Final update on the JetBrains Toolbox announcement



  1. We are moving forward with subscriptions with important adjustments.
  2. You will receive a perpetual fallback license once you pay for a year up front or 12 consecutive months.
  3. You will receive up to 40% discount for continuous subscription.
  4. You will be able to use the software without an Internet connection.
  5. Current customers with active or recently expired upgrade subscription get first two years of subscription for the price of one.
  6. We still recommend you take 10 minutes to read it all for the complete details.

On September 3rd we announced JetBrains Toolbox – our new developer productivity tools line licensing – to replace the current scheme. The announcement was made after our research, which included surveys with different categories of customers, indicated that it was the right move. The discussions and feedback that we received after the announcement went public showed that we had failed to properly account for all considerable groups of our customers and articulate our reasoning for the move in the announcement message.

We sincerely apologize for this.

Among the direct and often negative feedback, there were concerns raised by our passionate users. There was of course also support for the idea. We’re very grateful to all of you.

Along with explaining the new model and the adjustments we’ve made based on the feedback, we’ll also provide you with our reasons for the move and address some other concerns raised.

Moving forward with subscriptions

As announced earlier, starting November 2, 2015, you will be able to buy any of the products included under the JetBrains Toolbox on a monthly or annual plan, including the option to All Products which gives access to all the desktop developer tools.

Perpetual Fallback License

The monthly or annual payment is a subscription fee; however, when purchasing an annual subscription you will immediately get a perpetual fallback license for the exact version available at the time. This license will allow you to use that exact version of the software should you decide not to continue with the subscription after the year is up. If paying on a monthly basis, as soon as you pay for 12 consecutive months, you will also receive this perpetual fallback license providing you with access to the exact version of when your 12 consecutive months subscription started. You will receive perpetual fallback licenses for every version you’ve paid 12 consecutive months for in a rolling fashion.

This option is available whether you subscribe to a single product or the ‘All Products’ option.

Continuity Discount

For customers that continue to renew their subscription without interruption, we will be offering continuity discounts of 20% after the first 12 months and 40% after the first 24 months. While subscriptions remain active, they will continue to receive these discounts.
Please note some prices were changed compared to the initial Toolbox announcement.

Licensing and Activation

The easiest and most convenient way to manage subscriptions is to sign in with JetBrains Account, which has been in use by over 16,000 organizations and over 260,000 students for over a year already.

If you’re paying on an annual basis, the software will attempt to check the subscription status and ensure that the account credentials are up to date on a regular basis (in case you decide to change these for instance). The only time the software will graciously provide a warning is if the past due date of the subscription has occurred.

If required, you will also have the option to use a license key instead of JetBrains Account. However, these keys will need to be updated manually after a subscription is renewed.

If you’re paying on a monthly basis, the software will need to perform checks to validate the license using JetBrains Account. If it cannot connect to the Internet for MORE THAN 30 days, it will show you a message and provide a grace time for connection.

Organizations without Internet Access

If your organization does not allow an Internet connection, you will still be able to use a local license server or an offline license key.

Existing Customers

To address the transition of existing customers to the new model, we will be giving everyone with an active upgrade subscription or a subscription that expired less than a year ago, two years of subscription for the price of one year, and at 40% off standard price. Starting with the third year, the 40% discount stays on the yearly subscription plan.
If you do not have an upgrade subscription for your licenses or your subscription has long expired, you’re still qualified for 40% discount provided you redeem this offer no later than January 1, 2017.

For more information about the final prices please see If you have specific questions not covered below, please check the comparison table and the FAQ or contact us.

Reasons for our move to subscriptions and concerns raised

Why we are moving to subscriptions

Our current model is based on a largely accepted industry standard for downloadable software – pay a higher entry cost and then pay for upgrades.

For the past several years, we’ve been breaking away from annual release cycles, often releasing up to two or three major and minor releases per year. This is both a result of market demand as well as our own desire to make our work available sooner rather than later. Some of this work leads to features that make it to a What’s New page, while many under the hood improvements don’t, despite being important and necessary. And software, especially developer tools, need continuous innovation and support, whether it’s downloadable or in the cloud.

Our successful growth in terms of new customers has allowed us to move in this direction. However, we realize that unless we change our business model, this won’t be sustainable in the long run, because our user base cannot grow indefinitely. We invest our efforts into delivering a great experience to all our customers, both new and existing, and we want these efforts to be the driver of our revenues. We believe such a model is more sustainable in the long run and will allow us to continue making great tools for you.

Providing flexibility in usage of tools, the ability to pay monthly, or offering an affordable model for all our tools are great side-effects of this move, because subscriptions will enable these, but they are not the main reasons. Should we have told you this to begin with? Yes.

Having a simple and sustainable model was and continues to be our goal.

Concerns raised in regard to the move to subscriptions

Losing access to tools paid for

“This is downloadable software and I’ve paid for it. Now I’ll lose access to it if I don’t pay or JetBrains goes out of business”

This is the most controversial topic. We didn’t realize how many users would differentiate subscription based services such as cloud hosting, monitoring tools, communication tools or repository services from an IDE, despite some of these also having downloadable versions. We expected a lower entry cost and flexibility would outweigh the perpetuity. We believe though that now offering perpetual fallback licenses, which was also suggested by many who provided feedback, will address this concern.

A price increase in disguise

The move to subscriptions has brought some price changes which affected new licenses to WebStorm as well as several commercial items.

First and foremost, the subscription move is not about a price increase in disguise. It would have been much easier to just merely announce that, especially given that we’ve not had any significant change in prices for nearly 5 years. Our existing prices are available as are the new ones, and you will see that depending on the product and years of subscriptions some work out favorable to you as a customer, and some might not. Overall we’ve tried to provide prices that we believe are fair and sustainable.

Continuously raising prices

“JetBrains will continue to raise prices and force people to pay to continue to use the tools”

While we may raise (or lower) prices now and then, it has never been nor is it now our intention to do this continuously. Some commenters argued that we’d be taking them hostage by eliminating the perpetual license, and will use this to squeeze higher and higher subscription rates every time. Once again, that is not and never has been our intention. Nonetheless, we hope the perpetual fallback license removes any doubts people may have had.

Ceasing in providing value

“Putting people on subscriptions is just a way to force people to pay without providing new value”

Much like the previous case, if we do not provide value, people will not continue to use our products. For over 15 years we have provided what we believe are very competitive prices for our tools and the value they provide, and we will continue to do that. We are not exempt from the laws of the market. If we don’t provide value for what we charge, we won’t be able to sell, no matter how much someone might depend on us. Once again, we feel perpetual fallback licenses will mitigate the risk if it were to be the case.

Dealing with budget freezes

“We have mid-year budget freezes and would be left without the ability to use the tool”

We know based on feedback from customers that having a flexible model during a fiscal year does provide benefits. At the same, time we also understand that certain projects might have unannounced budget freezes and that this model might not be entirely suitable for them. We hope that the option to buy an annual subscription which provides a guaranteed perpetual version can alleviate these cases somehow.

Giving you the choice

“I upgrade every year and I want to continue to do so, but let it be my choice”

We hope that with these adjustments, the choice of when and if to upgrade is now in your hands.

In closing

From the very beginning at JetBrains we’ve focused on the things we’re passionate about, which is providing developers with efficient tooling and allowing them to focus on the really important things. This holds true today and will always do so.

We are still a company of developers creating tools for developers.

Thank you.
Maxim Shafirov

Update (December 8th): we’ve closed comments under this blog post. Please contact our sales team with any questions you may have.

This entry was posted in News and tagged . Bookmark the permalink.

945 Responses to Final update on the JetBrains Toolbox announcement

  1. You actually listened, thank you.
    That’s a move in the right direction, for me the perpetual license fallback removes any concern.

    • Vierry says:

      Totally agree.
      I’ve written down my concerns before and I feel the new license model covers them on 100%.

  2. Julian says:

    Sounds a good change except for one thing: You grant fallback perpetual licenses only for the version that was current at the point in time when you STARTED paying, not the version that was the current one at the point in time when the time frame covered by your purchased subscription ENDED.

    Right now with the old model, the latter is the case, and it’s the only one that makes sense.

    • That’s a fair objection, but I don’t see how they could avoid discontinued subscription like it’s happening today if they let you use the latest version.

      It would be strange though to start using using version 16 for a few months and then fall back to version 15 when your subscription ends.

    • Maxim Shafirov says:

      This way we’d have to set significantly higher prices. We’re sorry it didn’t work out as you expected but we really think this solution is optimal overall.

      • Julian says:

        Your reason, or one of the reasons, for the switch in the first place was that you wanted to get new versions out faster as I recall.

        Now how does that work when most people always stay on [current version minus 1] because they know they’ll have to fall back to this version when their sub period ends (in most cases)?

        I personally wouldn’t want to experiment with settings/config backwards compatibility when working on an important project.

        • Maxim Shafirov says:

          >Your reason, or one of the reasons, for the switch in the first place was that you wanted to get new versions out faster as I recall.

          Absolutely. I hope we’ll release even more often than we used to.

          >Now how does that work when most people always stay on [current version minus 1] because they know they’ll have to fall back to this version when their sub period ends (in most cases)?
          Well, our numbers show most people do upgrade. If your intention is not to continue with subscription from the very beginning, it doesn’t make sense to jump on fresher versions indeed. Alternatively, you may maintain an additional year of subscription, effectively turning this new scheme into old one. And if you’re an existing customer, it even doesn’t cost you extra funds since the second year of subscription is on us.

          • Julian says:

            > And if you’re an existing customer it even doesn’t cost you extra funds since second year of subscription is on us.
            Again, marketing brainwash. Because it’s only a promotional offer for existing customers, and only a one-off.

            I’ve read through all the comments on the previous two blog posts (yes, I had a lot of spare time), and about 80-90% (perceived) of all the comments were clearly pro-perpetual.

            So you also should, at least now, clearly know what the vast majority of your customers wants.

            Isn’t it self-explanatory then to make absolutely sure not to make things significantly worse for this part of the crowd? I’m all for adding subscriptions to the option lineup for the sake of more flexibility, but not at this cost.

            I’d rather pay more (that is, something closer to what one used to pay for perpetual+upgrade sub anyway under the old model) and get the same as before – perpetual license valid for the latest version released within the subscription time frame. Why not offer this option for the people who are willing to shell out the money? Doesn’t mean you have to scrap the low-entry-cost subscription option.

            > Well, our numbers show most people do upgrade.
            Maybe they only did because they felt they’d get their money’s worth, given the conditions? I have a feeling you’re falling for something here.

            • Maxim Shafirov says:

              It’s not marketing brainwash but an answer to your “I’d rather pay more”.
              You do have such an option, really.
              I’m sorry it didn’t work as you expected but this scheme is final and not going to change.

              • Julian says:

                I do not have such an option – other than paying for a whole other year and being lured with “Check out this shiny version we just released! You can even use it under your current license for a whole lot of time… until your sub is over.” again. This qualifies as foul psychology tactics in my eyes.

                As people on Reddit already have gotten straight to the point:

                > Make no mistake about it, forcing you to rollback your product 11 months upon the end of your subscription is an underhanded way to force renewals.

                > The rollback of 12 months is insane. Jetbrains has lost their way. Just look how they call it a “final update” like they’re too pained to comment further on the controversy they created.

                So, all in all, thanks but no thanks. You’ve made a few steps back, but didn’t go not far enough.

                Given your “basta” style “final update” announcement I guess it’s futile to even try explaining further why the model is still shit right now.

                Your reputation also is down to close to zero for me, just for even trying to push this subscription model.

                Congrats, customer lost.

              • SK says:

                Julian, what do you mean by “being lured”? Are you making JetBrains responsible for your inability to resist temptation?

                And “foul psychology tactics”? Are you serious? Is anybody from JetBrains putting you under any kind of emotional stress or time pressure or something?

              • That Guy says:

                If I understand it correctly, getting “stuck” with the month-1 version is a penalty for an annual subscription. If I go monthly, at least I end up with a license for the month-12 version. It does seem kind of weird to me.

                I wouldn’t be so bad if the annual license results in a perpetual license for the latest version of the major release that was current at the time of purchase. But, going with the more frequent releases, there might not be a clear dividing line between version X and version X+1.

              • Other Guy says:

                @That Guy. Read the text again

                If paying on a monthly basis, as soon as you pay for 12 consecutive months, you will also receive this perpetual fallback license providing you with access to the exact version of when your 12 consecutive months subscription started.

                In other words the montly subscription will also fallback to the version which existed when the subscription started.

              • Ron Elliott says:

                Here is why you just lost me as a customer. Given the 12 month rollback, having to pay to keep the most current version then having to trust you not to screw me over. This post is proof you will not handle this power well. You are stating this change is final, meaning we, your customers, the very reason you exist today, have no further say in how we access your tools. Except, ultimately, we do have final say. Not to mention we’re all developers here, and open source is a thing, should we choose we could create an open source competitor to JB’s tooling. In fact, where’s my GH account. It’s about time you guys had real competition. Then maybe you wouldn’t have “brilliant” ideas about how to get more money from your customers.

            • Jason Lotito says:

              > I’ve read through all the comments on the previous two blog posts …

              Which means you just know about the people that complained. So, at best you can say you know what the majority of customers who complained in the comments believe.

              > I’d rather pay more (that is, something closer to what one used to pay for perpetual+upgrade sub anyway under the old model)

              You have that option with this plan. If you want to keep the version that you last go, you pay what amounts to (at last check) the same price you would normally pay for an upgrade now.

              Your issue is that in addition to this, you also get another years worth of updates, and that you’d find value in that as well and you’d want to keep the valued upgrades.

              Really, what it boils down to is that you are lying when you say you’d pay more.

              • Eugen says:


                To me it seams those statements “I’d pay more if …” are only “inverse marketing” (because it is coming from a (potential?) customer and not the vendor).

                I never thought that developers are such bad customers — kudos to JetBrains for dealing with them.

          • Daniel says:

            Well, I was going to buy a license (after some trial) on the old model but with this new business model I’m not even going to consider jetbrains anymore.

            • If you don’t need the product and it doesn’t make you productive enough, don’t do it. Otherwise, do it.

              • Daniel says:

                Oh, we do need products like jetbrains has to offer, we just can’t afford the risk of someone deciding to cut costs on licensing on our organization and we ending up with conflicts between old version of the product and the projects we’re on. Prior to this model we would get the latest version at the time that the support ended (one year after buying/renewing license), now it’s the version that was actual 12 months prior. No, sorry but no can do, so group license vanished here.

      • Stefano says:

        They said to respect their customers.
        So, fallback version at the end of the subscription is correct way to respect their customers.

        • Nick Nack says:

          Except if I purchase in today, and tomorrow, the next major version comes out. At the end of 12 months, I have to fall back to a version I probably never used.

          • Stefan Nuxoll says:

            this chart makes this exact situation look a little better. If you get an annual subscription today, and a week from now a new major version is released, you only have to pay an extra 1 month to get access to it.

            tl;dr;You get a fallback license to all releases from when you started your sub to 12 months before you cancelled it, you can simply pay X months if needed to push that window out to include a new major release.

          • keep in mind the analogy…

            if I buy a copy of v10 today, and v11 comes out tomorrow, do I bitch and moan that I’m a version behind, or do I pay an upgrade charge if/when I want for the newer version.

            subscriptions are just one-time costs spread out… it’s completely fair to spread them over the future, as opposed to the past… you’d have a damn difficult time convincing someone to pay for 12 months before you get to use the tool.

            Mainly, the best way that they could approach this would be to offer some reduced price upgrade… something like half the monthly subscription cost between the time your subscription ended, and the time the new version was released. But even this may be unfair to JB.

          • Josue M. says:

            I would imagine that if you’re a single month away from owning the perpetual license to the newer version, you can just pay the extra month and own that. If that’s in fact the case, this argument is ridiculous.

            • Maxim Shafirov says:

              Yes, this is correct.

              • Gary A says:

                No, that’s not correct.

                According to Jetbrain’s FAQ, a monthly subscription that lasts less than one year is not eligible for the perpetual license. So beware, Maxim is lying to you, here.

              • dave says:

                From the third paragraph of the page you just linked to:

                “If paying on a monthly basis, as soon as you pay for 12 consecutive months, you will receive this perpetual fallback license”

                So, Maxim did not lie.

            • Kat R says:

              No, it’s not ridiculous. Using the model that they’ve laid out in their diagrams:

              New major versions appear every 12 months. So, if I buy an annual license on December 31st, but the new version is released on January 1st, come December 31st next year when my license expires, I revert back to a version that I never used, all because of this ridiculous “fallback”.

              It’s blackmail. “If you want to continue using the version that you’ve already been using for the last year, pay us more money.”

              This new licensing model is a downgrade from the existing pre-pay model.

              • dave says:

                Kat R

                Guess what. You can pre-pay, so you have a perpetual license to whichever versions of JB’s tool you do use, as you go along.

                It’s blackmail if JB switched the terms of their existing licenses. They haven’t.

                It’s a DFU error if a year from now you are caught out by licensing terms you’ve known about for a year and failed to do anything to mitigate the risk of those terms causing you a problem.

      • Vierry says:

        I have only one question of concern: If I pay annually and let say you release a new version of the software that I care and for some reason I don’t want or I can’t pay for another year, can I continue to pay monthly in order to complete a full 12 month cycle for perpetual license?

      • AnonCowherd says:

        > This way we’d have to set significantly higher prices.

        Really? So why didn’t you do that for the current subscription model where people are left with the latest version before the subscription expired? That’s exactly what he suggested.

        Obviously every single one of your customers would prefer the latest version before expiry, just like it works now. So now the “fallback” license is a little Fuck You to anyone who stops his subscription.

        • dave says:

          AnonCowherd, if you want, you can get a perpetual license to Jetbrains software EXACTLY like you currently do today. And it’s crazy simple. Completely ignore everything JB has in their license agreement about subscriptions and only focus on the perpetual license part.

          Pay for 2 years in advance. That is EXACTLY the same as if you purchased a one-year agreement under the current licensing system.

          Then, after one year, you can choose to either upgrade for another year, or not. JB offers a significant upgrade discount if you choose to upgrade right away. But if you don’t, you pay more if and/or when you choose to get a new version.

          Yes, you pay more if you don’t upgrade all the time. Just like all kinds of other development tools [I remember CodeWarrior on MacOS 15 years ago did this], but that is a VERY common way to encourage people to keep using the latest version of your software.

          • Tokfrans says:

            I am all for the new subscription-based licensing model. I hope that is makes it possible for JetBrains to focus not only on new features but also on improving quality.

            As Dave points out the current perpetual license is available in the new subscription plan if paying 160% of the price (note that the new price may be different from the current).

            Maybe the new model can be reworded to point this out. Basically, pay an entry fee to buy the current version. Then sign up for a subscription of monthly updates at 40% off the entry price divided by 12. This means that you are paying in advance to get updates and therefore always entitled to the current version. After a year you’ve been paying 160% of the entry price and if you decide to stop your subscription you get to keep the current version.

      • Rick says:

        OMG there are a lot of whining developers.

        How it works: Chart

        If you want to use the software forever and only pay once for it. YOU CAN. Why should that license include an upgrade to the next version? Pay for the product (12-months), don’t do any next version upgrades, and use it forever.

        Simple and fair.

        BTW – I have tried and used lots of Open-source alternatives but I still prefer Webstorm v10 at $49.

    • Eugene says:

      I’d like to second that and also try to express few additional thoughts on the matter.

      The change is indeed addressing most of our concerns, however with this particular issue JetBrains would be forcing us to pay for 11 months of updates we don’t want (worst case scenario) to get a perpetual license. Also, frankly I don’t see what difference would it make for JetBrains to give us license for the first or last month (except obvious desire to have scared users paying to keep the discount).

      To sum up, current model is not a no-go for me anymore, but it would be nice to understand your motives better 😉

      • Maxim Shafirov says:

        Our motivation is pretty straightforward. I think I made it clear in the post. We put most efforts into improving our products continuously and we wish users, who enjoy these improvements rewarded us accordingly. If you do not need updates and only need particular version – that’s now even cheaper than it used to be.

        • Tolan says:

          No it’s not. Currently if I buy a new PHPStorm license it costs EUR 99 and I get a year of updates, I get to keep the last update at the end of the year. To keep the same update with the new system and not roll back 12 month I would have to pay for two years, which is EUR 89+71, or EUR 160.

          • Mike Jacobs says:

            He did specify “a specific version”, not “a specific version and a year of updates”. Entry cost is lower (which is one of the main things they’re trying to accomplish), the first update would be more expensive.

          • Vierry says:

            I agree that it would be great, if they offer buy-out option, so you can pay some sum to get the latest version without forcing you to subscribe for another 12 months (i.e. price something in the middle).

            BUT from another hand you, me and many as well think about the worst case, where they give up on JetBrains. Normally, you would like to keep paying for the latest and greatest version, so you will pay overall less if you keep upgrading annually.

            Anyway, it is disturbing for not having a way to stop upgrading for awhile.

            Let’s say the Idea costs 89 Euro now, but normally it should be 100 Euro if you want to keep the latest version and stop upgrading. What JetBrains could introduce (for example) is 15 Euro fee – with this you keep the latest version, BUT you don’t get any newer updates unless you renew your subscription plan. The idea here is just to feel safe, to know you can stop, not that you actually want to quit :)

        • Tim Keating says:

          The benefits of this model should be obvious to anyone with the slightest awareness of how businesses work. It provides a much more stable and predictable revenue stream than periodic large code drops. That increases the likelihood of the company sticking around for a while, which, if you like their products, is greatly desirable. It also reduces the chances of a big unexpected downturn that leads to layoffs, which anyone with empathy for fellow software devs should ALSO find desirable.

