Personally a bit frustrated to see desktop applications go to subscription models where years can now go by without upgrades but I'm forced to continue to pay to use the app.

If I'm unsure on how long before there will be a worthwhile upgrade, am I paying $80 for this app, or $400? Its a bit like being told that you can buy an item but won't know its real cost upfront.

I understand subscription models where they offer something that's ongoing (remove disk, sync, whatever) but I find this model annoying and its forced me to change software I use quite a bit in the last few years (most recently moving off 1password).

Charge me more if you have to, but stop this "keep paying forever" madness.

I'm also disappointed by Fournova's decision to go subscription, especially since they are choosing a pay-to-play subscription model.

According to Julian Rothkamp of Fournova, Git Tower is moving to "standard subscription: you’ll have access to Tower as long as your subscription is active. Access to Tower ends when a subscription expires", [0] which in my opinion is not an appropriate model for software that leverages open source technology such as Git.

I think a more reasonable model would be what Drew McCormack calls the "cash cow" subscription model where users pay for a 12-month subscription and will

> get new features and bug fixes for one year, but after that you are on your own again until you make a new purchase. You won’t get any new features, or even bug fixes, but you can keep using the last copy of the app that you downloaded. [1]

With the "cash cow" model users pay only after they've decided from themselves that the developer has provided enough value to justify the cost of another yearly subscription. Instead, Fournova has chosen a pay-to-play subscription model which means that after the first year, users simply have to trust that another year's subscription fee will be worth it.

Additionally, pay-to-play turns Git Tower's users' workflow familiarity into a financial dependency/liability and this seems ill-advised in a world where software and platforms can shift with little to no predictability.

For my part, I am going to wait 12-18 months before even trying Git Tower 3 because I don't want to become dependent on the new features with no recourse except to pony up US $69 in 12 short months. As a side-note, I think this would not be as much an issue if Git Tower's annual pay-to-play price was closer to US $30.

[0] https://www.producthunt.com/posts/tower-3-0

[1] https://medium.com/@drewmccormack/a-cash-cow-is-on-the-agend...

EDIT: Remove first sentence. Add comma to second sentence. Move first citation marker.

I have been a long time user of Tower, and am supportive of and maintain annual subscriptions for several pieces of software that are essential to my workflow. I am a software developer and I understand the need for a subscription model for certain applications and businesses. There is not a single application on my computer I have not happily paid for a license fee or subscription to if required.

I will not be purchasing a subscription for Tower. This model does not make sense for this application.

I'm also disappointed, it seems there will be no software soon with perpetual monthly fees. It especially doesn't feel right in this case, because it's basically UI for open source tool and it doesn't offer (and need) really any server/sync/multi device features. I will look for alternatives, SourceTree maybe.

Really dissapointed with this approach... Hope they’d release a standalone version later down the line. This is literally forcing the customer to pay whether they use it or not.

r.i.p standalone software licenses

Saying that I have a problem paying $60/year to support product that I'm using daily is kinda ridiculous. Of course if it doesn't have value, don't pay. I've been using tower daily for last few years. While I can do everything I need from console, there are cases where using UI is just faster. So yeah, I'll be happy to pay.