Ask HN: Is offering a one-time payment stupid?
10 bigscrankus 33 6/2/2025, 8:04:26 PM
A one-time payment for an offline version.
I operate a low-cost SaaS that does about $500,000 a year. Churn is quite low, and LTV is about $250 per user.
Would it be totally stupid to offer a one-time purchase equal to LTV for an offline-only version of our application?
I’ve actually built my application local-first; it works offline just fine. My business model is SaaS because it’s easy and we do have online-only features, but I wonder if a dual model would get more money on the table? Many users have emailed us asking for a one-time, offline option.
Does a dual model work? SaaS for app + online features, and a one-time payment option for offline usage and one year of updates?
Thoughts?
Why limit your price to LTV for the offline-only version? Think of it as a full blooded product, instead of trying to squeeze it into the SaaS thinking model you've got already.
Plenty of enterprise (and such) clients wouldn't balk at all at a $500 fee. Brainstorm your target market and price accordingly. In other comments, you're mentioning the support burden - I don't think you should sell the offline version if you're not ready to lift that burden, and thus should price it in a way where this is attractive to you.
Offline versions are usually used by more demanding customers in the current day and age - the web is where you go for the user-friendly version.
The main thing to focus on here, however, is that this offering would not be for your usual audience. If that's all you expect from it, I would rather not bother. It's a separate market, and while there's some bleedover, I think you'll be surprised how different they are.
You can always try to play it safe and put in a contact form for discounted quotes (nonprofits, individuals, etc). This depends a lot on your capacities, but it could quickly tell you if you're pricing out desirable customers.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exit,_Voice,_and_Loyalty
but if I've bought a perpetual subscription they've got no reason to listen to me anymore.
But, most don’t care about such things. ;)
It doesn’t change the fact that software is expensive to maintain and even relatively simple apps can cost millions of dollars in human-hours to support. SaaS is the safest path to that, and if users don’t want to pay a premium (>$200ish, in my case) for offline, SaaS will stay that way.
If yes, then do it. Whatever gets you to $5 mil the fastest.
If no, then don't do it. You'll run out of customers to milk and not be sustainable.
The whole SaaS ARR model was popularized by VCs because it's easy to calculate and a healthy indicator of exit size.
The logic falls apart if you're not VC-backed – there's no guarantee that 5 years from now, customers won't switch to the competitor that has $100m in funding.
Also by playing the one time purchase model, you're pricing it below what the big guys can sustain. You strip mine the market from the competitor, while offering the customer a good(?) deal.
It opens up some markets too. I used to sell SaaS to construction projects, and they preferred to make a single purchase far higher than LTV because it's easier to get the budget approved and "own" the system.
As a user (again, I may be a cheap bastard) I love a "pay once - have forever". I assume your SaaS is not for commercial/business use, you mention "price sensitive hobby market". If you price the 'runs offline' at $10, good luck to your competition to beat you.
Also, if your market penetration is steady and linear at 0.5% per month, and you are just on the first 5%, then that's a different timeline/decision process.
There are so many thoughts I got for this (as an 'internal/me mental exercise'). I hope it all plays out well for you, and you decide what's best for you and your business :)
Thank you for responding and giving me that POV.
So for example you have X Program that has a one time license which costs $100, you promise to keep updating X Program for let’s say 3 years… after that time passes, those people could keep using your program but they wouldn’t receive any updates without paying some sort of upgrade fee or you could choose not offer one at all if you’re looking for a clean exit.
https://www.kalzumeus.com/2009/09/05/desktop-aps-versus-web-...
I'd be very wary of these clients who don't / haven't managed an application eating your profits with support questions and etc.
A lot of places imagine "boy i hate subscriptions, wish I could just pay for it" but they forgot how much work IT / managing servers, updates, and applications are ...
Introducing things like “pay one time for perpetual offline use and a year of upgrades from the date of purchase, OR pay this month use this month.” Doesn’t roll off the tongue quite as well. Maybe bad UX from a pricing perspective.
Maybe don’t offer it publicly, but test it with a a customer or two who really wants it to see what the experiment shows. Wishing you a successful experiment.
It’s been a while since I’ve surveyed, but the last time we asked, only 40% of our surveyed userbase thought the online features were valuable to them.
How stable is this number? If it's still trending up, I wouldn't make any drastic changes.
If I lose it I can download it again.
I bought it at v4.x or v5.x (I don't remember, it's been years).
I've paid for the upgrade to 6.0. The upgrade from 6.0 to 6.1 was free (and very significant).
When he moves it to v7, I will happily pay for that upgrade as well.
I don't know if I am a cheap bastard (perhaps I am) but I prefer to pay-it forward. I buy a 'lifetime' subscription for the things I want _a lot_ and/or need. I remember a decade ago I paid $200 for a SaaS when the monthly rate was $20. I use it a few times per year (so let's say it would cost me $40 to reactive-use-deactivate). I got the lifetime at 10x, I broken even after 4-5 years. I paid the folks 10x when they needed the funding (and offered the 'lifetime'), and they 'thank' me by having me on 'for free'.
That said, I did take the risk, because if that SaaS was dishonest or simply they would have gone bust, I'd lose the 90% of that payment, but the amount was small ($200 for a lifetime service is a small amount for an EU costs/standard of living).