          Furthermore, this model gives the company continuous access to important sales metrics that are only available intermittently under the shrinkwrap model, which results in better analytics and better strategic planning. You get “hey, our retention for Product X has taken a big dip recently, should we double down on marketing, are we lacking an important feature, or is this likely to be EOL for that product?” versus “oh shit, we shipped the new version and it only sold half of what the last major release did and now we’re in crisis mode.”

          I’m not even going to elaborate on how ludicrous it is to object to spending $300 a year (worst case) on *tools necessary for you to practice your craft as a professional,* as others have already made hamburger of that particular sacred cow.

          • Chris says:

            Something to be aware of:

            I’m not sure who was polled here, but large, slow moving enterprises are going to be completely turned off by this licensing model. I work for a Fortune 50 company with a couple thousand devs, and there’s no way they’d embrace this subscription model.

            Personally, I like the model, minus the fallback. I think if I buy 12 months, I should have the version available at the end of the 12 months. If I go month-to-month, I should be required to subscribe for 12 months and the have a fallback license for the version at 12 months.

            So on a personal level, the subscription model doesn’t bother me. I really wanted a sub where I had access to all the Jetbrains IDEs.

            For businesses, especially large businesses, I don’t see this as a very appealing licensing model. Why not just use Eclipse, where I don’t have to worry about fallback licenses and I can keep all 2000 of my developers on the same version without worrying about my license being up to date?

      • Michael Collado says:

        It actually makes sense that you get the start version if you think of the subscription as just a payment plan on the initial cost of the software. If you buy a one year subscription up front, you’re basically paying the full price of that software at the time you buy it. If you don’t upgrade to the newer version, it’s just like paying once for software without a subscription. If a new version comes out next month, you have the option to purchase the upgrade at a discounted price (1/12th the cost of the software) by extending your subscription by one month. If you choose to pay month by month, you’re just paying the cost of the software spread out over 12 months, like a car payment or credit card purchase. You still bought the thing you got at the beginning of the payment plan.

        I think it’s awesome that JetBrains has shown a willingness to listen to its customers and make changes according to demand. We all have the option to go out and use free versions of IDEs, but we pay for the right software because it makes a big difference in our ability to earn a paycheck. Most companies would have taken the community feedback and said, “too bad.” The fact that JetBrains makes incredible software and is also willing to listen and respond to customer feedback makes them an extraordinary company.

        • Eugene says:

          First I’d like to say “Oh, come on! We all know that you can justify anything with an example like ‘others are doing it'” 😉 It is still worse deal than the one we had before, however now it is at least worth considering. I must admit that however I dislike it, businesswise I am much compelled to prolong my subscription.

          Second I’d like to tell you old USSR anecdote (forgive me if it’s not funny).

          Once a woman came to an old and experienced psychiatrist. Her life was not great: children were ignoring her, her husband was drunk and a cheater, she did not enjoy a second of her life for a long time. Psychiatrist was listening to her for an hour and in the end of it suggested to her to buy a pet goat. She was quite surprised, but decided to listen to him. So next session, a week after the goat was introduced into her life this woman went ballistic on the psychiatrist. She was yelling how not only her life had not improved in a bit, but besides all that f**king goat constantly knocked over trash can in the kitchen, ate curtains and shit all over the floor. Psychiatrist listened to her and replied: “Sell the goat now and see how your life will improve”.

        • Maxim Shafirov says:

          Thank you Michael! You seem to explain the deal even better than we did.

          • Random Dev says:

            Look, it’s really simple: Wait to “renew” until the day after they do a release of the product in question. Eventually, they may find that this is sub-optimal in terms of their cash flow (i.e. that a lot of people wait on the sidelines with money-in-hand until a day after their releases).

            • Mat says:

              They’ve got that covered if it’s anything like the current subscription. Renewal applies from when your subscription last expired, not from the current date!

              Former JetBrains customer, not any more. This new pricing scheme is crap, and their attitude even more so.

          • Dan Elebash says:

            Maxim, Eugene, maybe I am wrong but when we bought a full version of the product didn’t it include 1 year of updates, if so then rolling back to the original version after 12 months basically screws us out of that 1 year of updates we used to get. When I first read this I was ok with the fallback but after reading you fall back to the original version then this is wrong. The fallback needs to include whatever version you are on when your license expires. I usually upgrade but I don’t like the idea of being forced to or else. Plenty of other idea’s out there so I don’t think this is a smart move on your part. Hope you reconsider.

            • Mike Jacobs says:

              Yes, it is a worse deal in the sense that you won’t get the free year of upgrades on your perpetual (fallback) license. But in my opinion they’ve addressed the serious concerns about people not wanting to pay for software for years and have nothing to show for it when they unsubscribe.

              The full toolkit price is also awesome, so if you have any reason at all to use multiple tools, you’re far better off, even without the free year of upgrades included with the perpetual.

        • tkruse says:

          That’s not a valid metaphor. When you buy software for a year, you usually buy it with the patches that are going to be delivered during that year. Such patches do not exist with cars.

          Imagine you buy a car along with extensions to the motor for a year, and after that year you have to bring back the car and have these extensions removed from your motor.

          So when a user buys IntelliJ 15.0.1 in 12 months payments, and at the end of these 12 months IntelliJ 17.1.3, 15.5.8 and 15.0.9 are out, then a paying user might at least expect to be able to own the right to 15.0.9.

          With the new plan, just to make the decision of whether to continue paying or not, the user would have to find out and install the downgraded version, find out all the differences to the current version, use the downgraded version for a few days to see how it suits him, and then decide. That’s horrible. Basically Jetbrains would discourage all users from upgrading to newer versions before 12 months have passed, to avoid the rollback.

          Like: “Hey, we got this wonderful new feature. You better wait 12 months now before upgrading to it, because else you might have to rollback to the version without that feature.” This policy generally creates mistrust between the user and the company, it poisons the relationship.

          • Simon Billingsley says:

            A previous comment made a lot of sense to me – you pay for a software licence either up-front (annually) or over a 12-month basis but you are still only paying for the version (and any bug-fix versions) that was available when you paid the fee.

            If a user paid for 15.0.1 (if I understand correctly) they will be able to upgrade to and keep any 15.0.x version without paying anything else.
            If JB release the next major/minor version (i.e. 15.1.0 or 16.0.0) then the user will be able to upgrade to this version as long as they pay for it (i.e. with another 12 month payment). If a user lets their subscription lapse then they will have to go back to 15.0.x – because they have not completed paying for 15.1.0 or 16.0.0 so I don’t think they have a right to use it! It does seem a little strange but from a business perspective it makes sense.
            I am currently stuck on 13.1.6 because 13.1 was the version available when my company paid for the licence, we have not paid for 13.2 or 14.x so cannot expect to use it!

        • JTW says:

          Almost correct, but one caveat:
          If I buy a full product today, I get every minor release of that product as well until the next major release.
          So were I to buy IntelliJ 14.1 today I’d get a hypothetical 14.2 were it released half a year later and get to keep it.

          Under this new scheme if my subscription starts when 15.0 is current, and the next day 15.1 is released, with 15.3 after 6 months, I’d have to roll back to 15.0 (and lose all the bugfixes introduced since) when my subscription ends.

          So yes, that’s a difference and a potentially serious one.
          I don’t mind not getting major releases, but no bugfixes?

          • Eugen says:

            As I understood it:

            So you have version X.Y.Z,
            an increase in value of these letters means:

            X and Y are for features/upgrades
            Z is for bugfixes, which are free (if available)

            Y is not for bugfixes (and not free to keep)

    • Etienne Charlier says:

      +1 !
      It doesn’t make much sens to have a perpetual access an outdated version of the software …
      How easy will it be to “downgrade” our dev env?

      What is Jetbrains makes a yearly incompatible change in the .idea contents ? It will make the perpetual access useless as we won’t be able to open our current projects with the one-year old IDE version…

      Please reconsider: something along those lines: for monthly payement.. if you stop before 12( or 18) months you’ll loose totally access to the software. Passed that milestone, should you stop paying, you’d keep the latest one you used.

      • Mike Jacobs says:

        This is a very fair question, and one I hope will be answered soon. If it falls back 12 months to an old perpetual license, then it better be a flawless software downgrade with complete support. This leaves tons of room for error, instead of just falling back to perpetual on the current version.

        • Mike Jacobs says:

          I’ve taken the time to reconsider this, and I withdraw my complaint. Thank you for reconsidering the model and making these changes. I look forward to using JetBrains products for years to come.

    • Stefano says:

      The correct form should be as suggested by Julian:
      “the version that was the current one at the point in time when the time frame covered by your purchased subscription ENDED.”
      If you adjust this way license model i’m ready to purchase some of your product now (starting from Resharper Ultimate + CLion).
      Come on, i’m ready….

      • Maxim Shafirov says:

        We’re sorry to disappoint but it won’t happen. Please read more details on motivation in the comments

        • IntelliJ User says:

          It is clear the motivation is to get users to renew.

          Totally underhanded attempt by execs who think they are smarter than everyone else and will not get caught.

          • SK says:

            How exactly is it underhanded if the conditions are stated clearly and reiterated in every comment here? I find it a very careless choice of words on your part.

            As for motivation, it’s the motivation of every company on Earth to get people to buy their products and to return and buy more. What do you find so wrong about this?

      • Cédric L says:

        So we can stop paying just the month after the launch of version X to have a perpetual licence of version X ? We don’t pay anything during about one year then we subscribe again when the version Y is launched and the version X will be totally free for us ?

        Nonsense for me. The only possibility is to give perpetual licence only for X month of “royalties” on a same version.

        • Lee Saferite says:

          No, the perpetual license is clearly only available when you subscribe for a year or you have 12 months of continuous subscription.

          If you get a year subscription and get the version active at the end of that period perpetually then six months after your subscription runs out they release a new one you’d STILL have to subscribe for another year to get that one.

          Getting a perpetual license for the version active when I STARTED my subscription is lip service to the customer. They are saying ‘we heard you, here is your perpetual license’ at the same time they are claiming the subscriptions are designed to keep people up to date. Those two statements are at odds with each other. If you want to have customers constantly on the latest stable version but those customers also desire the ability to stop the subscription and keep a license then they CANNOT be on any version but the one they started the subscription with. If they use any version past that and then stop paying they would have to downgrade versions.

          I see this as PR appeasement move really. It’s designed to be punitive yet still allow them to say “look guys, you still get a perpetual license so there’s no risk to you.” They aren’t ACTUALLY looking out for the best interests of the customer, they just want to APPEAR to look out for the customer.

          • Maxim Shafirov says:

            Well, we say openly this is still a subscription scheme but now all the choices are yours.
            At the end of your subscription term if this newer version really worth paying for based on your exact usage scenarios. If we failed to bring value for YOU, we’re out of luck. If we did bring value – we want to be rewarded for it.

            • Mike Jacobs says:

              Maxim, I understand where you’re coming from, but I have concerns about how difficult (or safe) it will be for me to downgrade an existing installation to the version the license is good for. If we fall back 12 months when we stop subscribing, then there needs to be a way to actually fall back to that version reliably, otherwise you’re outright punishing people for not subscribing, rather than just not offering them additional benefits for subscribing.

              • Mike Jacobs says:

                I’ve taken the time to reconsider this, and I withdraw my complaint. Thank you for reconsidering the model and making these changes. I look forward to using JetBrains products for years to come.

              • Maxim Shafirov says:

                Thank you Mike.
                We understand this is not a common nor simple thing. It takes time to get into how it works and what flexibility does it offer.

          • rosdi says:

            It is called a compromise… I am only using Resharper, and this new license scheme is very fair I believe.

            Let’s say my perpetual license expired and I could not go back to older version due to incompatibility reason, AND I am so poor that month couldn’t afford to renew for another year, I could still renew for 1 month only and deliver that super important project… no?

            • Owen Rubel says:

              Well the problem you are seeing is that alot of their current base is people in the Java community who OWN and buy the software because they use it YEAR ROUND.

              And now they are saying thats fine and we will supply an ‘offline version’ but at the end of your contract, those support/maintenance updates will ALL be reverted.

              • SK says:

                Support/maintenance updates won’t be reverted, new features will be. Just don’t use the new version if you don’t want to get disappointed. Or pay for one extra year upfront and then for each month and you will have a perpetual license for the current version.

              • Owen Rubel says:

                well thats the thing isnt it, support and maintenance is pushed through separate version of product and you are only supplying fallback version of product at date of purchase not at final date which payments/licensing expire.

              • SK says:

                What do you mean by “support is pushed through separate version of product”? Bugfixes for 14.0 are released as 14.0.1, 14.0.2, etc.

                They want to sell you the current versions as subscription now, not as perpetual licenses. It’s their product so just learn to live with it. The fallback version is a safety measure so that you are not left without any IDE at all if you don’t have the money to extend the subscription or if something happens to JetBrains.

                I don’t understand what you are trying to achieve by constantly complaining here. You are not bringing up any factual arguments besides “I don’t like it, I want my old days back”. The old days are gone, get over it.

    • belenos46 says:

      Not quite.

      So once you’ve paid for a year’s worth of subscription, you own that version.

    • Richard says:

      I have to agree, making the perpetual licence cover the start and not the end of the period makes for a much worse situation for us than your current model. You’ve done a good job of meeting customer concerns so far, don’t stop now!

      • dave says:

        yes, it is worse than the current system.

        they clearly aren’t going to go back to the current system.

        for the people who want to ‘buy’ the ide [as in, get a perpetual license], and not upgrade every year, they can. They pay the 1-year subscription, download the current version, and that’s what they’ve bought [and they still get bug fixes to it].

        Yes, it’s less than what you got in the past. Jetbrains hasn’t claimed otherwise, this is totally about increasing revenue.

        They clearly have made it so there is a noticeable discount if you continuously upgrading, otherwise you have to pay full price.

        Just like a zillion other software products.

        • JTW says:

          no, you’ll get no bugfixes… That’s the problem.
          Or rather you get your bugfixes, then a year later you either pay to keep them or you lose them permanently as you’re rolled back to the version you had when that year started.
          It’s like paying for 14.1, downloading 14.2, and then finding after a few months that your license no longer works unless you reinstall 14.1.

    • Owen Rubel says:

      Agreed. When my current license runs out, I have the last version supported at the time my license ran out. This still isn’t a positive change because you are still implementing a model to FORCE yearly subscriptions.

      If my license runs out on current version and I choose not to purchase new version until 5 months later, you make 20% more and I as a developer am still happy because I get to continue to use the version I am on and you as a company make MORE money.

      Yes psychologically it makes no sense but this is how we have come to know IDE’s as software vs IDE’s as ‘service’. If you want IDE as service, create an online IDE. But if you are selling a downloadable app, a certain level of ownership AND support are implied.

    • Riccardo says:

      To all those complaining about the new Licensing Model, sorry to diappoint but you are wrong and all this complaining for no reason is getting frustrating. I am a now long time user, and think the final Licensing version is very clever and fair (actually even cheaper than before in most cases!). Should be obvious but here’s the math, as easy as possible:

      Excluding VAT, I payed 99 € for the first year, than 59 € for each year long renewal, and I get a perpetual version available on the day my license EXPIRES.

      I would pay 53€/yr from the beginning, thus saving 46€ to begin with, and 6€ each renewal. Of course if I decided to stop paying I’d be stuck with a version which is 1 year old but guess what? I could just use the 46€ I already SAVED in the first place to get an updated perpetual license (ok that’s 7€ more, but only if I never renew), than I can choose to stop udating and will be as well of as if I were on the only Licensing.

      Again all fair and even nice, as we get a FREE year, which makes up for the extra cost we payied at the beginning, and save few euros as well. My license is expiring soon, for this time I have the choice to:
      – Stick to the old licensing: pay 59€ to get a perpetual license up the November 2016 version
      – Swtch: pay 53€ (save 6€), STILL get the perpetual (fallback) license for the latest version that will be available in November 2016, plus temporary updates till November 2017 (should I choose to)

      Of course I’ll probably keep updating, and renewing my licence as long as I need it, but I’m also sure if I decide to top renewing, a year-old version will be acceptable, and easy enough to get back to.

      Overall, one has to be REALLY IMMATURE to complain about the new licensing. Good Job, JetBrains!!

      (Finally for those mentioning triky marketing strategy: OF COURSE they are trying to encourage renewal, that’s what a for-profit company does, but this is a very honest and fair way of doing it, stop whining!!)

      Cheers :)

      • Keith says:

        That’s not quite correct though is it? Wouldn’t you get the perpetual licence for the November 2015 product only under the new scheme?

        • Ryan says:

          Riccardo is talking about currently, as an existing customer. JetBrains is offering the second year subscription free for current customers who purchase a one-year subscription, so you’d get the perpetual license for November 2016, and your subscription would be valid until November 2017.

      • Arrch says:

        What product are you talking about ?
        Say for Webstorm.
        Said like that, sounded cool.
        But you made a huge mistake.
        You’re not in the right panel: “For individual developers”
        BEFORE :
        49€ first year, 29€ updates, expiration date version.
        AFTER :
        59€ first year, 47€ updates, rollback version

    • Dimitrios Karvounaris says:

      I absolute agree this seems like taking something away.

      If I paid the price for the perpetual license previously, which seems similar to paying the 12 months upfront for the perpetual license now, I would had 12 months of upgrades… now these are removed and are not granted anymore with the perpetual license, so one is forced to continue the subscription after that.

      It’s like reversing what was previously.

      At least, you listened some and there’s a fair compromise now. That way I can pay for future versions upfront the 12 months, which would have been similar like buying a new license and keep using my software for as long I want or need and only consider an upgrade when it’s useful. Especially for PHP developers where the bundling of other of your software makes no sense (as there isn’t any other required from what you offer), this new model would have been as at first announced just a very bad option.

  3. Thank you for listening and adjusting your plans! I’m OK now with Toolbox idea and subscriptions (because of perpetual license fallback).

  4. Paul Dixon says:

    Excellent move JetBrains. We’ll be happy to renew!

  5. Harold Chan says:

    I think it is much better

  6. Kevin Herron says:

    Thank you for taking the feedback received over the last two weeks into consideration.

  7. Andrey says:

    So there is no way to create custom set of IDEs? I should choose one of 4 options (all products, IDEA, ReSharper Ultimate or any single IDE) and I have no option to get, for example, PhpStrorm & PyCharm for any discounted price, am I right?

  8. muller says:

    Thanks for this thorough and (almost) complete feedback to last week’s “protest”.

    I personally find this model much more acceptable now, especially with perpetual fallback license. Yet I am still wondering:

    * Say I jump into subcription for a year (actually 2, being a current customer), will I be able after these 2 years to skip a year of subcription (using perpetual license), yet receive the 40% discount when I decide to finally upgrade ? With the current model, I could easily skip a version and receive the “upgrade” 50% discount.

    * When you say “you will immediately get a perpetual fallback license for the exact version available at the time”, am I correct saying the perpetual license will be for the version existing at the moment of paying the annual subcription, and not the version which will have been updated by the time the 12 months subscription ends ? That is a bit of a bummer, but why not.


    • Maxim Shafirov says:

      * No. 40% continuity discount is only available for uninterrupted subscription
      * Yes, your understanding is correct

  9. Mahudi says:

    You just took your time. Well, you really tired to solve all concerns. Someone had a tough time combining your manager wishes with customer wishes. Probably both won’t be totaly satisfied, the goal of any compromise. I coud live with this solution, tough one detail really looks very bold, if I understood it corectly. If you stop paying, you will be put back to the version one year back!? Downgrading is probably much fun in any project…

    • Mahudi says:

      You should have sold it as a ‘software package as-it-is with one year of free updates for testing’^^

    • Maxim Shafirov says:

      > Downgrading is probably much fun in any project…
      We will make every possible action not to break project files compatibility. Other than that, older version is newer version minus improvements. And if you find those improvements valuable for your, why not continue with your subscription?

      • Mahudi says:

        Project files compatibility is one point, ‘compatibility’ to the newest (stable) version of the language another. Still, I think it is ok. You do not lose your tools completely. It is just bold, but your price for the compromise. Typically, I never plan to stop using a good tool. But I had unexpected rough times before.
        Clearly your team struggle to find a solution and they did a good job considering your goals. Still, I think, you made (and will make) more damage, than it will bring you. As some wrote (and I know from the company I work for, too): it is much harder to achieve a subscription than the money for a software and, if well explained, the money for an update a year later.
        I will take the subscription, so for my part, you solved the crisis^^

  10. Hugh says:

    JetBrains continues to delight. Home run, guys.

  11. Wutipong Wongsakuldej says:

    I’m a potential subscriber. What is the difference between buying an annual license today, vs. wait until November 3rd and subscribe for the service ?


    • Maxim Shafirov says:

      It depends on particular product you have in mind. You may save a few euro indeed. Please check prices at

      • Wutipong Wongsakuldej says:

        Thanks Maxim.

        I’m looking at CLion, and probably IntelliJ IDEA too (I’m rarely use Java nowadays so I’m still skeptical).

        Is it possible to ask the sales to calculate the overall amounts I’d have to pay ? Says if I want to subscribe now for ten years, how much would I have to pay (I’m not going to pay for those ten years up front though :-)). I think, although I can do the calculation myself, but I’m afraid that my understanding might be different.

  12. Pingback: Introducing JetBrains Toolbox, easier access to your coding tools, more control and flexibility, and a lower entry price | JetBrains Company Blog

  13. Pingback: We are listening | JetBrains Company Blog

  14. Jonathan Scott says:

    It is a rare thing nowadays for a company to listen and act upon their customer’s feedback. I, for one, thank you for this and I am extremely happy to continuing to use your products.

    Onwards and upwards.

