subscription, people might also decide that since those features are what they really need and they're not there yet, they will continue using what they've used thus far (and potentially paid for) because it's "good enough", and then reconsider when the other piece of software is updated with those features.
That's a valid question. And my answer is: I don't know if it's any good at that point. Let's see when we get there. In the meanwhile developers are paid wages and I get use and value out of their software, so in the meanwhile paying makes sense.
And I think that really sums up one of the difference in thinking here - saving up for an unknown future is beneficial, but when it comes to software and services I'd rather pay now for use and value now (with my particular expectations in mind, of course - such as future access to my own content), than try to predict which app or application is a good investment.
Last edited:
Please forgive me for not using direct quotes.
You make some good points. When I posted that, I was posting from the perspective of a current user (which I am). I already paid for what the app has, but if I were to subscribe today, it would be only in the hopes that it might one day get a feature I really want (of which only three really exist, and I don't see one of them ever happening). Without a roadmap or even a list of planned features, I don't even have a hint that I'll like what's in the pipeline.
But I agree that it's a different equation if you're a new user, and new users are what the Ulysses developers care most about. In that case, you're paying for both past and future development, which is a better spot to be in.
It's an incredibly frustrating situation for me. I don't make money off of the work I create in Ulysses. I would like to some day, but that isn't entirely up to me. I'm just not sure I can justify the subscription, even though Ulysses was my favorite app before the announcement. (I live pretty frugally, so the "but it's just a cup of coffee a month" argument doesn't work for me.) After the announcement, I started moving my current novel revision into Scrivener, which I owned before Ulysses. I also purchased Scrivener for iOS. And while Scrivener is a wonderful app, its sync method and behavior is terrible—it's slow, finicky, and I barely trust it at all.
So perhaps I could view Ulysses' subscription as simply paying for a sync method I trust. It's still a bit of a bitter pill, as that is a feature I used to get for free, and one which doesn't, to my knowledge, have a variable cost for the devs. They have stated they're considering a public roadmap, so maybe I'll get what I want, after all.
You make some good points. When I posted that, I was posting from the perspective of a current user (which I am). I already paid for what the app has, but if I were to subscribe today, it would be only in the hopes that it might one day get a feature I really want (of which only three really exist, and I don't see one of them ever happening). Without a roadmap or even a list of planned features, I don't even have a hint that I'll like what's in the pipeline.
But I agree that it's a different equation if you're a new user, and new users are what the Ulysses developers care most about. In that case, you're paying for both past and future development, which is a better spot to be in.
It's an incredibly frustrating situation for me. I don't make money off of the work I create in Ulysses. I would like to some day, but that isn't entirely up to me. I'm just not sure I can justify the subscription, even though Ulysses was my favorite app before the announcement. (I live pretty frugally, so the "but it's just a cup of coffee a month" argument doesn't work for me.) After the announcement, I started moving my current novel revision into Scrivener, which I owned before Ulysses. I also purchased Scrivener for iOS. And while Scrivener is a wonderful app, its sync method and behavior is terrible—it's slow, finicky, and I barely trust it at all.
So perhaps I could view Ulysses' subscription as simply paying for a sync method I trust. It's still a bit of a bitter pill, as that is a feature I used to get for free, and one which doesn't, to my knowledge, have a variable cost for the devs. They have stated they're considering a public roadmap, so maybe I'll get what I want, after all.
An alternative might be to keep using the version that you have and stick with it until you find an alternative or new features are added that would justify the recurring price. For myself, I made the choice to switch to a different app because I don't want to be dependent on a monthly software subscription as I cannot predict my future financial situation and generally prefer to keep recurring costs at a minimum (and also fundamentally disagree with how this was handled).
To clarify, I'm also an existing customer - although only for about three to four months' time now. There might still be a meaningful difference between us in that my purchases were eligible for 15 months of free use of the subscription version of the software, and as you pointed out, your feeling that Ulysses might not ever get the features you need / want. In which case it might become a case of "something else is probably a better fit, regardless of payment method".
I'm not entirely sure how frequent Ulysses' major, paid releases have been, but if I had been a customer for 18 months and thus not received any free months, I would have figured that I got plenty use out of my previous payment and paying for that annual subscription now was just fine. Assuming the software was still useful and valuable to me, of course (ie. I was still using it).
Same - except I don't use Ulysses for anything that even could make me money. It's for a hobby, so I pay for the great cross-(Apple) platform experience, pleasing UI, lightweight organization and general ease of use. There absolutely exists alternatives, but this one comes together in a package that works for my needs right now. And although I pay attention to my budget too, this isn't an unreasonable expense at this time.
That's a highly personal thing, though. There's absolutely something out there that I might not even be aware of yet, that will break the camel's back, so to speak. And then I'll be the one making decisions about where to cut back. It just won't be because of the subscription model.
Piss off Ulysses:
Every time I launch the app, there's a 10 second dialogue box that I have to wait to clear. Remind me later only works until the next time I open the application.
I was told us $45 paid customers would have an app w/ regular bug fixes working in High Sierra. I didn't know that meant a Shareware style pop-up every time I wanted to write. I wish I was within a window to request a full refund. $45 for an app that worked for 3 months.
Every time I launch the app, there's a 10 second dialogue box that I have to wait to clear. Remind me later only works until the next time I open the application.
I was told us $45 paid customers would have an app w/ regular bug fixes working in High Sierra. I didn't know that meant a Shareware style pop-up every time I wanted to write. I wish I was within a window to request a full refund. $45 for an app that worked for 3 months.