Buy once, use forever A directory of one-time purchase software

Overall reaction to the directory

• Idea of a “buy once, use forever” directory is seen as appealing and overdue.
• Execution is widely criticized: feels premature, lightly vetted, and monetization-forward.

Monetization, trust, and independence

• Charging to submit ($10–$20) and upselling “featured” placement for $99 makes many see it as an ad/affiliate site rather than an independent directory.
• Some argue the fee could act as a spam filter and support “small tech” instead of big ad platforms.
• Others worry it creates perverse incentives to accept dubious entries as long as they pay.
• Early heavy monetization and self-promotion tone turn several commenters off.

What counts as “buy once”?

• Confusion and disagreement over criteria:
  • Apps like nanoCAD that use fixed-term subscriptions but keep working without updates: technically qualify, but feel off to some.
  • “Lifetime” vs “one year of updates” vs “current major version only” licenses (e.g., Screen Studio, Sizzy, DaVinci Resolve) spark debate over whether this is genuine “buy once” or just marketing spin.
  • Some want explicit badges for: lifetime updates, per-version licenses, punitive upgrade policies, device limits, and online activation.

Server-side dependencies and AI tools

• Strong sentiment: if an app requires vendor-operated servers to function (e.g., tunneling tools like LocalCan, AI UIs that need hosted models), it’s not truly “buy once” because the service can disappear or become unsustainably expensive.
• Suggestion: only count such software if the server component is self-hostable.
• FridayGPT and similar LLM frontends are criticized for:
  • Depending on external paid APIs despite being sold as one-time apps.
  • Initially not clearly disclosing the “bring your own API key” requirement (later fixed by the developer).
• General skepticism that AI SaaS can ever realistically be “pay once.”

“Forever” vs reality (compatibility & updates)

• Some argue “forever” is unrealistic: OS changes, web platform churn, and deprecations (e.g., macOS 32‑bit removal) can break binaries.
• Others point out long-lived examples (old Windows apps and games, Android apps still working) and note Windows especially has strong backward compatibility.
• Distinction drawn between:
  • Local binaries that might need no further vendor action.
  • Network services with ongoing costs and hard expiry risks.
• Consensus: you can’t reasonably expect perpetual support; you can expect perpetual use of what you already have, subject to OS evolution.

Content quality and curation

• Multiple reports of:
  • Entries that don’t visibly offer a one-time option at all.
  • “Shovelware” and me-too apps (especially AI wrappers) seemingly listed for exposure, weakening trust.
• Some propose marking software that has any online dependency with an asterisk and/or stricter curation to avoid bait-and-switch and rug-pulls.

Usability and feature requests

• Requested improvements:
  • Sort by popularity.
  • Filter/label by OS (Windows/macOS/Linux).
  • Clearer indication of licensing model and update policy.
  • Reviews or qualitative assessments, not just marketing blurbs and links.
• Some users encounter submission errors (e.g., Cloudflare issues).

Broader views on pricing models

• Split opinions:
  • Some strongly prefer paying once, even if that means occasional repurchases (e.g., QCAD, SoftMaker Office, MediaMonkey-style licensing).
  • Others accept subscriptions as necessary for ongoing development and support, especially for server-heavy products.
• Several note that open-source and free software already covers many needs, but others counter that paying can yield better support, responsiveness, and sustainability.