  15. Christopher says:

    Thanks for listening. I almost exclusively work in PhpStorm but like tinkering in other languages. I might just buy myself the All Packages subscription now :) I was advocating for a change to the subscription service listed before and this works for me.

    Thank you.

  16. Terence Martin says:

    I’m one of the people for whom the price was not a concern and the lack of perpetual license was the deal breaker for me. This announcement alleviates my primary concern, so thank you for taking the feedback you got so seriously.

    A quick question though:

    The monthly or annual payment is a subscription fee; however, when purchasing an annual subscription you will immediately get a perpetual fallback license for the exact version available at the time.

    Does this mean the version that was available at the time of payment or the version that’s available at the end of the subscription period? Is the plan to still have one new version a year, in which case “the exact version available at the time” would include the point releases?

    • Maxim Shafirov says:

      > Does this mean the version that was available at the time of payment or the version that’s available at the end of the subscription period?
      Fallback license is for the version that was available at the beginning of the subscription.

      > Is the plan to still have one new version a year
      In fact we already have 2 or 3 releases a year. For instance 14.1 brings as many new features as 14.0. In the future we hope to release even faster.
      Bugfix releases to your fallback perpetual license are obviously included

      • Terence Martin says:

        OK so essentially under this new system this is a losing prospect even worse than most people may actually be realizing. Other clarification posts point out that only the third digit revision bug fixes are included.

        If your plan is to step up the number of releases that you do, the perpetual version that you end up with at the end of the year is even more ridiculously out of date than people might think given the current release schedule.

        In a way this replicates the current scheme for people that are existing customers, since they get two years worth of updates for the price of a year the first time out. Sucks to be a new customer, though. Pay every month for a year, miss a payment, you’re several months behind the curve (if that matters to you; it won’t for some).

        It’s still a fairly awful arrangement, but much more palatable than it would have been if you changed nothing.

        Do you have any word on whether this increased update schedule is going to be just for putting in new features (as is done now) or if there will be a stronger focus put into fixing the defects in existing features? Will we start seeing some of the bugs that are years old be resolved as well as fixing the most glaring defects in the latest and greatest features?

        For myself personally, newer technology features that are included in IntelliJ are very rarely interesting to me based on my field. Which I don’t blame you for because I’m not your prime target audience and I know it.

        I generally end up being amazed at how each new version brings fixes to things without ever once touching anything even vaguely close to the many bugs and usability misfeatures that plague me day to day. I know I’m outside the main target audience but I’d like to feel acknowledged that I’m at least some part of it.

        I don’t really like the new scheme, but at a two years for one I’m at least willing to give you a little time to prove out the new model.

        • Maxim Shafirov says:

          > will be a stronger focus put into fixing the defects in existing features?
          Most certainly. Those aren’t easy sell if you need to convince people to upgrade based on what they read in What’s New.
          They are easy sell if you compare new vs. old in your particular usage scenarios. So, more motivation for us to work on these.

          • Owen Rubel says:

            agreed. If support/maintenance updates are not provided for offline ‘fallback’ version, this puts the company in a precarious position for not providing said paid for updates to their mirrored offline ‘fallback’ mode and after axpiration of contract, they are retroactively reverting all support/maintenance.

          • Terence Martin says:

            This is awesome news to hear, so I especially look forward to seeing what comes of the new system.

  17. Sam says:

    Thank you! Will keep subscribing!

  18. Raffaele Castagno says:

    The “fall back to one year ago” is a bit strange, but all the rest is exactly as I expected.

    Can’t wait for november to get my “all tools” bag of wanders!
    christmas comes early this year!

  19. Richard says:

    Thanks for hear our concerns and take the time to offer a better solution.

  20. Jennifer Kuiper says:

    Fair enough. I am happy with this now. Happy to move forward with the complete ToolBox as well, also using the R# tools for Visual Studio 2015 on the Windows 10 release, I just installed on my Mac. :)
    Have to say it, Kudos to JetBrains!

  21. Justin says:

    Two questions:

    1. Does the offer for existing customers apply to the “All Tools” bundle? I’m asking because I’m sure very few customers currently have active subscriptions to all your products, though that bundle becomes very enticing with the discounts and 2-for-1 offer.

    2. Will you auto-renew the annual subscriptions?

  22. John Saunders says:

    Great move. I’m back on board.

    I do think it’s a bit strange that the fallback license gives rights to the initial version. I heard you say that giving rights to the final version would cost more. If you could explain that, I’d appreciate it. (I would have failed in Economics, except that I never studied it).

    • Maxim Shafirov says:

      It just makes much more sense not to prolong your subscription since you basically don’t know what will be delivered in the future. If you’ve hopped off, something really big must happen to have you back. And this something big you’ll be judging based on the What’s New feature list on our website. Now compare this being able to compare new vs. old in your exact usage scenarios.
      To compensate a higher churn rate, prices obviously need to be higher.

  23. Dorian says:

    Thanks for the changes.

    As an IntelliJ Community and R# Ultimate, I was looking for a perpetual licence of IntelliJ but now I’m more interested by All Product subscription (because of fallback perpetual license) :)

  24. Rick Herrick says:

    Will the community/open-source licensing program continue? Will we need separate accounts for each developer or will there just be a single organizational account?

    • Maxim Shafirov says:

      > Will the community/open-source licensing program continue?

      >Will we need separate accounts for each developer or will there just be a single organizational account?
      There’s organizational account where you manage the licenses and there’s an account for each user. Basically, from your organizational account you create an invitation link and distribute it via whatever channel is appropriate and everyone who clicks on it, grabs the license from the pool

  25. axiomme says:

    Thanks for listening.

    Question – How does the rollback work, if I stop paying at the end of 12 months will my IDE stop working until I downgrade to an older version?

    • Maxim Shafirov says:

      There will be some grace period but basically, yes. Latest version will not be able to run and you’ll need to launch older build.

  26. shanesully says:

    Excellent response and resolution.

  27. J. Longman says:

    Very irked by the fallback to old version if a subscription is not continued. Having worked for small companies who run out of money, this concerns me because it happens that we have to not upgrade licenses because we can barely or not make payroll. Not because we’re trying to get out of paying for tools we use everyday.

    Another question, what happens if we have an All products license and wish to switch to a specific product license? Is the discount for a renewal kept or is the full, first year, price paid? (Clearly we have a license for all other products for the version dating back to the start of the All toolbox license.)

    • Maxim Shafirov says:

      > what happens if we have an All products license and wish to switch to a specific product license?
      If you’re downgrading the plan, discount is yours. If you’re upgrading the plan it’s not that easy obviously. We’re working on particular details for the case.

      • Dmitry says:

        What about the following case: switching from WebStorm to IDEA . Will I be able to get renewal discount for IDEA (it is not clear enough from updated toolbox page)?

        • Maxim Shafirov says:

          For now we only consider switches from WebStorm to All Products. We’ll consider switching to IntelliJ IDEA as well if there’s demand.
          Speaking of continuity discount in this case – now, you won’t be getting full 20 or 40% discount since WebStorm payments were significantly lower.
          We will consider some discount for this case, cannot really say which for now.

          • Dmitry says:

            Reduced price for ‘now’ (moment of switching) is no such interesting as the opportunity of getting discounts for the second, third, etc. years of IDEA license renewal.

            If in this case of WebStorm to IDEA switching there will discount for renewal in the future than it is perfect :)

  28. David Bakin says:

    Well done! This is indeed an excellent plan, and quite a bit improved over the original announcement. Thank you.

  29. Chris Kent says:

    Great move, thanks for listening.

    I’d like to clarify one thing – when you talk about the fallback licence applying to the version available when the subscription starts, are you talking about the major version?

    For example, if I buy 12 months subscription when IntelliJ 15.0 is released and I don’t renew, does my fallback licence cover all 15.x bugfix versions? Or does it only cover exactly 15.0?

    • Maxim Shafirov says:

      Bugfixes are included. More specifically, all third digit releases.

      • Eakawat Tantamjarik says:

        Hey, I think you should emphasize this after the information about Perpetual Fallback License since this is an information that I want to know the most and maybe it can convince other people with have no knowledge about version much like me.

        At first, I think that it does not include any bugs fix at all!.

        • Maxim Shafirov says:

          Point taken, updating FAQ. Thanks!

          • JTW says:

            cheers for that clarification. So we do get bugfixes to the perpetual license version after all.

          • JTW says:

            btw, there’s a problem with the jetbrains account system.
            I’ve a community account, now I try to set up a jetbrains account with the same name but can’t because it says an account with that name already exists.
            But I can’t log in with my community account (which has a different email address from what I use to make purchases to make matters more complicated, things would have to be merged…) on the jetbrains account page.

  30. Paul Stovell says:

    When the Toolbox was first announced and all the concerns were raised, I was worried the idea might be scrapped: as a small company, paying a subscription and having flexibility around products is much more attractive than buying perpetual licenses and managing them.

    I think that with this post you’ve addressed all the concerns very nicely, and I’m glad Toolbox is staying!

  31. Aurielle says:

    Great news, good to hear you managed to solve most of the community concerns. I personally have two questions:

    1) will buying an upgrade before November 2 still work as usual, as was announced initially?

    2) will the fallback license grant me the permission to also use all subsequential minor versions, or it will be valid only for a current major+minor version released at the time of subscribing?

    Thank you for your time.

  32. Stefano says:

    Please, make the last effort allowing your customer to use the last version available at the end of the subscription and you will be perfect.
    Not only, you will not lose you customers.

    • Maxim Shafirov says:

      Again, I’m sorry to disappoint, but this scheme is final.

      • Stefano says:

        Ok ok ok, but :)
        think about it another time…
        if you do this little last step i’m sure nothing will change for you.
        Customer that need your software will continue to subscribe with much more confidence because of this little last step.
        For sure.

        • Maxim Shafirov says:

          It will change everything, unfortunately. Citing myself from other comment:

          It just makes much more sense not to prolong your subscription since you basically don’t know what will be delivered in the future. If you’ve hopped off, something really big must happen to have you back. And this something big you’ll be judging based on the What’s New feature list on our website. Now compare this being able to compare new vs. old in your exact usage scenarios.
          To compensate a higher churn rate, prices obviously need to be higher.

          • So raise the prices and move the perpetual license to the version that was installed on the last day of the subscription. Nobody can argue with the value that your tools provide, but this seems to be an important issue to a lot of people, and I’ve seen on this post that a couple people explicitly said that they’d be willing to pay more. I’m firmly in the camp of paying for an ongoing subscription, regardless of what the perpetual license terms are, and I suspect that many people are in the same boat. The difference is that the people that really care about the perpetual license won’t subscribe if you keep the terms the way they are. I suspect that if you look at your current numbers, an overwhelming majority of your customers renew their subscription every year. If that’s the case, why do you care so much about what version the perpetual license if it’s ultimately going to affect your business less than the effect of people leaving en masse because of poor licensing terms?

            • Maxim Shafirov says:

              Well, people en mass are more sensitive to prices than you seem to be. If you don’t mind to pay more, you can effectively turn this new scheme into old one by maintaining an additional year of subscription. For existing customers it’s even doesn’t come as additional cost since they’ve got two first year of subscription for the price of one.
              New scheme is really flexible.

            • v. says:

              I’m also less sensitive to prices than an obtrusive REVERT or PAY flow.

  33. I appreciate the addition of the fallback license, but why would I want to fall back to an outdated version of the software?

    This gives me very little incentive to pay in advance at all, and I certainly won’t be subscribing monthly.

    • Maxim Shafirov says:

      Zackary, look at the situation from this point of view: you’ll be able to give newer version a fair shot and compare that to your current version in your particular usage scenario. If that looks good – why not keep your subscription going? If there’s nothing important for you in the newer version – you stop without worrying.

    • Hadi Hariri says:

      Upfront payment saves 2 months in terms of money.

    • v. says:

      The thing is that most of us do not develop with calculator ready. I really trust you that each new version will be better than the old one, and usually don’t care so much about what got better. I’ve stumbled upon an improvement a number of times, and liked it, but the feel that I might be faced with downgrade compatibility issues of all kinds terrifies me.

  34. Mark says:

    Thank you for this.

    Not a perfect solution, but I think it is probably as good a compromise as can be made in this situation. There are potential issues with falling back to a 12-month old version if and when the occasion arises (mostly around settings that may be incompatible when you rollback to an older version), but not having a perpetual fallback was my concern with the new subscription model and this is a “good enough” compromise solution.

    I am very happy to be able to continue using and promoting JetBrains products.

    • Jura Gorohovsky says:

      Thanks Mark. Great to know this is a good enough solution for you.

      As to settings, I guess we’ll have to take extra effort to ensure compatibility both ways so that to make fallbacks as smooth as possible.

  35. LW says:

    Thank you for listening, and adding a way to keep a perpetual license.

  36. Przemyslav says:

    Thank You!

  37. Collin says:

    I still have some concerns. You say in your tl;dr that “You will be able to use the software without an Internet connection” but in the longer description, you describe frequent phones home even if I pay the year upfront, which I intend to do in order to get perpetual license so I can pretend this convoluted licensing scheme isn’t at play. What happens if it can’t? If your servers go down permanently, is my perpetual license still going to let me use the software?

    • Maxim Shafirov says:

      Perpetual license is yours and you will always be able to use it no matter what happens to JetBrains servers or even JetBrains per se.

      • Nick Craver says:

        Are you confirming that there’s no authentication against JetBrains servers when you enter the license key? I really doubt that’s true, which would drastically change the implications of your statement here.

        • Maxim Shafirov says:

          Authentication is optional when you enter the license key.
          Can you elaborate on your doubts?

          • Nick Craver says:

            You said the JetBrains servers aren’t needed, meaning that all key checking is local. Given that every product of yours I used phones home to check the authenticity and activation count of the license (which isn’t unreasonable – I’m not arguing against it), I find it hard to believe this is being eliminated. That’s a rather large step off of DRM that’s (as far as I can tell) not mentioned anywhere.

            To be crystal clear: are you saying that I can enter a license key and activate any product, completely disconnected from any network?

            • Maxim Shafirov says:

              > To be crystal clear: are you saying that I can enter a license key and activate any product, completely disconnected from any network?
              Yes. We were convinced that every now and then our software used in a completely disconnected environment. We will be providing offline license keys, which people will be able to generate in their JetBrains Account website.
              Keys will naturally have to be re-generated after every sub payment.
              We’ll also will not guarantee backward compatibility for the keys so you will in some cases need different keys for different versions of the software.

  38. Adam says:

    So we’re currently on Phpstorm 9.0.2 now. 9.5 is in beta right now. So if we buy the subscription in November and 9.5 comes out at the end of November (an example), and 10.0 comes out next March (out of the air), do we fall back to 9.0.x or 9.5.x after the year is over?

  39. Ben Wong says:

    I don’t usually comment on stuff like this. But as a long time customer of yours, I must say you truly listen to your customers and have bended backwards to satisfy all your customers’ complaints (even those that are a bit unreasonable).

    For those of you who are still whining about minor things like what version will you get after 12 months of subscription, I just want to point out $150/yr for all JetBrains IDEs is ridiculously cheap. $89/yr for IntelliJ, $53/yr for other IDEs like AppCode, PhpStorm, is again, incredibly reasonable. I remember the days when Borland JBuilder costs upwards of $1000 for a license. In fact, the C++ Builder from Embarcadero (which bought Borland) right now costs $1,800. Compare this to CLion which costs $58/yr!

    Most of us spent that much once on a nice dinner or a video game. As software developers and engineers, $150/yr is dirt cheap if you use this tool all day every day to do your work. $150 is probably a measly 2 to 5 hours of hourly income if you are a consultant or freelance developer.

    Thanks for making such a great product at such a reasonable price. Keep up the good work, guys!

  40. Glenn Conrad says:

    This seems more than generous for my situation as an existing user of multiple products. Although I cannot pay monthly, the fact that I can get all non-server products for what amounts to less than $20 a month, the 2nd year is free (!), and less than $15 a month thereafter. Good deal overall. I hope this is the ‘final destruction of our insignificant rebellion’ (Star Wars reference)

  41. Guest says:

    Downgrade with perpetual fallback license looks really weird: I support your for year or more and then I get version you’ve made earlier without me.

    What about major version changes? Gust from Redmond really love to change project format to make solutions made with different Visual Studio incompatible.

    • Maxim Shafirov says:

      This allowed us to set much lower prices.

    • Maxim Shafirov says:

      This scheme allows us to set lower prices.

    • MuppetGate says:

      Actually, it seems to be the way every other pay-to-own system works.

      I get a car on a scheme. I use it. I drive it.

      I pay for it over twelve months. After twelve months, the payments have paid for the car I picked from the showroom. I now own the car.

      When I’ve completed the payments for the car I took away, do you think the dealership should give me a brand new car?

      • Collin says:

        You get a car, use it, drive it, and over the payment period, are given a new car to use and drive. At the end of the payment period, you give the new car back and keep the original one.

        That’s how this system works and it’s not at all intuitive.

        • Owen Rubel says:

          Cars are hardware. IDE’s are software. Your analogy only works for hardware. Software can get incremental updates on the fly.

          Never at any point does your car revert back to being a Pinto after upgrading to a Mazarati.

          • MuppetGate says:

            Yeah, car analogies are always a bad place to start, but since I’m here . . .

            What Jetbrains is doing is trying to entice you to keep the subscription running. You are being given the software and agreeing to pay for it over twelve months. During that twelve months, Jetbrains now has to convince you to keep upgrading. If you don’t like the new stuff, then just cut the subs and stay with the version you bought.

            What you are asking for the version you haven’t actually paid for, and that’s the problem.

            When I had my Honda, the garage was forever trying to get me to test drive the next version up so that I’d keep rolling out the payments. It’s the same thing here, whether it’s hardware or software. Jet brains won’t force a new version dow your throat, so just make the payments and at the end of twelve months, just keep the version you have. If you don’t install the upgrade then you won’t be tempted to roll on for another twelve months, will you?

            If you like the next version then just pay up front and walk away.

            What people are upset about is that they might like the new version and now they can’t have it for free.

            I’m always ready to be amazed, but I don’t see them changing this. The peek-at-next year is the carrot. It’s a rather clever idea.

            Fair enough though; it isn’t really a car.

          • Collin says:

            It wasn’t my analogy.

      • Jonathon Barrow says:

        I’m going to point out that your car isn’t getting new features during that year. It’s not getting a new sunroof or made more efficient. Nor are you helping make it during that year…

        I can see the issues with with getting the old version of the software. After support the company for a year, by paying and possibly providing feedback and suggestions, you’re rewarded with a year old program. I’d be way more interested in getting what I supported and helped create for that year.
        If the community is great and improvements are made, the dev’s should only need to worry if they start to stall with development.

        • Owen Rubel says:

          as I like to point out, the offline version will get support/maintenance updates when ‘online’ but all those support updates will be retroactively revoked once pay period expires effectively. Its like buying a pinto, paying for upgrades for a Ferrari and after one year having it revert back to a Pinto with no refund on all those support/maintenance updates you paid for.

          • Maxim Shafirov says:

            With all the respect, I answered this 4 times already. You are not paying for upgrades or support or maintenance. You’re paying for rights to use.

        • MuppetGate says:

          Yeah, but no one will force you to install the version with new features, so you’re just paying off the one you have.

    • Jura Gorohovsky says:

      Are you asking whether we will change format of settings, project files, live templates, and other artifacts with each major version deliberately so that you can’t fall back and you effectively have no choice but to renew?

      No, we won’t be doing this.

  42. Daniel Kozak says:

    Yeah !!! :), my license has expired at 8. december 2014, I cant wait to by new license 😀

  43. Nick Nack says:

    Make no mistake about it, forcing you to rollback your product 11 months upon the end of your subscription is an underhanded way to force renewals.

    I will not be continuing to use JetBrain products, and will recommend that the companies I work for do not as well.

    • Maxim Mossienko says:

      If you don’t want to rollback to older version you can pay extra months and have perpetual fallback license for it.

      • MuppetGate says:


        Wait, so let me make sure I understand.

        I can pay extra to have a full license for the version I’m currently on?

        Is that what you’re saying?

        • Maxim Shafirov says:

          Yes. If you maintain additional year of subscription (just like we offer for every current customer with upgrade subscription) you effectively end up on current scheme, where all released versions are yours in perpetuity.

        • Maxim Shafirov says:

          It doesn’t have to be a full year though. Just 12 month over release date of the version you like

          • John Saunders says:

            It doesn’t have to be a full year though. Just 12 month over release date of the version you like

            Please make that more clear in your literature on the new license scheme. Maybe even use a diagram to show this.

        • Hadi Hariri says:

          It’s not about paying extra. We’ve moved to a subscription model and providing a fallback license. The prices if you see have changed and entry price is lower.

          The fallback license is if you do not want to continue to renew.

          For existing customers we’re providing a smoother transition.

          • Owen Rubel says:

            No the fallback license is for original product at date of purchase without supported updates. Hence you are purchasing product without support … but PAYING for those updates.

            You want your cake and you want to eat it too. If a person pays for a product and you are delivering updates to products as support/maintenance but they lose all those support and maintenance updates at end of time period, you effectively violated your contract with the end user.

            If providing maintenance and support comes through different versions, you must provide said version at end of period as client has paid for those. Otherwise you are ‘renting product maintenance’.

            At this point, it becomes a legal issue which can be actionable.

    • Maxim Shafirov says:

      Sorry it didn’t work out the way you wanted but we really feel it’s an optimal scheme overall.

      • Nick Nack says:

        It is a huge step back from me. In the old system if I bought a license and it started at V1 and at the end of a year you released V2 I would have to right to continue to use V2. Now I have to go back to V1. Really?

        • Ben Wong says:


          I don’t work for JetBrains (just a customer). First, they are offering a subscription model. They didn’t really have to provide a perpetual license after you paid 12 months, but they listened to their customers and offer a compromise. Adobe and others don’t do this. If you stop subscribing to Photoshop, you don’t get a perpetual license for Photoshop (no matter what version it is).

