The point the guy made, which I think is valid, is they were selling Bria 4 until very recently - it would seem to be to be a Good Thing To Do to offer a free upgrade to those who purchased Bria 4 in 2017.

The problem is more Bria 4 was still being sold until recently. If I bought software 4 years ago, a new version was released >1 year ago and it's the only one that will be updated for MY_OS+1 then I'll suck it up and buy the upgrade.

If I bought software 4 years ago, was still being sold until 7 months ago when the new version was released, and it ISN'T being updated for MY_OS+1 then I will bitch and complain - you were still selling the product, and even if you decide I am not eligible for an update based on when I purchased it's still screwing over customers that bought your product recently when they still should assume support is available.

Are you drawing a strong distinction between a new version released more than a year ago, and a new version released seven months ago? That seems to be the key difference in the two scenarios you describe.

If seven months is too short, but one year is fine, when exactly between those two is "just right," and why?

I personally consider 1 year to be the minimum amount of support I should get out of a product I purchase before I either A) have to purchase a new version or B) have to renew a S&M agreement. If you aren't even going to guarantee a product I purchase will be supported for AT LEAST a year why do you deserve my money?

I believe the v4 product is still supported. Nobody is forced to buy v5, v4 continues to operate as promised and as sold.

The OP wants to run v4 on a new operating system that wasn't available when they bought v4. They're upset that isn't supported.

Don't upgrade your os for a year the product was sold to you with compatibility for a particular os version. Doesn't matter if you buy the app 1 day before the os gets a new version or 1 year.

Software? I don't care so much. You want new stuff, buy it. I've had to explain to clients that the internet is a living ecosystem of standards and protocols, and when old, insecure protocols die off (often because they're insecure) and are banned (say in newer iOS versions), you have to upgrade from your shitty Windows 2003 server running Exchange 2003 because that's why your iPhones won't connect anymore. I had to break it down because most big whig types don't understand that even though "I haven't changed anything" doesn't mean it can't break when the other products across the internet DO change.

Now DRIVERS? I've gone out of my way to NEVER buy a Creative Labs product anymore (not that it matters these days) because they refused to update their drivers for my expensive soundcards for operating systems that came out RIGHT AFTER the card release date. Like, "Vista only" when Windows 7 is out. You guys can go to hell if you think I'm gonna buy another product with a usable lifetime of 6-months.

> Maybe this is a generational thing?

A factor of mobile and Mac app stores, where people have gotten used to buying an app for $1.99 with free upgrades for life perhaps?

Charging money for a "compatibility with latest OS" upgrade is entirely reasonable - it requires new work and testing from the developer. Not backporting compatibility to 3-year-old versions is equally reasonable.

It's still more generous than subscription models, as you keep the option of not upgrading any of your software (including OS) if you wish.

You have your priorities backwards: OS compatibility updates should be free, a smattering of new features is a reasonable reason for a paid upgrade. Otherwise you (the dev) are pretty much forcing people to upgrade.

As a Mac developer, I can tell you that supporting new OS versions is often a lot more work than adding new features.

I think the article's author was specifically annoyed about recent purchases of v4 only to have it not work on the newest OS a few months later.

If they have a grace period for free upgrades (say, a few months before v5 was announced), then I'm good with that.

If the article isn't just talking about recent purchases of v4, then I completely agree with you. Software isn't cheap.

Bria 5 appears to have been released in June.[0] It supports MacOS High Sierra, released three months later.

Bria 4, released in May 2014[1], will not. It presumably runs on Mavericks (2013), Yosemite (2014), El Capitan (2015), and Sierra (2016), and possibly older releases, but not High Sierra.

The question is whether that's reasonable or not.

I don't know. I can understand being frustrated, for sure. That's also a pretty long lifecycle, with a clear upgrade path.

If you choose to update to High Sierra, knowing it breaks v4... maybe stay with Sierra?

I don't feel strongly about it, though.

[0] http://www.counterpath.com/counterpath-announces-release-of-... [1] http://www.counterpath.com/counterpath-launches-bria-4-softp...

Again, the only time I think it's unfair is for people who bought v4 in May, for example.

I would hope that, for a period after it was known that v4 would not support High Sierra, they were given either a refund or a free upgrade to v5.

Something along the lines of "1 year of free upgrades, then upgrade pricing" is a good idea even without considering OS compatibility.

It keeps customers who bought just before a new release happy, and removes anxiety about whether you should wait until next release to buy.

Better Touch Tool is introducing a great pay model where you get 2 years of updates from the purchase date.

https://www.boastr.net/bettertouchtool-paid-upgrades/

I think what matters here is how much effort it would have taken to backport the fix to the older version of their software.

If it's trivial then they should be expected to.