          It is fair if you think of it this way. Let’s say you started subscription right when V1 comes out. You are in essence paying for V1 over a 1yr period. After 12 months, V2 comes out. Should you get V2 for free? I don’t think so.

          If you stop subscribing, you have a decision to make. Is V2 that important to have? If it is, then $35 to $89 (depending on which IDE) seems very reasonable. In fact, it will probably be cheaper if V2 comes out in the middle of your subscription. If I understand correctly, you only have to pay up to 12 months past the version you want. So, if V2 comes out 6 months into your subscription, you just pay an additional 6 months. Sounds fair to me.

          • Owen Rubel says:

            Uh yes they did. It would have DRAMATICALLY affected their bottom line. You don’t know how many people were pissed off about this (and still are). Alot of people are talking about not upgrading, switching to Eclipse and at SpringOne, this caused alot of talk about taking back over GGTS and other tools and doing more active development.

            They basically just shot their own foot out of GREED.

            • Hadi Hariri says:

              Owen, per this blog post, this is not about greed but about finding a model that provides not only sustainability but also equates the development efforts. All this is mentioned in the reason.

            • MuppetGate says:

              But why is it not greedy to ask for a version you haven’t paid for?

              As Ben said, you’re paying for Version 1.0. That’s what you got when you subscribed; the upgrades are just Jetbrains trying to tempt you to version 2.0, which you can take or leave.

            • Ben Wong says:

              This is where I would disagree with you. It won’t dramatically affect their bottom line if they didn’t make this change. Why? Because they offer a product (subscription or license based) that most realize provide more value than the price they are charging. $89/year so I can be more productive? Let’s see. Even if I only save an hour a month using the product, I make an extra $600/yr if I charge $50/hr. I am sure most developers charge more than that.

              Now, you said a lot of people were saying they won’t upgrade and switch to Eclipse or something similar. The fact that they are using JetBrains products means they found the value it provides is worth paying for. The question is whether they will continue to pay $35 to $89 for the perceived value. My guess is ‘yes’. I will wager most of them, at the end of the day, will continue to pay. If they don’t, then Eclipse or other IDEs is good enough for them. I am sure JetBrains know the competitors and how much they charge. Saying they will switch to an open source tool and contributing to its development is even more silly. How much extra time are they going to spend contributing to it? Those hours they put in to open source development otherwise could be making money, which easily could cover for the annual subscription and more.

              I understand people were angry because they don’t want to keep paying for a tool they used 18 months ago to work. JetBrains, as their track record shows time and time again, listened to their concerns and came up with a solution that addressed these issues as best as possible without putting the company under.

              Like any other company, they must figure out what is the best way forward to serve their customers, offer values, and keep the company profitable. IMO, they had and continue to keep the little guy/developer/company in mind. If they are GREEDY like you claimed, they would have charged $500 to $2000 for a license and solely marketed to the enterprise market – like Borland did and what Embarcadero has been doing. And not have to deal with individuals that only adds $89 or so
              to their bottom line.

  44. Brad Chesney says:

    I am a fan of your software, it is my understanding that I am qualified to get a free version ( Northeast Ohio PHP Group leader ). I realize if the people behind the products don’t get enough money, I can’t have the product– real simple concept. So, I paid for the start-up version (since I am a start-up). I paid for your product even though I didn’t have to. Let’s be clear that I want you to have my money in exchange for a valuable product worth the cost. I am in many ways the definition of a happy customer.

    This new deal falls short of optimal by one way. I do not like the idea of having my updates rolled back. Please make the subscription represent the right to receive incremental updates & upgrades– if I stop subscribing, then I don’t get the updates. If I may suggest keeping the Major/Minor version record in the customer account for precise downloads and the Major versions on the website for anonymous downloading (for use with the software keys). Because of this one thing, I can only give this announcement a score of 95% against perfection.

    At first, I disliked your subscription announcement– similar feeling to the badness I experienced when Netflix made their pricing/model change announcement. They handled it badly. JetBrains has handled this situation better and I feel much less dislike and I am sure I will be a continuous subscriber.

    I hope other companies use this as an example of how to deal with customer backlash. Specifically, thank you for just plain being smart about the situation you found yourselves in.

    • Maxim Shafirov says:

      Thanks Brad, it wasn’t exactly easy to find the compromise. We really think this is a best solution overall.

      • Brad Chesney says:

        Wait, I may be misunderstanding.

        I subscribe to the brand new PHPStorm 9 in January.
        I pay each month for 12 months.
        PHPStorm 10 is released.
        I get hit by a bus and I’m in a coma.
        I start missing payments…
        (Payments, plural.)
        I wake up.
        The crowd rejoices. (Mwaaaa…)
        I turn on my computer, rip raring ready to work.
        Is my software 9.0 or 9.9?

  45. Torsten says:

    so, is my understanding of the discount offer correct:
    if I get a new personal license including a 1-year upgrade _now_, I can switch to the new subscription-model in September 2016 and get the next two years of subscriptions for the price of one?

    • Maxim Shafirov says:


      • J. Longman says:

        But if I wanted the toolbox the two years would date from my start of that? I.e. I can’t buy an IntelliJ license today to save on the toolbox and the free year?

        • Maxim Shafirov says:

          Yes, when converting to a Toolbox two years will start from the date of conversion since there will be no fallback licenses for the rest of the products.

    • Miguel A. Figueroa-Villanueva says:

      But why would you do that? For IntelliJ IDEA you would pay:

      $99 + $89 + free + $89 thereafter


      $89 + free + $89 + $89 thereafter

      Your paying $10 more :-)

      • Maxim Shafirov says:

        Because probably Torsten doesn’t have a license currently?

        • Miguel A. Figueroa-Villanueva says:

          Ah, maybe… either way, I don’t understand the complaints anymore… I think the fall-back license is a very good compromise and prices are very good for IntelliJ IDEA, which is what I have and pay for the upgrade every year. Better yet, I am thinking of getting the “All Product Toolbox” even though I don’t do much more than Java and Python these days and I can manage that very well with IntelliJ IDEA… but I have been interested in trying out PyCharm and CLion and the price looks right!

          Kudos to the JetBrains team for listening and for the great products!

  46. MuppetGate says:

    I’m starting to get that feeling that some people won’t be happy until Jetbrains agrees to pay THEM to use the software.

  47. MuppetGate says:

    An excellent compromise, but that’s just my opinion.

  48. Dirk says:

    i am a little confused with the perpetual fallback. If i start for example with Version 1.1.1 of CLion and don’t want to continue after 12 months i have to use the exact Version 1.1.1. Maybe the Version 1.1.1 have a big bug that was fixed with 1.1.2. But i have to pay for another 12 month to get the bugfix ?

  49. MuppetGate says:

    Ah, I missed this.

    >> If required, you will also have the option to use a license key instead of JetBrains Account. However, these keys will need to be updated manually after a subscription is renewed. <<

    So that solves the phone home problem.


  50. Brian Rozmierski says:

    Kudos for listening to the feedback. Unfortunately, the concept of the fallback license is a non-starter if there is any chance of incompatibility in project files / settings. If I have a 8-10 month development project for a customer I will have to pass-through at least 2 years of “subscription” to the IDE to ensure I still have a version of the software available that works at the end of the project. (For the inevitable minor bug fix or few-hours of add-on work.)

    This is in stark contrast to how other “subscription”software works, eg Atlassian’s. I pay for a license for a year, and get any/all upgrades that are released that year. Anything released (including bug fix, but not security fix) after my “subscription” end date won’t run. I pay a bit more for that, and I’m fine with it as I know the software will still work if I need it.

    If you wanted to offer the “Toolbox” alongside the current model, I’m sure this is something many would welcome.

    I’m sorry, but this policy means my team will have to look elsewhere for an IDE. It’s a shame really.

    • Maxim Shafirov says:

      If you don’t mind paying extra, you maintain additional year of subscription effectively getting every released version in perpetuity. Existing licenses get this automatically with our first 2 years of subscription for the price of one offer.

      • Brian Rozmierski says:

        You miss the point – I’m not going to look like a fool trying to explain to my customer that I am billing him for a 2 year subscription to a tool for a < 1 year project. Just the plain language of the argument makes me look like I'm trying to gouge him, and trying to explain it away as "the licensing model needs us to add another year so we can use the software as it was available at the end of the first year" just makes us look worse.

        So let me ask you then: Given the situation, an 8-10 mo project, and the need to buy and bill the customer for 2 years (which would include sending them documentation of the purchase from you), how do I sell this to them?

        • Jura Gorohovsky says:

          Brian, unless there are unusual peculiarities in your project, I don’t really see an issue.

          You tell the customer to pay for a year of subscription. This gives you any version you choose released from the date of purchase to the date of expiry as long as you work on a project, and leaves a fallback perpetual license. The fallback perpetual license can be used for occasional bug-fixing after you have completed the project. I expect that as you commence the project, you know reasonably well what set of technologies you’re going to be using, and chances are the JetBrains IDE you’re looking the customer to get a subscription to _already_ supports these technologies (otherwise it wouldn’t fit you from the start.)

          If extra work is required after completion of the main project that is not supported by the fallback license, then it must be something related to a technology upgrade that has taken place _after_ the original 1-year span anyway. In this situation the customer will most likely be able to pay for a monthly subscription (as the additional work required is limited) to get the latest for their current task at hand. Alternatively, they can just pay for 12 months from scratch to get a fresher fallback license.

          I hope the above represents a viable course of action for you.

        • Brian O. says:

          I’m not sure I understand why you would bill your customer for a tool you use. Why aren’t you just including the cost of your tools into the cost of your services rendered? Does the customer need the specificity on invoice that says “IntelliJ software license (2 years for the price of 1)” instead of simply “IntelliJ software license?” Are you actually giving this license to the customer at the end of your projects instead of just buying this for your team to use?

          Maybe I’m missing something in how your business is structured, but it seems to me that this would be like a carpenter charging a customer for a hammer he used on a project rather than just billing the customer for services rendered and costing his services appropriately to account for the the tools he used. I apologize if I’m misunderstanding, but I’ve just never heard of anyone doing this.

        • Eugen says:

          I never tried to bill a customer for tools I(!) use — only if I have to sell licenses with my software…

          Do you also bill your customer for PC/notebook/tablet?
          Or for Internet connection?

  51. Simon says:

    Thank you. The updated model is much better.

  52. Jan Mareš says:

    So as current customer I can get 2 years subscription but after end subscription I could use only two years old version?

    Excuse me, but this isn’t for me. I use your software for hobby and pay upgrades as thanks for good products (except Kotlin as it was full bugs and unfinished) and I like latest version for hope to bug-free.

  53. Peng says:

    If I buy the products before Nov 2, could I still get the one year free upgrade? If not, any other option? Thanks!

    • Maxim Shafirov says:

      Yes, until Nov 2nd every license sold comes with one year of upgrades. Additionally, when that upgrade subscription runs out you can convert to 2 years of toolbox subscription for the price of one.

  54. Owen Rubel says:

    Also, because you are saying we own the software but that it is not UPGRADEABLE beyond the original date of software you purchased (at least not the ‘fallback version’), developers will only now purchase when major updates to the product come through.

    I know thats my plan. I’m not going to buy again until I see a major updates for the tools that I use in the framework now. Especially since I JUST purchased my license last month prior to this and you changed how my license works.

    • Maxim Shafirov says:

      We wanted this new scheme be as flexible as it can be, so if purchasing selected major releases suites your usage best – we’re OK with it.

      >Especially since I JUST purchased my license last month prior to this and you changed how my license works.
      Nope. License you have purchased or anyone will purchase till Nov 2nd works the same, according to EULA.

      • Owen Rubel says:

        You guys were also ok with the shit-ton of negative feedback at SpringOne as there was developer after developer after developer coming to your table to complain about this new model and repeating the same line over and over ‘we’ll announce something next week’

        Now you know you made everyone angry and they are in a confused and emotional state. And your response is ‘Fuck you. we’re ok with the percentage of you who will continue to be disatisfied?’ That is a total Microsoft response and deserves the community backlash it gets.

        • Maxim Shafirov says:

          While we understand there are people, who are not satisfied with this decision, we also need to account for those who’s in favor of new scheme. We had really tough time seeking for compromise and truly believe this is it. Including latest version into terminated subscription would cause I set significantly higher prices to compensate higher churn rates.
          Citing myself from other comment:
          It just makes much more sense not to prolong your subscription since you basically don’t know what will be delivered in the future. If you’ve hopped off, something really big must happen to have you back. And this something big you’ll be judging based on the What’s New feature list on our website. Now compare this being able to compare new vs. old in your exact usage scenarios.
          To compensate a higher churn rate, prices obviously need to be higher.

          • v. says:

            Well, how much higher could ‘significantly higher prices’ get?

            It couldn’t ever get more than 100%, as otherwise people would opt for buying 2 years in advance.

            The problem is not in motivation or fairness. It is plain obtrusive to have to stop and revert (with unpredictable consequences), or just pay for an easy out when faced a deadline, for example.

            I really hate the fact that you make me think about that. Terrible UX.

        • MuppetGate says:

          You don’t have to be dissatisfied. You can always move to a different toolset. Unlike Adobe, there are alternatives.

  55. Mike Edgewood says:

    Although a serious improvement over the original offer, you still leave me scratching my head as to jump on board or not. I had my credit card in hand after reading the explanation, but after reading the comments I saw with better clarity something I guess I didn’t comprehend by your description of ‘perpetual fallback’. I was under the impression that once you stop paying, you freeze where you are. I was excited that you got it right where others did not. Now, enlightened by the comments, I understand more clearly that that is not the intended procedure, but to roll users back to the beginning, thus losing all the updates and/or bug fixes that you received.

    Just so I understand better as I am still unclear of the perpetual license agreement. If I subscribe for 3 years, then for some reason have to stop paying, will my perpetual license roll back to the original version from 3 years ago from the initial payment? Or, will it be frozen from some other point in time, and if so, at what point in time?


    • Noah says:

      The fallback is 12 months prior to when you stopped paying. If you’re going annually, then the latest version at the time you renewed would be the perpetual version.

    • Maxim Shafirov says:

      If you subscribe on Jan 1, 2015 and your subscription expired Dec 31, 2017 (3 years) you have version, that was active on Dec 31, 2016 in perpetuity plus all bugfix (i.e. 3rd digit) releases to it.
      Please look up for more details.

    • Hadi Hariri says:


      If you subscribe for 3 years, the last perpetual fallback license you receive will be dated for the date your last yearly subscription started. So no, it wouldn’t fall back to the start but fall back 1 year.

      Please understand this is not an entry cost and upgrade cost. We’ve adjusted prices, bringing entry cost down. This is subscription. However, we are providing a fallback license in case for whatever reason you cannot or do not want to continue the subscription.

      • Owen Rubel says:

        also, reverting all updates/maintenance that have been paid for is a legally actionable issue. Paid for services such as support cannot be retroactively reverted. They must supply a way to keep those support/maintenance updates.

        • Jura Gorohovsky says:

          Owen, how about we look at updated EULAs as of Nov 2 and see if these are actually flawed? If they are, we’ll investigate and take any possible action.
          Up until then, talking about any possible legally actionable issue is very speculative.

        • dave says:

          WTF? It presumably would be ‘legally actionable’ if Jetbrains said “this is the new license for the software you already paid for. so there.”

          It isn’t when you are given the license terms, in advance, and go yes, I agree to these terms, and hand over your money.

  56. Truestory says:

    Can I buy a one year subscription now and then pay per month in advance so I always have a one year buffer – i.e. Always have a perpetual license for the current version I am using?

    My scheme; sub now and get two years for the price of one, and in one year start subbing monthly (one year in advance) just to keep the perpetual fallback up to date. If this is possible then I am totally sold.

    Additionally, is there any change with regards to getting reimbursed the license cost by your employer vs having enterprise licenses? It is a no-go getting enterprise licenses here, but getting reimbursed would be no problem.

    One more question; say I Work for company X doing work for company Y on their computer. Could I install my personal license (hopefully reimbursed by company X) on company Y’s computer and uninstall it when I am done with the engagement? Would that be ok with your license?

    Thanks again for an awesome product!

    • Maxim Shafirov says:

      > If this is possible then I am totally sold.
      Totally. We’re glad you liked it.

      > Additionally, is there any change with regards to getting reimbursed the license cost by your employer vs having enterprise licenses?
      Unfortunately no. This exact reimbursment ban is the only reason we can afford significantly lower personal prices. Otherwise companies would purchase personal licenses for all of their employees.

      > One more question
      Personal license is yours (purchased from your own funds) and you’re free to use it wherever you like.

      • v. says:

        Disagree. Why/how would you ever be allowed to go into internals of employer/employee relationship (including reimbursement for personal license). If a company decides to compensate me for buying a license that I use (as you said – any way I like) working for them, and take with me when leaving the company, that is barely any of your business, and exact reason why company would still consider commercial license.

        • Mike Jacobs says:

          Regardless of whether it happens in reality, it’s against the terms of the license for a company to pay for a personal license. I’ve never worked for a company that took the terms of a license agreement lightly, as it opens up a huge liability for them.

        • v. says:

          No. It’s plain contradictory. I can use my personal license whatever I want to – i.e. even to develop code for a company I’m working for.
          Reimbursement is simply not equivalent to company paying for the license. I pay for the license and it’s mine and 100% personal. If company will give me a little bonus or not is simply none of JetBrains’ business, nor they should bother/could prove that it happened because of the license I’ve purchased.
          If I give the company the access to my personal license, that would be an obvious breach, and I’m afraid nobody mentioned that case in this thread.

        • v. says:

          OK. I’m just being realistic/practical. If reimbursement means (and it appears that it does) expenses justification i terms of company’s bookkeeping, then it’s clear that it’s not allowed.
          Sry about messing up the terms.

  57. Maxim Shafirov says:

    If you subscribe on Jan 1, 2015 and your subscription expired Dec 31, 2017 (3 years) you have version, that was active on Dec 31, 2016 in perpetuity plus all bugfix (i.e. 3rd digit) releases to it.
    Please look up for more details.

    • Brian Rozmierski says:

      This really needs some better graphics and language to clarify this. As I read that page now, if I buy a 2-yr annual subscription on 1/1/2016, it’s the subscription start date, not 12-mos before the end of the subscription for the perpetual license as your comment suggests.

  58. Sean Heaton says:

    As one of the complainers in the previous threads, I have to say that I am really happy that JetBrains would listen and work hard to accommodate our concerns. I am looking forward to taking advantage of the annual subscriptions when they go live.

  59. Owen Rubel says:

    Providing a ‘fallback version’ while at the same time providing updates/maintenance that the user loses at the end of time period is a legally actionable issue.

    If a person paid for services, those services cannot be revoked/removed. But you are providing updates and maintenance through new versions so at end of period, that ‘fallback version’ does not have access to those maintenance updates anymore.

    You cannot revoke maintenance and support. You either have to allow ‘fallback version’ to somehow have all these support/maintenance updates that are paid for or provide final version of software when pay period expires.

    • Jonathan says:

      Terms of use dictate that. I think they have done what they needed to do… so move on.

      • Owen Rubel says:

        Just because you write terms of use or a contract, does not make it LEGAL. I can put in terms of use that all agreements by company are null and void if you did operate this software under the influence of alcohol or that you provide support except for acts of god and being religious software, all bugs are acts of god.

        You can write anything you want and create any kind of contract… doesn’t mean it’s LEGAL or enforceable. All it takes is one person to start the process, and one greedy lawyer to create a class action claiming that support/maintenance is being retroactively revoked.

    • Noah says:

      Services paid for: Subscription
      Services rendered: Subscription + additional fallback license after 12 months of payments

      No legal issues

      • Owen Rubel says:

        yes, one fallback license. And unless you state that it will NOT have support/maintenance and that this will be an outdated product by the end of the pay period which lacks in support/maintenance updates, you are misrepresenting your product.

        Al legal has to do is show that your statements, your contracts were unclear to the point that people were unaware the ‘fallback’ would be outdated version lacking in support/maintenance updates.

    • Maxim Shafirov says:


      This is not a license plus maintenance deal. This is a subscription deal – you’re granted the license to *use* the software during the term and additionally you’re granted perpetual fallback license for free.

      • Maxim Shafirov says:

        > This is a license plus
        Typo, sorry. This should read as “This is not a license plus maintenance deal”

      • Owen Rubel says:

        But lets be clear, it is a perpetual ‘outdated’ product without the support/maintenance updates that were paid for. Nowhere does it explicity state that support/maintenance updates will not be avilable (because they come with each new version) and that you are providing a version WITHOUT support/maintenance updates.

        Your new licensing scheme is hence STILL for month-to-month product but with elusive wording on the ‘fallback version’ that is unclear about how support and maintenance updates during period in which those services were paid will transfer to ‘fallback’ product.

        If fallback product is to be mirror of existing product (so I can work offline), you are reverting all maintenance/support updates if I ever go online again after the expiration date of contract.

        • Maxim Shafirov says:

          Once again,
          With a new scheme we do not provide versions and maintenance to them. We do provide offer a use grant for the software during the subscription term. Yes, this is still rent scheme. Additionally, you’re getting fallback, for free.

          > you are reverting all maintenance/support updates if I ever go online again after the expiration date of contract
          Technically, license key has the date subscription is paid up to, thus we can calculate what version you’re qualified for going online (version has it’s release date built in)

  60. Jonathan says:

    Nicely done… for me this should have been your first revision. I am pleased.

  61. Michael Yoo says:

    A decent compromise. Thanks for listening!

  62. Josh says:

    Thank you for listening, this sounds like a good compromise.

  63. Nikita says:

    Thank You!
    November 2, 2015 I am with You and will subscribe!

  64. Jimmy Smutek says:

    I was in the camp of users who wasn’t happy about the initial announcement, but I think this is an excellent compromise.

    Kudos, JetBrains, for listening and compromising. Companies like Adobe could definitely take some lessons form your play book.

  65. bughunter says:

    If I am in the second year of subscription and there comes an update from version x to version y and I start using this version y, can I pay for the third year in the moment when version y is published or do I have to wait until the end of the second year. When I can pay at the moment when version y is published (although I do not have to), there is no difference to the current model. It’s just like removing the 2nd free year for existing customers.

    • Maxim Shafirov says:

      Yes, this is correct.

      • bughunter says:

        So it will be really possible to renew before the end of the subscription period?

        • Maxim Shafirov says:


          • bughunter says:

            My current IntelliJ licence is just a few days before the end of its lifetime. Can I switch to the toolbox before November 2?

            • Maxim Shafirov says:

              You don’t have to. We’ll just backdate your new license to whatever date your current has finished.

              • bughunter says:

                but then it is not possible to use e.g. resharper before this date.
                another question: will all future IDEs (having 0xdbe in my mind) part of the toolbox?

              • Maxim Shafirov says:

                Seems like I cannot reply over certain nesting level.

                > will all future IDEs (having 0xdbe in my mind) part of the toolbox?
                I cannot say in advance for all products, but 0xDBE will be included after it is included. To get the fallback license you’ll need 12 month coverage after it’s release date.

  66. Denis says:

    Hello, JetBrains!

    I have to renew my license soon and I was wondering:
    1) the prices displayed on the toolbox page already contain VAT?
    2) at the moment the license is for PHPStorm – moving to the subscription plan, I guess single IDE is called, it would mean I can also use AppCode with the same subscription? or in order to use other tools I would have to go for the all products bundle?
    3) if the single ide bundle would give me access to AppCode, what restrictions will be applied? I mean would I be able to use them at the same time etc.

    PS: This is more of a request, for the OSX build of PHPStorm please remove the flag to switch to the dedicated video card because it is killing my battery.


  67. Jason Jones says:

    Wow, what a mess. You lost me as a customer.

    • Jura Gorohovsky says:

      Sorry to hear that, Jason. Care to explain your resolution in more detail? Which product(s) are you currently using and why doesn’t the updated licensing work for you?

      • Jason Jones says:

        I currently use PyCharm, PhpStorm, and WebStorm, and have been a huge proponent of JetBrains software in the past.

        The old licensing model was extremely simple. I make a one-time payment, and get a license and a year of updates.

        The new model is centered around getting customers to commit to reoccurring charges. You’ve introduced the “perpetual fallback” part of the license to temporarily assuage those who just want to make a one-time payment; however, you will end up leaving a sour taste in their mouth when they want to download updates over the ensuing months, but know they will be faced with an undesired downgrade if they don’t continue to pay you money at the end of the term. It’s an obviously well-calculated, psychological play by JetBrains to secure regular payments from customers.

        While there are some benefits to the subscription model (most of which I see as short-term incentives to lock customers into subscribing), I will not continue to support you in a business decision that ultimately makes the software more expensive for me in the long term, and was clearly made with only JetBrains’ financial interests in mind.

        • Maxim Shafirov says:

          Thank you for detailed explanation, Jason. We totally respect your decision to not continue with us.

          Indeed, we’re seeking for recurrent revenue from our customers. This is the only sustainable model we see for the future since we cannot have new customers coming indefinitely, there are only so many developers out there.

          And sustainable revenue model we need to keep providing real value for the customers.
          I agree, we do have longterm JetBrains financial interests in mind, this is true. But if we don’t keep those in mind we won’t be able to work for the users sooner or later.

        • Maksim Mosienko says:

          You seems to ignore the fact that in our highly competitive market we still need to build great software versions of IDEs for you and all other customers.
          Also if you want to stay simple old way of version + year of updates you can do it with new licensing.

  68. jtonic says:


    For 2 years in a row I was given a free IntelliJ Idea Ultimate license for my contributions.
    Needless to say I was very delight about that.
    My question is: Could this be possible to happen again, and how this would affect the continuity of the subscription?

    Thank you.

  69. Nick Donais says:

    Thank you for listening, I’m quite happy with the updates.

  70. Nathaniel Neitzke says:

    Very disappointing. Time to accept a lesser alternative, and this is coming from a loyal customer for over 10 years. This entire scheme is very complicated and an utterly pointless attempt to grab a few extra $$ out of your customers pockets (which I wouldn’t mind paying more, but having to go through this scheme is ridiculous).

    • Hadi Hariri says:

      Sorry to hear that Nathaniel, especially from a loyal customer as yourself. As Max wrote in the post, this is not about extra $$ but about moving to a sustainable model that will allow us to continue to have loyal customers like yourself and provide the best we can.

      I’m not sure if you also read the pricing page or looked at it but as an existing customer you’d be getting 2 years free subscription for the price of 1.

      • Jason Jones says:

        “this is not about extra $$ but about moving to a sustainable model”

        If this isn’t an insult to the intelligence of everyone here, I don’t know what is…

        • Maxim Shafirov says:

          Have you read the post, Jason? Do you find sustainability argument not convincing?

          • John Saunders says:

            I’m not Jason, but I do not understand the argument. I’m willing to take it on faith, but I don’t understand it.

            Could you explain it in practical terms? For instance, what would change inside of Jetbrains between one model and the other? Would it affect what your developers are working on?

            • Maxim Shafirov says:

              This is quite easy actually.
              Our current model is tuned for making most revenues from the new licenses. This is both in how new license is priced against the upgrade and how current users decide if they want to upgrade by reading What’s News on website.
              There are only so many developers in the worlds so sooner or later this model will suffer financially.
              > Would it affect what your developers are working on?
              Absolutely. We’d get more time to work on things, that matter for every user – new or current – like usability, performance, and yes bugs and less on features that look shiny on What’s New and only needed to few.

              • AGM says:

                This comment might sound harsh but its really in the best interest of helping out because I truly believe you guys are picking the wrong choice, hopefully I dont offend anyone.

                “There are only so many developers in the world”.

                Is this really the idea around which you are developing this new model? Do you honestly think you are ANYWERE close to hold the largest market of developers to get to this point anytime soon?, let alone all of them. And by soon I mean decades?

                Did you do a research about this? You have WAY more student users than proffesional users and you are actually thinking on this scenario?

                Developers demand and offer has been constantly increasing every year, and so are the new technologies we can work with, which is extra opportunity for new features and new products. You will not run out of features or developers to do stuff for.

                Don’t get me wrong I know companies have to prepare for the future, and I’m not saying not to try a subscription model but that stuff about suddenly going back to a year’s old version suddenly its just incredible harmful and it has absolutely no interest but to grab more bucks, plain and simple.

                If you want to keep your customers happy, keep giving them the quality you have been giving so far and thats it, if you absolutely need more money and you increase the value of what you are selling, people won’t complain, at least not massively like they are doing now.

                IMHO its an unnecesary and harmful part of the new licensing model that can be improved.

          • Jason Jones says:

            Yes, I’ve read it. It states two major points:

            1) “developer tools, need continuous innovation and support”
            2) “unless we change our business model, this won’t be sustainable in the long run, because our user base cannot grow indefinitely”

            The first point is obvious, and is why I’ve paid for updates of your software in the past.

            The second is clearly about $$. Having a sustainable business is all about revenues. That is how you sustain a business.

            • John Saunders says:

              Jason, you say “revenue” like it’s a bad thing. Are you equating revenue with profit?

              • Jason Jones says:

                There’s nothing “bad” about revenue. If there isn’t enough revenue coming into a company, then the company doesn’t turn a profit, and goes under.

                All I’m saying is that the transition to a subscription model is about money. (JetBrains’ denial of that is an insult to our intelligence).

              • Maxim Shafirov says:

                Can’t reply to Jason, too nested.
                The point is not about making more money. In fact, our analysis shows our revenues will suffer for quite a while.
                It’s about building reliable source of revenues long term, that enables us providing value to our customers for the decades to come.

            • John Saunders says:

              Jason, I think many readers here are equating “more revenue” with “greed”. I’m glad to see that you do not.

              I’m hoping that they will use the additional revenue for things like increasing their development and QA staff, retaining good developers, etc.

              That should make it easier to keep producing great software.

    • Maxim Shafirov says:

      Would you please elaborate Nathaniel, what you didn’t like in the model suggested? What’s in it coming across your usage scenario?

  71. Rafael Rotelok says:

    You actually listened, Thanks a lot.
    Keep up the good work :)

  72. Sergey Artyukh says:

    Fair enough. Downgrade / fallback license is completely understandable issue – right move to keep people interested in upgrades and to set really LOW prices at the same time. Compromise which works, IMHO.
    I am happy I don’t have to migrate from the best product on the market and hope to stay a customer for a next decade.
    However, I stop promoting your products – initial move was too harsh and I feel unsafe now.

    • Hadi Hariri says:

      Thanks Sergey. Hopefully between the concerns that we’ve addressed with these adjustments and us continuing to provide value and will eventually rebuild your trust in us.

  73. MuppetGate says:

    Well, there was really no way to keep everyone happy I suppose :-(

  74. Graham Wheeler says:

    I don’t have the data to know whether allowing the end version vs start version would significantly impact JetBrains revenue. I do know that I was upset not by the costs (keep making good tools and I’ll keep buying, but…) but the principle (…treat me like a cash cow instead of a supporter and I might not). So certainly for me, if JetBrains did the right thing there’s no question I’d stay current, and thus there would be no loss of revenue if they made the later version perpetual. I ‘d only stop if the tools got bad or I had financial difficulty. So I’d encourage JetBrains to make that one additional concession; I believe any lost revenue would be made up for in goodwill.

    • Maxim Shafirov says:

      Not everyone is so price insensitive as you are, Graham. If total perpetuity is important to you and you don’t mind to pay extra you need to maintain additional year of subscription effectively turning new scheme to old one. And if you’re an existing customer it even doesn’t come at extra cost due to 2 year of subscription for the price of one offer.

  75. Kris says:

    Nice, really like the new changes!

  76. Rollo says:

    The perpetual fallback license should provide the customer with access to the exact version of when the 12 consecutive months subscription ENDS, not when it STARTED. The customer has paid for the whole period, he shouldn’t just get a license for a version that is already 12 months old when his subscription ends.

    • Maxim Shafirov says:

      Under the model we offer the customer pays for the usage, not for upgrades. Fallback license comes for free so customer can have educated choice if new version worth paying for based on their particular usage scenarios, not What’s new lists.

    • Brian O. says:

      So, if I am understanding correctly, here is the argument you and other commenters are making. I want to use this “thing” (whichever IDE) now, but let me pay it off over 12 months (a loan). Later, since I’ve been paying you for 12 months, I expect whatever new thing you offer then for nothing because I’ve been paying you for 12 months (never mind that it was essentially a loan). I know that software is a license and so is different from other products, and so the comparison fails in some ways, but that is how I am reading this logic.

      I think Jetbrains has done a good job coming up with a compromise. No one is forcing you to download and install v X.1 or X.2 if you bought X.0 and aren’t likely to maintain your subscription. I do hope that the more level revenue stream would allow them to better patch the flaws in v X.0.

      • Collin says:

        Forget the whole loan thing, because the same principle is in effect if you pay upfront.

        • Brian O. says:

          Which principle? The one where you pay up-front and get a perpetual license for that version (x.0) of the software and all relevant bug fixes for v x.0? So, I buy the full license now should I get the license to the next major update? Or, am I missing your point?

          Perhaps, since Jetbrains makes major updates with minor version numbers, it could make its versions such that x.0, x.1, x.2 go away in favor of version x, y and z with the minor versions being patches and fixes rather than major feature changes.

  77. Pingback: JetBrains on Subscription Rethink and Quest for Sustainability | Voxxed

  78. John Schroedl says:

    Well done. I have no qualms with the “fall-back” to the version released when my subscription started.


  79. Marcin says:

    Overall I’m ok with the final version of your new license policy. I always found IDEA price to be on a low side of a fence. For me it was mostly about making sure that my primary tool does not stop working for some rather silly reason like lack of Internet connection or issues with my credit card etc. Or if I decided that newer versions does not bring anything interesting to the table….

    Still, I’m finding license policy to be a bit convoluted. At the moment I use IDEA 14.1.4 and it tells me that I’m entitled for free updates and upgrades until January 2016. So if understand correctly I should switch to your new subscription model at the begining of the new year, right? Now, I’m looking at and I’m not sure – am I eligible to offer number one (basically two years in a price of one and then 40% discount for the third year) or just only 40% discount for the first year (offer number two)?

    Next, previously I bought upgrades from local resellers due things like invoicing etc. Would it be still possible under a new subscription model? Or are you finally going to offer VAT invoices for your EU customers?

    Anyway, I’m pretty sure that I will buy an annual subscription in a few month. Now that things have settled down I hope that you will find some time to fix all those long standing bugs in Play support…

    • Terence Martin says:

      Hopefully someone official will step in to be absolutely sure, but somewhere in this page of comments someone said something similar to this and the official response seemed to indicate that as an existing customer, the new subscription period imposed by this model would commence at the end of your current license period; so even if you paid for a year on November 2nd, you would still be 2 years out from January 2016 anyway.

      I think you would also qualify for the “2 years at the price of one” deal because you have an existing valid “subscription” in that your current license is still valid.

    • Maxim Shafirov says:

      Terrence is correct. When you choose to subscribe (and you can do that after your upgrade subscription expired) this new subscription will commence the original one. You’re qualified for 2 for 1 offer.

  80. Behrang Saeedzadeh says:

    I personally like the subscription based option – from Netflix to GitHub and Dropbox I use a subscription based model.

    But thanks for listening to your users.

  81. Odilon Oliveira says:

    OK, now we can make business together. Thanks for listening!

  82. Dennis says:

    I was also skeptical after the initial announcement, but didn’t voice it because you already said you’re working on changes (and I guess I was to lazy). But now I’m actually surprised by the scope of the change – in a good way. It seems that everything that I was skeptical about was addressed in some way.
    The fallback to an older license when canceling the subscription is a drawback of course, but I can understand your reasons for this. And for me this would really be only a fallback, I think I could easily live with missing a few features in the old version in contrast to having no access at all after canceling (or only access to the 12.1 I currently own).

    I think I’d still prefer the old model if I had to choose, but I guess I can live with the new model very well.

  83. Mike Cheel says:

    I like the honesty but am not keen on the reverting back to the original version you started with if I cancel.

    • Owen Rubel says:

      yep, its effectively paying for support/maintenance updates and then the second your pay period expires, they retroactively remove all them for your offline version.

      • Maxim Shafirov says:

        Bugfix releases are included to a fallback license. Yet, I’ll keep repeating, you’re not paying for maintenance.

        • Owen Rubel says:

          maintenance merely translates to those bugfixes within that time period.

          • Maxim Shafirov says:

            Bugfixes are included in the fallback license. We don’t going to remove that from you.
            Feature releases, regardless of major or minor – not so.

  84. Shidarin says:

    Thank you for listening. This addresses pretty much all of my personal concerns, and you’ll still have a customer in me.

    The perpetual fallback license being 12 months behind sounds weird, but looks more acceptable in the diagrams you’ve provided.

    Again, thank you.

  85. Terence Martin says:

    To provide/get some clarification here:

    You will receive perpetual fallback licenses for every version you’ve paid 12 consecutive months for in a rolling fashion.

    It doesn’t have to be a full year though. Just 12 month over release date of the version you like

    Is it possible to extend your subscription period in increments more than a month but less than a year? e.g. I buy in at month X and pay for a year up front, then at month X + 3 you come out with a new version. Can I extend my subscription by 3 more months all at once to get the license for that version? If I’m paying monthly and a version comes out with something critical to me, can I immediately pay for an extra year right now in order to get a perpetual license to it?

    Which leads me to ask, how far out are we allowed to extend a subscription? Can I just keep throwing money on the pile to extend my subscription period (and thus “lock in” the current price) or is there some limit (e.g. one year) that I can pay forward for?

    (Note: I’m aware that in the general case it doesn’t matter if you planned to update yearly anyway, but it may be important to people that decide that they want to jump off the train at a particular version and still have a perpetual license for a version of their choosing.)

  86. Ricardo Soeiro says:

    Just wanna say: congrats on the resolution and thanks for listening! Pretty fair on both ends, in my opinion. Will upgrade soon…

  87. John C. says:

    My single IDE license expired in April 2015, so I’m within the 1 year update period for existing users. I am very interested in the new subscription plan for all products. Will my new license be backdated on all products to April 2015? In other words, will be effective subscription start date me April 2015, or November 2015 when I signup ?

    • Maxim Shafirov says:

      Yes, it will be backdated. So your 2 years will end on April 2017.

      • Maxos says:

        In other words, if a subscription expired several months ago (but less than one year) it would be cheaper to upgrade the old product before Nov and then upgrade to the full toolbox and get a full 2nd year free.

        This should be put in the FAQ….

        • Eugene Toporov says:


          If it expired less than one year ago you’ll get 2nd year free anyway but they will start on the date of your previous upgrade subscription end.

          It is hard to put to the FAQ because you still need to consider exact prices of old subscription update and the new ones, etc. But we’ll give it a thought

      • Maxos says:

        In other words, if a subscription expired several months ago (but less than one year) it would be cheaper to upgrade the old product before Nov and then upgrade to the full toolbox and get the full 2nd year free.

        This should be put in the FAQ….?

  88. Shidarin says:

    One question- and maybe I’m not doing my math right.

    It looks like, for an individual developer on a single IDE, it’s slightly cheaper over 3 years to:

    Buy a license TODAY ($99)
    1st year sub ($53)
    2nd year sub ($0)
    3rd year sub ($53) – Left with last major version at the end of year 2
    Total: $205

    vs New Annual Subscriber:

    1st year sub ($89)
    2nd year sub ($71)
    3rd year sub ($53) – Left with last major version at the end of year 2
    Total: $213

    vs Old system:
    Buy license ($99)
    1st year cost ($0)
    2nd year renewal ($59)
    3rd year renewal ($59) – Left with last major version at the end of year 3
    Total: $217

    Are my numbers and statements about what version you’d be left with correct?

  89. S. Salazar says:

    … changes are certainly an improvement, but… as someone who was seriously considering buying AppCode– that ship has sailed with your changes. My guess is that you cannot innovate in a meaningful way to cause your users to want to actually upgrade, at least without being overly cruel and pedantic, so you’ve moved to this model.

    Please stop. Please just challenge yourselves to innovate outside of your marketing and sales departments.

    The perpetual license is a step in the right direction, but for the price, a mere license with zero ownership, is worth far far less than you’re charging. Especially for the 12th month versioning crap…

    I’d pay $4 a month, tops, as you’ve removed most of the value (ownership of my tooling) and inserted risk into my business via the subscription model.

    You make nice products, I just wish you would’ve stuck to selling ’em that way.

    • Hadi Hariri says:

      Thanks for your comments. Per the blog post, as Max mentioned, this is far from us not being able to innovate, especially with things like AppCode where we have so much in stock, not to mention all the changes of Swift that Apple is pushing out.

      We are moving to subscriptions. The perpetual license is a fallback license for when you cannot or do not want to continue your subscription.

  90. Alex says:

    Nope, nope, and nope. You just lost 5,000 systems. Time to wipe and block your DNS and IP directly at the corporate firewall.

    • Hadi Hariri says:

      Sorry to hear that. All the licenses you have however are yours and can be used indefinitely.

      • Alex says:

        We’ll be switching entirely. Any company moves to phone-home and we drop immediately. Sorry, we don’t allow that sort of security breach of our systems, it simply can not be allowed. Learn to respect the networks and hardware of others.

  91. Blah blah says:

    Just read your post and looked at

    The first impression was that you’re really listening to us. After letting it stew a while, I personally will not bite the hook. It still smells fishy.

    At the end of our product development cycles, we lock down our current version of dependencies and tools, scale back our contract teams, and pull out the old tools when we need to maintain a product. This perpetual fallback license is so complicated that it requires a graph to explain and we’d definitely need to be very careful to not allow updates at all during development, no matter how beneficial they might be. This is very unusual. I can’t think of any application or library that we’ve used over the years that we haven’t been able to update at some point during our development.

    My summary interpretation is that you’ve concluded through analysis that there is no feasible price increase where you will be more profitable than the subscription based model. So, you’ve settled on an complex solution with no more compromise to support that goal. I don’t like that, but best of luck. I’m out. The drama was interesting, and I’ve no reason to come back.

    • Maxim Shafirov says:

      I’m not sure if you’ll read my reply since you obviously decided to stay anonymous.
      Yet we’re sorry it didn’t worked out to you. There so many usage patterns for our software out there. We’ve learned a lot while listening to the feedback for the original announcement.
      This new scheme is really flexible though and if the price is not an issue for you you may effectively maintain old model by keeping an additional year of subscription. If you’re our current customer it will not cost you a thing with 2 years for 1 offer.

      • Blah blah says:

        Actually, I may flip-flop on my decision. Before this fiasco I was considering upgrading because I did want the latest versions. I’d already recognized the value of your products. Honestly, I’m willing to pay more to a point if it means helping your business thrive. What I don’t like is the loss of control or persuasion that subscriptions cause.

        Anyhow, somewhere down the thread you mentioned that we’d get to keep versions that include bug fixes even if we let the subscription expire. I think that needs some clarification.

        I expect major version numbers to indicate significant changes that would likely affect our ability to dredge an old tool up to maintain our own products, but if you don’t rollback our minor versions when we allow a subscription to lapse then that would address one of the things I dislike about it.

        Someone else mentioned something similar. We need a very clear way to constrain updates. Just to be safe, I’d expect to be able to configure the tool to only pull bug fix releases and to alert developers if an update cannot be kept if the subscription expires.

        Finally, I would like the option to just pay for the year or even two upfront and immediately specify that I won’t be charged again. I’ve got too many bills as is to get blindsided by unexpected charges.

  92. Andreas Schneider says:

    Will the “Invidivual Developer” license allow me to use that license within a company/corporation?
    My company is more or less enforcing the use of Eclipse, therefore I have to use IntelliJ IDEA on my own. Does the (new) license permit this or is my only chance to continue using IDEA if I can convince my bosses to buy the organizational license?

    • Hadi Hariri says:

      There’s no change in that area. You can use your personal subscription anywhere you want. If your company is OK with it, so are we.

  93. Tommy Simons says:

    I think the fundamental point is 100% completely missed by everyone in these comments and in the previous comments and elsewhere. The fundamental point is this: the JetBrains team can wake up tomorrow morning and decide that they want to make a change to this whole subscription scheme again and there’s nothing anyone would be able to do about it. Next week, they can change it again, and the week thereafter.

    This would not be a problem if JetBrains were the only place in town to go to for development tools. Then they’d dominate the market and we’d simply have to go along with it. However, since NetBeans is more or less just as good (in some parts worse, in other parts better) than IntelliJ IDEA (and WebStorm etc), and IMPORTANTLY it is free and open source, the choice is easy to make. And I should never have been using JetBrains at all, since using tools that are not free and open source will always leave me open to exactly these kinds of changes happening.

    Apologies to the free and open source community for not having understood its relevance and let’s move to NetBeans now.

    • Maxim Shafirov says:

      You are absolutely correct Tommy.
      Should JetBrains fail to provide real value for the money we ask, or should JetBrains fail to be a reliable business partner – we’re out of business. This is a basic law of economics. Even more so when free and open source competition is around.

      • Brian Rozmierski says:

        And this is the 2nd major problem with the “backdated” perpetual fallback license.

        If I start a new 1-yr subscription next March, and you release some upgrade(s) after that, before my year is up and then go out of business, the tools I may/will have upgraded to past my perpetual license are now time bombs. Coupled with the possibility of configuration (.idea .iml) changes that break backwards compatibility….

        • Maxim Shafirov says:

          In a very improbable event of JetBrains goes out of business every active subscription holders will receive latest versions available in perpetuity.
          This will not help too much though since there will be no one to continue development and this new version will become outdated in a blink of an eye.
          Configuration files changes – we’ll take every action necessary to make those compatible both ways.

  94. Maxos says:

    Hi Maxim!

    Thank you for listening to your customers. The 1) perpetual license with annual payment and 2) the offline capability makes the new model a fair customer-developer relationship to me.

    The license of my Jetbrains product expired early 2015, for the simple reason our mainly used language changed. So the obvious option was to think about “moving up” to full IntelliJ to be able to maintain the old stuff as well as write new stuff in our new main language. With the toolbox model we don’t need IntelliJ but can select the two language specific IDEs.

    One more suggestion: As mentioned by someone in another comment, you are missing out on free feedback. When people renew their license make an extra comment box “wishes” where every paying customer can tell you what they expect in improvements. Sometimes people don’t want new features, but instead just want a certain bug fixed that annoys them _every_ day at work.

    All the best for the future!

  95. Jake H says:

    I still don’t agree with this model. Honestly how hard would it have been to just keep the perpetual license option and a subscription.

    I think this is seen as an “olive branch” but it’s just not quite enough for me. Pretty disappointed overall.

    Oh and please don’t just refer me to the petty/long winded explanation at the top.. yes I’ve read it and no I don’t accept it.

    • Maxim Shafirov says:

      > how hard would it have been to just keep the perpetual license option and a subscription.
      Prices shall be dramatically different. And if you’re not price sensitive you can effectively have old model with new one by maintaining one additional year of subscription. If you’re existing customer we already did that for you with 2 years for price of 1 offer.

      • Jeff Alvidrez says:

        These changes to the originally announced model are *mostly* sufficient, in terms of addressing project risk concerns around tools ceasing to work. I apologize if the gap is covered somewhere in this massive pile of comments; it is taking too long to wade through it all, so I will just reply here.

        While it is true that from a strictly pricing perspective it is possible to see the new model as equivalent to the current one if you pay for two years — keeping the version you have at the end of the first year — logistically it is not so simple.

        The software constantly notifies the user of the availability of updates. Many programmers are not aware of the details of licensing and payment in their organization, and may or may not know whether their team or employer intends to maintain the subscription, and may go ahead and apply these updates. Then they find later on that they no longer work because, in fact, the team will not be renewing.

        Meanwhile, for the accounts payable folks, if policy simply does not allow for subscription purchases for software, they have to be educated on how to look at this as a one time purchase — and as this discussion proves, the perpetual license terms are not all that easy for people to grasp, in the context of ongoing software updates.

        It does not appear from all that is written here that as a company you intend to engage in any kind of deceit or blackmail with your customers, and that you take seriously the need to offer a value proposition. So why not offer a way for the update process to work for organizations that need to see this as more of a purchase than a subscription?

        One way this could work is that a configuration setting makes the updater work in “purchase mode”, where it will not apply updates that are not “paid for” (meaning: perpetually licensed), at least not without warning and not as an in place update. Then, JetBrains is in the place you have described elsewhere in this discussion: you have to offer sufficient value to the users that they will make the case for committing to renew the subscription. But the risk that developers unknowingly install a version that they may have to at some future point revert off of is eliminated.

        In addition, for many companies that have been my clients, it would actually be better under this model for them to pay ahead not just for a single year, but at some point during the current year term, for another year ahead of that one, to make it more like a purchase of the current version. They can think of it as a purchase, and it gives them perpetual license for the version of the software they are using today, with updates through the current year term.

        The alternative, where either developers are stuck with an older version, or the bean counters have to be made to understand that they are paying *today* for software they have already been using, or worse that the developers will get caught in a situation that *feels* like blackmail even if not intended as such, will be a tough sell in some places.

        So, to summarize:

        1) purchase mode, for the updater;

        2) pay ahead an additional full year for subscriptions

        With those additions, I would say that this model is unequivocally better than the old model for my clients, and I would not have to fear in recommending it to a client that they would get hung up on it being a subscription rather than a purchase.

    • Tim says:

      Because these companies know very well if you give a customer the choice of buying(owning) vs renting, a very large majority will opt to buy, pay once and be done. The only way for companies to get people on to subscription is to ram it down their throats and hope for the best.

      Adobe did this with CS6 – offer perpetual along with subscription licenses. Too many stayed with perpetual, so they dropped it in favor of subscription. Much like Max said, Adobe’s revenue fell down in the short term. Since they still exist, one can only assume that things got better, although they do have far fewer evangelists, events, webcasts, and I really couldn’t tell you any amazing new features or bug fixes that have been added since going sub only. The design agencies I contract with that went with CC subscription tell me it’s little more than live beta testing. But YMMV.

      • MuppetGate says:

        My mileage does vary.

        Most of the designers I know say that Adobe was a duff outfit before they went to the subscription model. In that regard, I think Jetbrains deserves two years before passing judgment.

        I also a couple of one-man outfits who like the Adobe subs because they can now actually afford the software.

        Bear in mind that Adobe doesn’t have any real competition. Jetbrains has a market with at least two competitors who give their stuff away. If Jetbrains doesn’t make good, they’ll fail. Simple economics.

        Microsoft can run a subscription because most businesses are tied to the .docx format.

        Jetbrains project format is XML. It can be converted to something else without too much trouble, and since most sane projects are built with Maven or Grade, even the project format isn’t an issue.

  96. Mike Jacobs says:

    I’m very happy with the changes you’ve made since last week.

    Just one quick question – how easy will it be to switch between monthly and yearly subscriptions without losing our 40% discount? I’m considering subscribing to the full toolbox, but if I pick up the annual subscription, I don’t want to be locked into annual to keep up my discount – I might want to do a few months at the monthly subscription while money is tight, and then switch back to annual subscription when it’s easier to afford.

    • Maxim Shafirov says:

      You can jump freely between monthly and annual. Continuity discount stays there provided the subscription is uninterrupted.
      The only exception is 2 years for the price of 1 option. This has to be payed upfront.

      • Mike Jacobs says:


        This isn’t as important, but just a general question: How much time will we have between the time we’re allowed to renew and the time the subscription is actually interrupted? Like if my subscription is up on June 20th, will I be able to renew it as early as June 1st if I’m not on auto-renew?

        • Maxim Shafirov says:

          For the sake of continuity we can just backdate your new payment to where your old ended. Thus, you’ll have up to month on monthly payment or up to a year on annuals to return and keep continuity discount.
          Need to calculate though if it makes sense to backdate over long (several month) gap or it makes sense to start from the scratch

  97. Todd Knarr says:

    I’ll say I’m satisfied with the new terms. I expect to keep upgrading, and the subscription’s the same price as the current annual license so not an issue. The fallback license is enough of a fallback to satisfy my concerns. It’s not ideal, but if a future version goes in a direction I can’t use I have a hard number on how many months I have to pay while using the last version to get a solid perpetual license for what I need. Since I don’t expect that to happen soon if ever it’s an acceptable cost. Add in local license keys and I can’t see any situation short of JetBrains going out of business where I’m in any bind. If they do shut down I’ve got bigger problems with the tools than license renewal, and as reasonable as they’ve been here I’m willing to trust they’ll be equally reasonable about issuing perpetual keys to current subscriptions at that point.

  98. Philip Kilner says:

    I’m really not happy about the “fallback” bit – if my license expires and I choose not to renew it, I want to stay still, not go backwards.

    Having had that initial reaction, I set about reading the comments to this post, thinking that I might come to a different view, but as I read I came to see that this is just too complicated and messy for me. I want to know that I can carry on using my tools without going backwards, and I want to trust my vendor not to subject me to these shenanigans.

    I don’t use your tools intensively enough to be motivated to keep up with all this nonsense, so as long as there is any prospect of losing functionality if I choose not to renew, I think I’ll stay away – I’m better off letting my /current/ perpetual license expire, so that I can carry on working while I explore alternatives.

    tl;dr – this has caused me to lose confidence in Jetbrain’s judgement.

    • Mike Jacobs says:

      Consider it this way and it gets a lot more bearable:

      You pay up front for the perpetual license, and it includes a free year of previewing newer versions. You can stick with the license that you had when you paid, or you can use the preview versions until that year is up, and then either pay to keep them, or fall back to the license you paid for.

      It’s the same exact model, just described a different way. I had the same initial reaction as you (and wrote a couple angry comments), but then I looked at it another way and am actually pretty happy with the new model.

  99. Jan Morgenstern says:

    I’m glad that you reconsidered your stance on a subscription-only model, but I have to join the chorus of people who think the new additions make it all even more byzantine and weird. So I can either follow along with your development (because hey, that’s what I paid for) and then risk having to downgrade to an incompatible old version that potentially re-introduces bugs and lose features at some point in the future, or freeze the current version in time right after paying for a subscription, bugs and all, and forego support? Talk about a no-win situation. I don’t want to be cynical, but it sure feels like you’re trying to make it very clear that just giving in to an open-ended subscription is the desired choice.

    • Eugene Toporov says:

      Thanks for the feedback Jan.
      Yes, we said it is a subscription-based model. We do not hide it.
      But with the perpetual fallback license it can be seen differently from different angles. It may sound not as clear at first but we believe it is the best one that should fit all.

  100. c0d3g33k says:

    The ‘rollback’ issue wouldn’t be such a big deal if Jetbrains made a few changes in how the tools handled upgrades during the subscription period and how major versions store settings etc.

    1. Add an entry in Settings->Update called something like “Automatically check updates for: New Minor Version updates” that only offers updates that don’t rollback at the end of the ‘subscription’ period. Don’t show announcements about updates if this option is chosen.
    2. Allow new Major versions to be run alongside current Major versions without sharing settings. eg. ~/.IntellijIdea/14.1, ~/.IntellijIdea/14.2, ~/.IntellijIdea/15.0 rather than the current ~/.IntellijIdea14. This allows people to use fully working copies of new major versions during the sub period for evaluation or whatever while making sure the version that remains at the end of the subscription period is untouched and won’t break upon rollback.
    (Bonus if new scheme is XDG-compliant on *nix systems :-) )

    If this seems overly complicated, so is the new subscription model with front-loaded perpetual licensing. Good tools help their users deal with complexity so they don’t have to think about it all the time. Jetbrains makes good tools – it only seems right that the same tools should help manage the complexity that is licensing.

  101. Chris Rico says:

    There was once a time when I would have wholeheartedly recommended JetBrains products to anyone looking for a great IDE. That time has passed.

    Since you insist on forcing this licensing change on your customer base, goodbye JetBrains. I will never purchase a license for any of your products while you have this scheme in place.

    • Maxim Shafirov says:

      Sad to see you go.
      Can you please elaborate why it doesn’t suite your particular usage scenario?

  102. Alex says:

    First of all I’d like to make it clear that I’m personally very happy with the move to the subscription model and my small company and I personally will continue to use your excellent product suite.

    There is however an issue, others have made it here but I’d like to make it in a different way.

    I work in an industry that commonly requires secure off-line networks and systems and I insist (as architect/project lead) that clients adopt your products for development as I view them as “best of breed”. Once a product is installed on a server its common to leave development tools on there for patches/upgrades or external upgrade compatibility issues that may arise at a later date.

    This fallback issue presents a substantial risk to my clients and and undermines one of the principal arguments I present to clients when recommending your products. I fully realize your need for revenue but I do think this caveat is detrimental to the appeal of your products above open source offerings.

    I do hope you reconsider.

    • Maxim Shafirov says:

      If you understand ahead of the time that environment needs to be frozen it makes sense to stick with original fallback license, that you receive with annual payment.

      • Maxim Shafirov says:

        Or you can effectively can have any version in perpetuity by maintaining one additional year of subscription over the schedule. For existing license holders we did exactly this with 2 years for the price of one offer.

        • Alex says:

          Thanks Maxim,

          You have been clear in your communications so that much is clear but you have to understand that project demands are often fluid and unpredictable and particularly in government sector contracts, I think its similar for start-ups etc. the budget schedules are irregular and extra expenses are lengthy to obtain authorization on.

          I do think you are overestimating the pull of edge upgrade cycle for contract renewal. Most will just continue on your plan for the comfort, your products are highly regarded.

      • Mike says:

        So pay for an entire year and not reap any benefit of improvements?

        Are you seriously suggesting that?

        What a joke!

        • Maxim Shafirov says:

          Have you checked the prices, Mike?

          • Mike says:

            That is irrelevant to my point.

            You are suggesting that people pay you for a full year of improvements but not use them.

            Do you really think that is a viable and ethical business model?

            Hint: It is not

            • Mike says:

              $99 for Rubymine and an actual year of updates is a much better deal then your current scam.

              Because of your bad faith change, we are starting evaluations of other IDE’s next Monday.

            • Terence Martin says:

              Technically they went from “Pay X dollars and get free updates including major version updates for a year” to “Pay Y dollars and get free bug fix updates for that version; as a side bonus you get to preview what the next versions contain so that you can make an informed decision about whether or nor you would like to purchase it as well”.

              It’s a step back from the previous model, so I guess it’s all down to the prices to determine if the change is worthwhile or not.

              • Alex says:

                I think you have it in a nutshell Terence. Its not making them look good when most of us will just keep paying for upgrades indefinitely. This is an edge case they are standing firm on.

              • Mike says:

                Yes, they reversed the model in a cynical ploy to keep people paying forever so they eventually end up with less.

                It really sucks, now we are losing time and money because we have to waste our time and money evaluating other options and migrating a ton a code to another IDE, and retraining.

                It sucks worse because I have to do the same for my personal projects.

                On the plus side, we and I will no longer be supporting an unethical company.

          • Mike says:

            On further reflection, this scam is worse than I originally stated.

            I mostly use RubyMine so we will use that.

            It used to be $99 for a years worth of updates and I could cancel and still keep using it with the latest update before my license expired.

            Now it is $53 a year. To get to the point where my $99 sub would be, I have to pay $106!

            So you are charging MORE for the same thing!


            Good bye and good riddance. I will be happy to buy your equipment for pennies on the dollar when JetBrains dies.

            • Maxim Shafirov says:

              Can you hear what you’ve just said, Mike?
              Do I understand you correctly you are spelling curses for us increasing prices $7/year?
              Which BTW, is not the case if you take 2 year perspective.

              • Mike says:


                You just claimed down lower that it was not about money and you have been trumpting your “lower prices” when they are in fact HIGHER.

                That mean you are a liar. Period.

                I don’t do business with unethical people.

              • Mike says:

                If you were honest and raised the annual license fee $7 dollars and kept the old system, you wouldn’t have heard a peep from me.

                What gets me is your lies and unethical behavior. This is where you are deficient.

              • Maxim Shafirov says:

                With all the respect, Mike, please calm down. I have exactly zero intention to cram our vision down your throat. If it doesn’t work for you, it’s totally your right not to continue with us.
                Having said that, you’re comparing apples and oranges.
                Let me re-iterate over what we’ve been arguing about one last time.
                – We changed the scheme, we changed the prices
                – You didn’t like the scheme
                – I suggested you can get your preferred scheme back by paying extra
                – You calculated the extra (I didn’t check the math myself) and it turned out $7 more than it used to be
                – You accuse me of being a liar

                We’re being as open as it could probably be, explaining real motives for the move. How’s that unethical?

            • Mike says:

              Nice, deleting posts that confront you with the truth.,

              Enjoy bankruptcy!

              • Maxim Shafirov says:

                It’s just a cache over wordpress. Comments are slow to appear.

              • dave says:

                wow. I didn’t read all your comments before responding to some of them.

                You clearly are just trolling or the the concept of the new licensing scheme is beyond your ability to understand.

              • Michael says:

                It is you are the troll. You cannot/don’t want to understand others concerns and only see your point of view.
                Why do you bother replying if everything is good for you? Just stop and allow JB answer.

  103. Andreww says:

    Thank you!

    While I still am not fond of subscription models for locally installed software, I think you’ve addressed all the major pain points with this change. It’s not perfect, but seems like a very reasonable compromise.

  104. Ned McHugh says:

    I appreciate JetBrains being more forthright for their movement to the subscription model, it exemplifies open and honest communications. (“However, we realize that unless we change our business model, this won’t be sustainable in the long run, because our user base cannot grow indefinitely. “)

    The perpetual fallback license is a decent trade off and addresses any concerns I had.


  105. Mike says:

    Software subs are scams. They are the refuge of the desperate and unethical.

    JetBrains must be desperate.

    I am not paying for a year just to get downgraded a year if I need to unsubscribe.

    Customer lost forever.

    • Maxim Shafirov says:

      We value or opinion Mike, yet we really think perpetual fallback license addresses most of the concerns customers had.
      It’s sad it doesn’t address yours.

      • Mike says:

        Who would pay for a full year and not keep what was paid for?

        I can’t tell if JetBrains is being malicious or stupid.

        Perhaps both.

        You are telling people to pay for a full year but accept no upgrades as the solution for the possibility that they may not be able to pay next year.

        If you can’t see how stupid that is then when JetBrains files for bankruptcy and dies, it will be well-earned.

        I guarantee these sub fees will increase every year, which makes this whole thing worse. If people don’t like the increases, no problem! Just rollback a years worth of paid improvements.

        • Jura Gorohovsky says:

          Mike, looking at your comments, it just leaves me wondering how you haven’t yet gone as far as to claim you’re looking forward to see everyone at JetBrains die in agony.

          Will we have the pleasure of hearing this from you as well?

        • Chip says:

          Mike, I’m not from Jetbrains but I enjoy the product. I really don’t understand your tone. You are right that you will be paying more if you decide not to upgrade, but you will be paying a lot less if you do choose to upgrade. If you choose “not to upgrade” you just continue to use your current software (now) and 1 yr old software ( later).

          I don’t think Jetbrains is being unethical. They clearly state that they want you to be a “subscriber”. They think its a better business model for them, and the other business model is “unsustainable”.

          If you don’t agree, I guess you don’t have to buy from Jetbrains, but calling the CEO a liar, when he’s being totally transparent, and talking time to answer comments is bad form.

    • Eugen says:

      Oh, how I miss the good old *plonk* …

  106. Thank you for this post. I’m happy you addressed the issue in this way. I’ll be a paid customer for years to come. Keep up the good work.

  107. Graham says:

    I have a perpetual license for Intellij v12 with no subscription.

    If I upgrade now (before Nov 2):
    1. Is it still $99 (no added surcharge)?
    2. Does this qualify me for the 2-yr existing customer deal with ongoing 40% off (as long as I subscribe before Jan 1, 2017) for $53.40 ($89 x 0.6) per year?

    If I upgrade after Nov 2:
    1. I pay $53.40 ($89 x 0.6) annually but with no free 2nd year?

    Is this correct?

    • Maxim Shafirov says:

      Yes, your findings are correct

      • Luke Hutteman says:

        If that’s really correct, that’s an amazing deal.

        I thought the $89/year was already the 40% discounted rate though (based on regular price of $149), in which case the math would be:

        Either buy for $99, then get 2 years for the price of 1 at $89, for a total of $188 for 3 years.

        or get a subscription right away at the discounted rate of $89/year, in which case your 3 year total comes out to $89 * 3 = $267

        This would mean for anyone with a perpetual non-subscription license, buying a $99 upgrade license before Nov 2 is a far better deal.

        Am I incorrect here? As someone also owning a v12 license, I would certainly prefer Graham’s math… :)

  108. Tommy Simons says:

    Look at the looooong list of questions here (and elsewhere). It seems like one needs to be super smart to understand this business model, which is another reason why it’s simply not good. How much extra will you earn from this new business model? Is it really worth it?

    • Maxim Shafirov says:

      This is not about making more money. As I said before we expect our revenue shrinking for some significant time. It’s about staying afloat in the longer term and being able to provide value to our customers for decades to come.
      We understand this model is not common and it takes time to understand its flexibility. However, we’ll take every action possible to explain it and answer all the questions. We stake our business on it.

      • Tommy Simons says:

        It’s a mistake to think that money can be made from tools. Tools are there to build communities. Money comes from elsewhere, e.g., services, support, training, other products that are not tools. As you can see right now, you’re destroying your community, at the very least you’re getting them to question your motives. I’m looking forward to a few years from now when you write another blog entry with yet another subscription model that will be yet even more complicated. In the meantime, I’ll be using NetBeans, knowing that it will always be free and open source and top notch.

        • Maxim Shafirov says:

          We’re in the tools business for 15 years already and our view differs.
          We totally honor your decision to go with NetBeans though.

      • Mike says:

        If it is not about the money why are you charging more?.

        It used to be $99 for RubyMine and a years worth of updates and I could cancel and still keep using it with the latest update before my license expired.

        Now it is $53 a year. To get to the point where my $99 sub would be, I have to pay $106!

        So you are charging MORE for the same thing!

  109. Dave Burkholder says:

    I’ve been using Pycharm Community edition for quite some time and was about to upgrade to the Pro version because I was just that *impressed* with the software.

    Then this subscription issue hit and I was altogether nonplussed, not wanting to be locked in to upgrades given the periodic nature of my usage. So I thought I’d hold off and see how it plays out.

    As far as I’m concerned, the perpetual license at the point of initial purchase is the perfect solution. Thanks Jetbrains for listened. You’ve gained a paying customer!

  110. B Leidl says:

    No thanks. I will not be renewing my product licenses.

  111. Dennis says:

    Maxim, as i see you answering questions, i’ll address you directly.
    I have read the Licensing and Purchasing FAQ, and seen the charts.
    Would you be so kind and explain, why did JB went for the x.y.Z START of the license? And not x.Y.Z of the latest full year?
    See, i can easily think of a situation when i begin with version 1.8.0 on year[1]month[10], version 2.0.0 comes out on year[2]month[1], version 3.0.0 comes out on year[3]month[1]. That is a total of 14 months. If i pay just for 12 months, according to your charts i will fall back to 1.8.0. Why not give me a possibility to fall back to 1.9.9 (or whatever version there is before the 2.0.0 release?).
    Same with version 2. If, in this scenario i will pay 2 more months, to get entitled to version 2 perpetual, why will i get the 2.0.0, and not 2.9.9 (or whatever there is before 3.0.0 release?). I, by that time, would have already payed for the whole year of development and support for version 2 anyway.
    That would have been a more fair perpetual license fallback. Not the latest Major, but the second-to-latest fully updated.

    • Maxim Shafirov says:

      We do 2-3 and sometimes even 4 releases a year. Some of them get higher X, others only increase Y. But this is just a nominal thing. The fact is feature-wise those are all major releases.

      • Dennis says:

        Well, all in all, you are making the costs higher for new users, who does not upgrade every year.
        Here’s the calculus for “single IDE”:
        Now: 99$ and after a year you get lastest Major
        Will be: 89$ + 71$ to get to the same point. That is almost 40% increase in the price. Ouch

        But what happens if the user decides to drop the subscription at that point, and come back say year and a half later?
        Will he then get another year as per price of existing customer – 53$? Or will he then again have to pay non discounted price of 89$?

        • Dennis says:

          Actually it is over 60% increase in the price for “one year” perpetual license.
          Shame you can’t amend comments.
          And it still will be slightly more expensive for two years – ~7.5%.
          As it will be 99 + 99 (198) vs. 89 + 71 + 53 (213)

          Anyhow, my previous question stands.
          Does the discounted price remain forever, after required time period of subscription is purchased, or does it get reset after the subscription is cancelled.

          • Dennis says:

            Well, given the “upgrade price” of the previous license, that’s not 99+99, but 99+59

            In other words, you are increasing prices. It will be many years before new model will in total price be cheaper, than the old one. The exception is the all software bundle.
            That is one thing.

            And if the discount is reset after the subscription is stopped, then you are effectively cutting off (raising prices a lot) to all developers who were not upgrading annually.

            • Maxim Shafirov says:

              Your findings are correct, Dennis. We optimize our offering for those who stay current.
              While there’s indeed a price increase for those who skip version, I really think our prices are competitive for the value our products provide.

              • Dennis says:

                Maxim, actually, price increase is for everyone. But for the skippers (for any reason), price increase is drastic.
                Well, it’s silly to think that people who use IDE’s won’t be able to calculate the TCO in the long run.

                Simple calculation for 5 years perpetual with continuous payments. Again for the “single IDE”:
                (old) – 335
                (new) – 372

                Same for three years:
                (old) – 217
                (new) – 266

                However, if i want one year, then skip a year, and then want one year again ill pay 320 (two times 89+71). That is actually same price as if i had constant 4y subscription under new model. And almost five under old one. Wow.

                I can understand the price increase and i would not have a problem with it under old terms. But did you really have to create such a devious and not transparent (in comparison to the old one) way to charge for your products?

                And you are actually punishing those users, who are not constant updaters, like me and my team. Occasional users for certain projects who would receive absolutely terrific tools for the money for a short period of time.
                And no, not so short, that a few months of subscription is enough.

                You have the numbers on how many such users are, i don’t. Hope it work well for JB.

                I won’t jump off the train, but, how do you Russians say it? “Osadok ostalsya”, i believe.

              • Maxim Shafirov says:

                You seem to be missing 40% discount from the 3rd year:
                Not much of a gain over 5 years but still, not a TCO increase.
                It’s now more expensive if you skip, that’s right.

          • Chip says:

            It seems fine to me.. if you continuously upgrade, you will win (big) in the long run.

            If you don’t, you will pay a bit more, or get slightly older software.

            • Dennis says:

              No Chip, you won’t.
              Unless you are a jack of all trades and have a use case for several languages and thus all IDE’s – the new model will be more expensive in the closest nine years for single IDE users (given the assumption the price won’t increase).
              You can easily calculate it yourself.

              And i’m not against price increase, it is understandable at the very least. I am against this whole scheme, that requires me to spend time and think on what do i get and for how much and for what period of time.

              You see, JB could have easily introduced “volume discounts” for those who own licenses for several products, making them as appealing, as under the new “subscription” model. Instead they went for this “pay as you go” model.
              Their business, their decision.
              It’s just i am not happy customer anymore. But at least not angry and a customer (after the return of perpetual offline license).

              • Maxim Shafirov says:

                Hi Dennis,
                Can you please share your calculations?

              • Dennis says:

                Maxim, i can’t seem to reply to your comments, as no “reply” link exists. Apparently the thread is too deep.

                My calculations compare the TCO of perpetual licence on any given period for the new and old model for new customers of “single IDE”, i.e. Ruby mine.
                And since the new model requires to pay one year MORE to get the SAME version perpetual, as it would have been with the current/old one, it is always
                in constrast to

                As such, perpetual_new after 5 years costs 89+71+53*(5-1) = 372 (not the 319 in your message in the thread above)
                while perpetual_old costs 99+59*(5-1) = 335.
                And i actually missed two years.
                After 11 (eleven) years the old model would cost in total 689, while the new one 690. Therefore only after year 12 the new model will become cheaper.

                And it is now SO much expensive (in relative percentage) for a year/two skippers, that it is actually cheaper just to prolong the subscription.
                So from my point of view, it’s additional pain in the butt to manage the subscription, even if i don’t need the tool for a year, in order to just manage the costs effectively.

                We can easily do the math for other IDEs.

              • Chip says:

                You are adding one extra year, presumably because the software “rolls back” to 1 year if you discontinue. That is definitely a penalty if you discontinue.

                I’m pretty sure there is no way to solve that without allowing people to get half priced software by regularly unsubscribing every alternate year. This is unfair to honest customers.

  112. Alex says:

    Thank you for this post. I am buying my licence right now !

  113. Hussain says:

    Thank you Jetbrains!! This is best of both world.

  114. Robert Guiscard says:

    I’ve used IntelliJ in the past, and I thought it was great. In the future, I probably will not. If your company is not sustainable with simple, user-friendly pricing, then it’s not going to magically become sustainable with weird counter-intuitive pricing.

    Either charge me x dollars for version y of the software (include upgrades for some time period if you want) or, if you want to charge me a subscription fee, then I should get all upgrades until I let my subscription lapse at which time I can continue to use the software at the version that was current at the time my subscription lapsed. Anything else and either you’re just being jerks, or your company is not sustainable in this market.

    Either way, I guess the future is Eclipse…

    • Maxim Shafirov says:

      > charge me x dollars for version y of the software
      This is exactly what you get when you purchase a year of subscription. Perpetual fallback license.

      • Robert Guiscard says:

        That’s not true, and you know it. This is and example of why there’s such negative outcry about all of this. You’re not acting in good faith, on multiple fronts.

        • Todd Knarr says:

          Why is it not true? Under your proposal, you pay $X for version Y of the software with no upgrades. Under the subscription scheme you pay $X for version Y of the software, with the option to get bugfix releases for up to a year after that. So what precisely do you get under your proposal that you don’t get under the subscription?

          • Michael says:

            If I stop the subscription all the bug fixes up to 12 months will not be available for me. This is the difference.
            So, “subscription” in current state is not honest deal.

  115. Geo Mealer says:

    Change works for me, especially with the overall lowered prices to reflect the decreased value. I’ll probably switch to full toolbox when my PyCharm license expires. Thanks for rethinking the scheme.

  116. Ryan McLaughlin says:

    Thanks for listening to the customers on this one.

    Just one thought. When I have bought software in the past, bug fixes are usually included in the fee. It would be great if the perpetual license we get would allow us to use the latest version that included all the bug fixes. For example, if version 12.01 was the current version when I signed up, but version 12.02, and 13 came out during my subscription. I should be able to still use 12.02, but not 13.


    • Maxim Shafirov says:

      Bugfixes are totally included in the perpetual fallback license. All of 12.0.X releases are yours in perpetuity.

      • Terence Martin says:

        I think a big disconnect on this particular issue for many people is that internally JetBrains possibly has a different standard for what a point release (e.g. going from 12.0 to 12.1) means as compared to what others are used to?

        To me at least, I don’t consider bumps to the minor version number to be a major update; that’s what the major version number is for. Although to be honest it’s hard to verbalize exactly what I do expect out of a minor revision bump. Sort of like an intermediate stage in the life of the main revision after a certain number of defects have been repaired?

        In any case, for me personally I was surprised to learn that “bug fixes for the available version” is only the last revision number and even a minor revision is off limits.

        Perhaps more info on what the stages of development are would alleviate this?

        For example, I might assume that point releases like 12.1 are supposed to indicate that active development on the 12.X line is closing down and it’s entering maintenance mode, and new features in 13.x will not be back ported, in which case being locked out of a perpetual license to 12.1 if you bought in at 12.0 seems like you’re only getting “half” of the version on your perpetual license.

        • Todd Knarr says:

          The standard for version numbers I’ve always seen in Unix-land is:

          Major version number: changes when backwards-incompatible changes are made or major new features are added that weren’t in previous versions in some form.

          Minor version number: backwards-compatible changes, small new features are added or enhancements to existing features are made that don’t break compatibility.

          Bugfix number: fixes to bugs only, no compatibility changes and no new features.

          Typically there isn’t a “maintenance mode” on older versions, once a new minor or major version’s released previous versions are left as-is.

          • Michael says:

            The problem is bugs fixing for 12.0 will stop right after release of 12.1.
            JB wanted to do releases much frequently which means less bug fixes per minor releases.

      • Dan Elebash says:

        The fact that bug fixes are include helps very much, you need to make this clearer in the blog post. Question what if I buy version twelve and then version 13 comes out a month or two later, then I still roll back to version 12 at the end of the 12 months if I don’t renew. Currently we get 1 year of updates with each purchase so in your new model we stay with whatever major version we purchased, basically loosing the year of updates we currently enjoy. Correct?

        • Terence Martin says:

          Sort of, but there is a fine distinction in that it’s not version 12 you’re buying; it’s the exact point revision of version 12 that you’re buying.

          So if 12.0.0 is what you buy, you get all 12.0.x as bugfixes, but if they release 12.1 during the year and then go on to version 13.0, you still revert back to 12.0.x for your perpetual license at the end of the 12 months.

          In order to get 12.1 you would need to purchase an extra number of months of subscription that equal how many months away from the time you bought 12.0 that 12.1 came out, and so on for any other versions that were released during the year.

  117. Dan says:

    I’ve only recently been exposed to JetBrains products. I’ve been fairly impressed, and was considering a purchase, but the new model makes that a non-starter. At this point, it’s up to the market to decide if this was a good or bad idea, but right now I’m one less customer that you would have had. I’m actually glad you announced this now, before I actually spent some money.

    • Maxim Shafirov says:

      Sad to hear. Could you please elaborate what’s in a new model that doesn’t suite your usage scenario?
      Anyway, I hope you enjoy your Student Pack.

  118. Pingback: JetBrains announces changes to subscription model | JAVA

  119. David Cornejo says:

    I think that the fallback license was a fair attempt to satisfy – as it is under the current scheme I pay annually to maintain my upgrade rights, and I’m going to do this as long as the software is useful to me. When it’s no longer useful to me, I really don’t care what version I am still eligible to use – it’s not useful and I’m going to stop paying for the upgrade rights and I’m going to delete the software.

    I don’t really understand why JetBrains did this, but to me it’s all about the cost of ownership, and this does not substantially change that – so if JetBrains wants to change what they call it, I don’t care. Perhaps ultimately people like me are their target demographic and the whole point of this exercise is to focus on developers like me. In the end, the only way JetBrains will lose me as a customer is to follow in the footsteps of Microsoft and create software as incomprehensible and costly as Visual Studio.

    I also have to say that the “everything” option is darn cool – and I can’t wait for November 2nd (my birthday and the Dia de la Muerte even!) to sign up…

  120. Dev Danke says:

    Thanks for listening. It shows you care about your loyal customers.

    Thanks for explaining in more detail why JetBrains wants to switch to a subscription model.

    Thanks for making your subscription model more flexible.

    Thanks for the generous discount you’re offering current customers to switch to the subscription model.

    Your quick and thoughtful response to customer concerns is much appreciated.

  121. Chris Kraft says:

    Where I work we don’t do subscriptions. Also our software purchases are done via a third-party who handles those tasks for us. In this case I suspect even with these changes we will not be able to continue using the product. This is unfortunate because we love IDEA and ReSharper.

    If we are lucky it sounds like we might be able to use the fallback license and not upgrade through the year but I suspect the purchasing issue will stop us cold either way.

    • Hadi Hariri says:


      We’re sorry to hear this. If you decide to move forward, please contact Sales and I’m sure they’ll do their best to try and help.

      • Chris Kraft says:

        Hopefully something will work out. I doubt it though. Our company is huge, over 300K employees, lots of rules about how things are purchased. My team only has around a dozen licenses but the broader company has hundreds.

        I have no idea how this will work out for us.

  122. Yoann says:

    I think this is pretty cool

  123. Kyle Devers says:

    Congratulations on taking a torrent of criticism and responding with a rational and sensible compromise. This new model works well for me. Thanks

  124. Chris Charabaruk says:

    The perpetual license model being for the STARTing version is just a disingenuous attempt at making the “problem” of dissatisfied customers go away. Honestly, it’s a pretty poor way of going about things, and for users like me who pay for our own licenses, it means the only way to feel secure about what we’re paying for is to always stay a year behind so that we don’t get the carpet jerked out from under us if we ever go off subscription. This is a terrible way to operate.

    I’m going to have to think long and hard about ever paying JetBrains again; it might be time for me to look for competing tools from companies that don’t try to disguise a turd as a sandwich.

    • Hadi Hariri says:


      Per the blog posted, as Max stated, we’re moving to subscriptions. As you can see, the prices have also been adjusted in line for this.

      For existing customers, like yourself, we’re offering a smooth transition, which is basically 2 years for 1. The fallback license is a license we provide in case, for whatever reason you decide to not renew.

  125. Ryan K. says:

    I’ve used JetBrains a product for a year now. It is awesome and I use it every day. My upgrade support is expiring soon and I’m sorry to say that even with this ‘perpetually old’ license idea you have likely seen my last dollar. I am much more comfortable paying for upgrades on my terms not being trapped with today’s version – unless I keep paying forever. I need to budget and plan, and some times I don’t have a budget for monthly fees – if that happens in three years i would be stuck downgrading to an old version? ..I don’t think so, sorry. The only company that I know that operates like that is Adobe, and that is the reason I will have CS5 for the rest of my life. I hope this works out for you, but from my perspective you’ve lost my upgrade income.

  126. pyloor says:

    With the update of the new jetbrains toolbox i am very happy with. as a polyglot developer this is a huge benefit.

  127. Harold Chan says:

    Does it mean there will be a new version released on 2 Nov?

    My evaluation version has just expired. It takes me a month for the new pricing model.

    • Hadi Hariri says:

      A new version of which product? If you purchase now, you will be entitled to the existing customer conditions.

  128. Danny Feliz says:

    Actually I have the student license and I was wondering if with this new subscription plan I will be able to continue using all products and receive new updates?

  129. This is the very good example of how to handle a situation. I really appreciate that JetBrains has listened to the public and acted on it, they were not like others which once make decision blindly support it. Great job JetBrains, and we’ll continue using Idea :)

  130. Jimmy S says:

    Here is the strange thing to me. The CEO says this is not about profits, but sustainability. Then he says they expect lower revenues for a while because the prices are lower. And then the community gets upset at the changes especially the very hard to rationalize perpetual license locked to an old version.

    How is this a good idea at all for JetBrains? The company makes less money and pisses people off. But somehow this makes the business more sustainable? Strange move.

    • Maxim Shafirov says:

      1. There will be more new customers coming due to a lower entry barrier
      2. Churn rates will be lower due to
      2a. continuity discount
      2b. people being able to give the latest version a fair run before they decide to prolong their subscription

  131. Jorge B. says:

    Biggest concern i have for this new model… is the lack of information regarding how much will it cost per month a single tool and if bundling more tools in a subscription will have discounts.

    Right now every tool made by you will cost me 24.90 USD (seems cheap but its 49.8 USD extra for using your tools for 12 months -anually-) but m thinking in make a subscription for 4 of your tools (PyCharm, PhpStorm, WebStorm and ReSharper) which right now it will cost me 27.7 USD monthly, obviously cause the “Single IDE” bundle comes with more tools that i need), so i would love to know how much will it cost me every tool per month and be allowed to make my own bundles (like the one suggested).

    Kindest Regards

    • Mike Jacobs says:

      I think you’re misunderstanding. “Single IDE” isn’t a bundle, it’s a price for each product listed under that header (AppCode, PyCharm, CLion, PhpStorm, or RubyMine).

      What are you comparing to when you say the complete Toolbox will cost “49.8 USD extra”? The Toolbox is the cheapest way anyone has ever been able to obtain the complete set of JetBrains tools (short of educational and open source licences, of course).

      • Jorge B. says:

        > I think you’re misunderstanding. “Single IDE” isn’t a bundle, it’s a price for each product listed under that header (AppCode, PyCharm, CLion, PhpStorm, or RubyMine).

        Well if this is true… its worst than i tough.

        >What are you comparing to when you say the complete Toolbox will cost “49.8 USD extra”?
        Simply math… considering a new user dilemma (existing users have some benefits and discounts), the complete toolbox will cost you 249 USD the first year, if i go the subscription route it will cost me 24.90 per month, so at the end of the year i will be paying 298.80 USD so if i made bough the toolbox annually rather than monthly i will save 49.80 USD ((24.90*12)-249), two complete months of subscription.
        Now the second year and third year applies the same since it will have exactly 20% and 40% discount the subscription and annual paying.

    • Mike Jacobs says:

      I took a minute to add up your costs of what you’d pay now vs. what you’ve been paying.

      To keep your list of IDEs up to date at the old pricing:
      $59/yr for PyCharm
      $49/yr for PhpStorm
      $29/yr for WebStorm
      $89/yr for ReSharper
      That adds up to $226/yr total.

      Under the new scheme, since you already own ReSharper, you’ll pay:
      $199 for the first year
      $0 for the second year
      $149 for subsequent years

      You’ll be saving a ton of money to just subscribe to the new Toolbox.

      • Mike Jacobs says:

        Forgot to mention, that $199/$0/$149 will get you every single JetBrains tool, instead of just the 4 you’re paying $226/yr for currently.

      • Jorge B. says:

        You are considering existing users, m not an a existing user m a new-user (complete new user) which m comparing what will be my best investment (annual payments or monthly payments).
        So i will like to know if there are going to be discount for making bundles cause right now it will cost me 36.60 USD a month to order my bundle (8.90+8.90+5.90+12.90).

        • Maxim Shafirov says:

          Single IDE is not a bundle, but ‘All Products’ is. So, all products are yours for $24.90/month

          • Jorge B. says:

            So just to be clear… there will be no discount for subscribing for more than one product? or your final offer will be you take everything we offer or pay more for only a subset?

            M more than willing to pay 15-20 USD for handful of IDE’s 25 seems cheap if planning to use all your tools otherwise seems wasteful.

            • Maxim Shafirov says:

              Yes, this is correct. At this point we only offer ‘All Product’ and ReSharper Ultimate, which includes all of .NET tools.

  132. Chip says:

    Thank you. This is why I love Jet Brains.

    My only complaint is that I needed CLion now and it seems that its impractical to buy it now rather than wait for November 2 to upgrade to the Jetbrains Toolbox. I guess I’ll have to stay in eclipse until November :(.

  133. Conrad T says:

    This addressed my only concern regarding requiring an internet connection to use the product. I am sure I am not the only one that work on machine without internet connection.

  134. dave says:

    “Only for subscriptions running 12 months or longer. Any version available at the start of each 12-month subscription period + bug fix updates for those versions”

    This is on your toolbox page for the perpetual license.

    Does this mean, if say, at the start of my ‘year’and I’ve subscribed for a year, RubyMine is at v7.1.4, and I choose not to renew my subscription a year later:
    1) I have a perpetual license for v 7.1.4 or earlier
    2) I have a perpetual license for v 7.1.x or earlier [if you release 7.1.9, I would be able to use it, but not v7.2.x or later]
    3) I have a perpetual license for v 7.x.x or earlier [if you release 7.2.9, I would be able to use it, but not v8.0.x or later]

    And yes, I know version numbers are fairly arbitrary.

    • Maxim Shafirov says:


      • Brian O. says:

        Why not just get rid of much confusion and change versioning so that v 15, v16 and v17, etc. take the place of the major updates that used to be 14.0, 14.1, etc. It seems like many people are getting hung up on the way that Jetbrains does what many perceive to be minor versions so they think they are somehow getting a bad deal if they get v15 and all the 15.0.x updates, but not 15.1.x updates, which are, in reality, v16 updates in my opinion.

        Just my opinion, but it seems like so many comments on here are showing confusion because of the old way of doing things.

        • Maxim Mossienko says:

          Yes, we have such thoughts. Simplier versioning (and possibly no major / minor version separation) is currently being considered.

      • dave says:

        Thank you for clearing that up for me.

        You may want to add this to your FAQ about this licensing change.

        I will be continuing on with RubyMine with your new licensing model.

  135. Eugene says:

    Since in the end it comes to the comparing date of license expiration to the release date, can you please tell me the following: is there (or will it be) a shared with users roadmap with planned versions and exact release dates?

    I also failed to find dates for previous releases on IDEA downloads page.

  136. StrDev says:

    Good move, I highly appreciate.

    Also for listening to the voice of customers.

  137. MuppetGate says:

    Okay, I’m a tad confused now.

    In the previous incarnation of the subs model, folk complained that they would be happy to pay a higher price in return for a perpetual licence.

    Under the new model, if you want the current version, you can have it … it’s just going to cost you a lot more because you will have to pay the next year’s fee up front.

    So you are now getting your perpetual licence for a higher price. This is exactly what you asked for.

    Perhaps what Jetbrains needs to do is simplify things:

    Subs at the current prices.
    Perpetual licences at double the price of a single year’s subs licence.

    The perpetual licence is something that someone can just come in and buy, straight off the bat. They will just pay a lot more for it, and there is no special upgrade pricing for the next major release.

    • MuppetGate says:

      When I say ‘subs at current prices’ I mean the prices that they just announced!

    • [Not a JetBrains employee, just a customer who’s read the fine print.]

      That is pretty much what they are offering.

      If you pay the annual subscription price, you get a perpetual licence for the version that’s available at the time you pay. That’s the “full price” (“double the price” as you call it) option.

      If you continuously subscribe for 24 months, you get a 40% “continuity discount” (or 20% for subscribing 12 months continuously).

      • MuppetGate says:

        Oh yes, I know. As I said, this is exactly what people were asking for. Now they have it and they’re still complaining.

        So as far as I can tell, what they really want is the ability to buy a full license now at double the price of buying the sub license which will give them the same thing for half the price. At least then they can say “THIS IS MINE FOREVER” from day one.

        If they want to pay double then let them.

  138. Jonathan Swift says:

    This change is in right direction but doesn’t address the issue. I think you need dual licensing options like Corel. Let people either get by subscription or perpetual, make the difference in total cost. Entice subscription by making it lower cost, make it expensive for those asking for perpetual license. In current model, it isn’t attractive to pay $99 annual for PhpStorm while you already have perpetual license. Better make it for example $49 / year for subscription and $99 for perpetual.

    • Maxim Shafirov says:

      Well, it is actually dual already. If you’re not too price sensitive and up to maintain one additional year of subscription over the schedule (and existing customer get exactly this) you get full year of upgrades in perpetuity.
      This new model is really flexible.

      • Jonathan Swift says:

        Actually what I asked is different than current model.

        I think you need to keep selling perpetual and no connection needing licenses at higher price (for those have to use that way or want to have that way), then offer and entice people with lower subscription prices with reasonable online requirements.

        Adobe has de facto monopoly but still they offers prices as low as $6/month for Photoshop , I think you need to play to increasing client base by offering competitive prices (especially to PHPStorm and WebStorm people) , not try to get same money for less feature.

        So basically don’t force to subscription, make perpetual license a vanity item for those want to have it.

  139. Andrew Cassidy says:

    I was kinda looking forward to the £99/pa for all tools as my financial situation doesn’t currently allow for the £199 up front, even though it levels out. I guess I’ll be sticking to just PyCharm for now. It’s £6 cheaper under the new plan so I guess I can’t really complain.

  140. Andy says:

    Thank you for listening and acting upon the feedback of your customers. My concerns are gone, now that you implemented these changes.

  141. Pingback: Responding to Outcry, JetBrains Relaxes Licensing Terms - Webpeak

  142. Fine by me.

    You should have presented the fallback perpetual license differently here. To some people here it sounds like something bad when with some minor usage of brain one can easily see that it is perfectly fine! You DO ONT have to fall back, instead it’s actually the exact same we always had. As somebody said above, consider the 12 months as delayed payments for the version you got at the beginning. If you need the version of x + 12 months just pay for that latest version. There is no need to “fall back” to an old version after deciding not to renew.

    • MuppetGate says:

      Nope, suggested that. They’re still not happy.

      What they want is a perpetual license. I say, let them have it, at twice the price and with no feature upgrades (only maintenance releases).

      • Keith says:

        Well, to be fair, as a new customer if you pay $199 USD for PyCharm today on the old pricing, you’ll get a perpetual licence to whatever version is current in 12 months time.

        If you pay $199 USD for PyCharm on the new plan, you’ll get a perpetual licence to today’s version in 12 months time.

        It’s potentially a $129 difference in value (under the old pricing). Which is 64%.

  143. Richard says:

    Thank you, I really do appreciate that you listened and responded to your customers. With the perpetual fallback you have definitely retained me as a customer and hopefully for many more years to come.

  144. Sune Marcher says:

    Good to see that you’ve come to your senses – now you just need to change the extremely awkward “This license will allow you to use that exact version of the software should you decide not to continue with the subscription after the year is up.” to the version you’re at once the subscription ends, and everybody should be happy.

  145. Bob says:

    I’m sorry there are still people complaining on here.

    This is an excellent deal, and you’ve effectively addressed customers’ complaints while still providing an effective incentive for people not to do a “1 month on and then 12 months off” subscription pattern which breaks the whole revenue model.

    Thank you, Jetbrains, for being so solidly sane.

    I think you might have been able to quash the whole “but but but the perpetual license version is OLD!” whining by phrasing the exact same model something like this:

    “When you purchase an annual subscription to a Jetbrains product, you not only receive a perpetual license to the version available at the time you subscribe, you are also entitled to use any major versions that come out during the subscription’s term FOR FREE so long as your subscription continues to be paid in full. It is your choice whether to continue to use the version you have paid for, which will be yours forever, or to try the new version of the product and, if you wish, purchase a subscription for that version in the future.”

    • Jura Gorohovsky says:

      Thanks Bob, this is very clear phrasing, indeed.

    • Keith says:

      For new customers, the pricing is identical to the old pricing for the single IDEs. The difference being that the old pricing gets you the latest version at the end of your upgrade subscription, the new pricing gets you only the version that you signed up for.

      It’s a pretty poor deal for new customers, really.

      It also completely stops customers who want to use a 12 months on, 12 months off cycle – i.e. buy every second major version without having to downgrade.

  146. Robert Cochran says:

    Thank you! I feel a lot better now that your company discussed the reasons why you are moving to subscription pricing. The open, up-front communication is so important and I appreciate it very much. The reasons you give for the pricing change, especially that you do a few releases per year and would like to continue that, even though your user base won’t grow infinitely, do make a lot of sense to me. Subscriptions do give a predictable income that you can budget with. So that part makes business sense to me.

    Inclusion of perpetual licensing makes me feel a lot better. I usually develop and test software at no charge to the customer. The pricing you are quoting looks more affordable for me over the long term. Maybe I can manage this pricing. Overall I feel a lot better about the modified subscription pricing.

  147. Dan Brown says:

    I’m glad that you have listened and taken some of our complaints into account to deliver this compromise.

    I actually agree with you that the perpetual license should not be linked to the current version at the time the subscription lapses. It is normal elsewhere in the industry to purchase a license + 1 year updates for that major version and customers do not expect to get bumped up to the next major release as part of that deal. But linking to the major.minor.* version (as opposed to the standard major.*.*) from 12 months previously, that’s just outright penalizing people for leaving and not standard at all. If you add big new features, then bump the major version like everybody else. It almost sounds like you are trying to apply semver to applications when it is meant for library compatibility.

    Your products are fantastic, and the new toolbox pricing is what makes me finally able to consider upgrading from Eclipse where I use PHP, Java and C+. I would be doing it via a one year subscription canceled the following day though to be the closest to a real application purchase though. Application subscriptions need to die in a fire, along with non-inventive software/design patents.

    It saddens me that I’ve heard nothing but good about you as a company over the last few years but you seem to have completely destroyed that image in two short weeks.

    By the way, the charts at appear to be misleading. They infer that the perpetual license is based on the major version.

  148. hron84 says:

    When you say perpetual licenses sticked with “exact version” what do you mean exactly? Previous licenses were valid for all minor versions, so for example if you bought the license at 13.1 it was valid for 13.3 too. However, with this wording I feel if I buy the 13.1, the perpetual license will be valid for that, despite if the major 13 has a quite much minor updates (or improvements, if you prefer this word). This is a step backward, as I feel. Please, clarify this for me.

    Also, you guys always improve your IDE in something totally new, for example, with a new framework support or a new version of language. If I decide to not pay anymore (because reasons), and use the perpetual license, I’ll have to downgrade a version that maybe does not support my project entirely. IDE is not just an editor, where you can type things, framework support is important, especially if no other IDE provides that support – and this is where JetBrains products are perfect, I saw support of a lot of things that I never seen before in any other IDE.

    How do you guarantee it will be never happen? Breaking existing projects just because financial problems is not so cool.

    • > How do you guarantee it will be never happen?

      hron84, why would it be Jetbrains’ business to make sure you always have the version you need? This clearly is your own responsibility. If you need a newer version you have to purchase it. You can buy a perpetual license for any version you like. Simple enough.

    • Terence Martin says:

      Yes, if you bought 13.1, your purchase entitles you only to the bug fixes on the 13.1.x versions; as soon as 13.2 or 14.0 or what have you come out, you don’t own those versions.

      Essentially the system went from “Buy and get a free year of updates and hopefully next year when you look at ‘What’s New’ you will see something to make you buy again” to “Buy and get the current version plus free reign to try all versions that come out for the next 12 months so that you can determine from your own use if the new version is still worth paying for”.

      There has been some suggestion (and I think a JetBrains employee said they were also thinking it) to stop with the minor revisions and just jump the major revision each time to make this clearer.

  149. Tom says:

    Hi JetBrains,

    I have one question: Existing client with start-up discount will have %40 discount or 50% discount? Or maybe it will have 50% after 40% discount?

  150. Buster Neece says:

    Once again echoing the voices of hundreds of people above me in saying that the “perpetual license” feature is so backwards and moronic compared to the reasonable, simple current license, that only a greed-minded bozo in a suit could have come up with it.

    Speaking of that bozo, I’m glad Co-CEO Maxim has been the one out here arguing all these points, because I get the strange feeling that he’s the doofus who ordered this in the first place. The original decision is the kind that someone in upper management makes after lamenting that “all the cool companies are doing it”, suggesting it’s a great way to turn a great piece of software into a piece of almost-freemium-level garbage while raising revenues all the same.

    However, it’s hard for me to tell sometimes which is worse: Maxim’s tenuous grasp on the English language, or his tenuous grasp on the desires of his customers.

    We’re all figuring out by now that the new “perpetual license” scheme is just a way to get you to spend 11 months with a new version, then have it yanked right out from your hands, coercing you into either paying more to keep it or falling back a year in progress.

    When confronted on Twitter and asked for an explanation of this, Maxim simply reassured us that it’s only “as evil as a drug dealer’s job”. Yes indeed, he compared his new pricing scheme and revenue structure to the classy, respectable work of a drug dealer on the streets. I’m not kidding…he actually said this. I took pictures. Lots and lots of pictures.

    Maxim, the people in the trenches working to make this software are probably looking up, seeing your devastatingly awful mishandling of this issue, and watching with hopeless anger as their company gets torn to shreds by the customers they served all along.

    What you don’t realize, buddy, is that you’re not Adobe. You’re not Microsoft. You’re just JetBrains, in a market that is literally SATURATED with choices and options for developers, where a new product launches every other day. If you start doing shady stuff at your customers’ expense, they’ll vote with their wallets so quickly it’ll make your accounting team’s heads spin.

    But hey. As you’ve made so very abundantly clear in these posts, this is all final. You’re finished listening to your customers as of today. It was a rough week having to consider how to keep shafting them while keeping a smile on their face, but by golly, you found a way.

    Well, this is final too: I’m out. I’m done. No more telling people that PhpStorm is the best editor I know. No more recommending it for my developer peers. No more buying renewal licenses at work. No more buying a personal renewal license for my hobbies. None of it.

    Hope it’s worth it, Maxim. Enjoy your drug.

    • bughunter says:

      Well spoken. They still rebuff two sort of customers:
      – private users only buying a licence now and then, because calculation of savings when interrupting is now really messy
      – companies that want to freeze project state without having the opportunity in paying licences additionally at this moment.
      I am very curious about the user base and revenues after the switch.

      • MuppetGate says:

        Private users can buy a perpetual hold on to the current version by paying for a full version before they cancel.

        If a company freezes a project then they too will have to pay up to get the current version.

        I’m not seeing the problem here.

        • bughunter says:

          You did not understand both points.
          Private user concern is about saving money calculations not licence issues.
          Company freezes is about when the project stops and there is no more money for it.
          So if you do not see the problems, good luck with it.

          • Maxim Shafirov says:

            For the frozen project old version will suit 99% of cases. We’ll do our best to ensure configuration files compatibility both ways.

            • Michael says:

              No, 99% is overrated. If team started using new version and after 11 months project freezes this will be a huge problem.

              • dave says:

                Well, it would be stupid for the team to upgrade to a new version that would stop working for them, when they KNOW they could stay on their existing version and not have a problem.

                Tip: Also, don’t staple your hand. It hurts when you do that.

              • Michael says:

                Your comment clearly shows you never worked in real environments.
                Project could be frozen in matter of days or weeks and you cannot predict it.
                So, stop saying nonsense.

              • dave says:

                So what? The project code freeze happens tomorrow or two years from now?

                If the team sticks with using the version of JB’s software that they have a perpetual license for, they can keep using the software to build and maintain the software until the end of time. Zero problem.

                Alternately, if you’ve been hit with the stupid stick, you have your entire team upgrade to the latest version immediately, then find out you are unable to renew your team’s subscription “blue”, and then go “OMG, this is all Jetbrains fault, those bastards! They want all my money.”

              • Michael says:

                You are clearly a troll.
                If team upgraded to a new version, made a product release after 2 months, and after 3 months there is a project freeze and only bug fixing is allowed. How about that?
                I believe it is a JB misbehaving with licensing. On one hand they encourage developers to use a new version but don’t allow using what they paid for.
                Please stop talking to me. You are extremely unpleasant person. I prefer JB answering these questions.

              • dave says:

                Well Michael, if your team:

                1) upgrades to a version of JB’s tools they don’t have a perpetual license for,
                2) knowing that there is some chance that your company may not pay for a perpetual license for the version they are upgrading to

                that would be:

                a failure of your team to implement basic risk management

              • John Saunders says:

                Michael, could you please elaborate on what the “huge problem” would be if the team upgraded and then the project froze?

    • MuppetGate says:

      I see you only included half the Twitter quote.


    • SK says:

      Wow! So many personal attacks and unfounded accusations, so much hate. Relax, it’s just a piece of software! *All* your problems with the new scheme can be solved by paying an extra $250 at most (for the extra year of All Products subscription for new users).

  151. Peter says:

    While the Perpetual Fallback License is a step in the right direction, falling back to the version of the time of the purchase is a bad solution. Let’s say I subscribe for 23 months. At the time of the purchase I will work with version x, however in the 23 months you release 2 updates and now I’m working with version x+2. Then my subscription stops and I have to downgrade to version x. That means I have to re-setup and reconfigure all my projects of the last 23 months. Yuk!

    The Perpetual Fallback License in the form you propose still has the main problem people have with subscription based software: If you stop paying, you can not continue to work with your files. Sure, I can re-install version x or another IDE or just use notepad but still – this licensing model is a HUGE step down from the “pay once and receive updates for 12 months” you guys are offering right now.

    • Mike Jacobs says:

      You’d actually fall back 12 months, not 23 (you get the last version you were subscribed to for 12 months or more).

      It sounds like they’re considering a setting in the update dialog where you only update the x in 9.8.x, meaning you’d be able to stick with the version you paid for without worrying about having to fall back. If you consider it as you having paid for that version, and not a subscription, this makes perfect sense. The subscription in that case would just offer you 12 months of previews, which will help you decide if you want to subscribe again. You’re free to use them, or stick with the version it was at when you paid.

      Yes, you’re correct that you lose the 12 months of free upgrades that the old model had. I was upset about this too, until I looked at the pricing different between maintaining multiple IDEs under the old model and the new. There are a ton of savings that more than make up for losing the 12 months upgrades, especially if you plan on staying subscribed for a while.

      • Keith says:

        Are you referring to the all products subscription? I don’t really get why you wouldn’t just use IntelliJ with plugins?

  152. .NET says:

    Thanks for listening and making the changes.

    My current R# Ult. license is valid till mid of July 2016. If I get a new subscription license on Nov. 2, ’15, what will be cost of paying. Am I not paying twice for the time period from November ’15 to July ’16?

    I am a longstanding customer and I do renew my licenses every year. Would JB consider extending my perpetual license validity 8.5+ months by default?

    • Maxim Shafirov says:

      You don’t have to jump in on Nov 2. You can switch to a subscription just when your current subscription expired.
      If you’d like to jump in on that date, you subscription start from July 2016.

    • [I don’t work for JetBrains. Just a customer who’s read through all the fine print.]

      You don’t need to start your subscription on 2015-11-02. The “Existing Customer Discount” is valid until 2017-01-01, and applies to customers with current or “expired less than a year ago” subscriptions. So you have two choices:

      1. If you always want the latest version, start your subscription at 2016-07-15 (or whatever “mid of July 2016” is for you).

      2. If you want to maximise your savings and don’t mind having no updates for half a year, start your subscription at 2016-12-31.

      That way, you don’t have to pay double. See for more details.

  153. Pingback: On the JetBrains Subscription Reaction - Clara van Staden

  154. Ryan says:

    Can’t tell you how excited I am, about either this or the old one. Perpetual didn’t matter to me one bit. I just want access to every single tool at a greatly reduced cost and under a single subscription (full toolbox subscription). More companies should sell platforms, not products, like this.

  155. John says:

    Thanks for listening! Especially to allow offline usage… that was really important for me.

  156. Pingback: JebBrains、「JetBrains Toolbox」のライセンスの改訂を発表

  157. Sean says:

    I think I know the compromise now, and if I go ahead and jump on the new subscription model, the trick for me will be to simply NOT come to rely on the point 1 upgrades to any software if I think I won’t be able to continue subscribing. Since I’ll get to keep whatever .x.1 patches came down the pike in the year, that’s fine, the behaviour of the app I paid for over the year won’t regress. I hope that delivery of updates can be separated, by point release upgrades or by patch. That way, if I just get the patches and no new features, I won’t have been “lured” into doing anything when the subscription run out. Takes a little getting used to, but given it’s cheaper than what I would have paid before, it’s probably workable. I mean, it’s as if all these years when presented with the perpetual license option , JeBrains had another perpetual license option – buy it for even less, but all you get is patches – if all you need is the features we have right now today, you’re good to go. That’s what the new licensing model offers, I think. Now I just need a steady gig so I can start my subscription!! Oh, and thanks for listening.

  158. Bryant says:

    All of the concerns I raised in the previous thread have been addressed, thank you.

    I will admit that, like many others, I have grown accustomed to software expenditures paying for both A> the software available at the time of purchase and B> a future stream of updates which C> I can retain along with my purchase from A.

    Splitting the streams into B1> a future stream of updates which I don’t retain until they become B2> a historical stream of updates which I do retain feels… well, different. And different is always uncomfortable! But this feels like among the more elegant resolutions to the conflict between a hybrid perpetual/subscription model and the “subscribe one month per year for access to a year’s worth of licensing” exploit.

    So, again, this solution resolves everything that was a actual *problem* for me (and not just a preference), thank you.

  159. umputun says:

    I have nothing against subscription model and had no problem with the original announcement. Paying for the good product doesn’t bother me at all. However the new compromise with rollback is ridiculous. Have you ever tried to downgrade from the version X to version X-1? I did it once, and never want this experience again. Even on JB level there were multiple incompatibilities in settings/prefs, like the color scheme made for v14 won’t work with v13 and so on. An on plugins level – this was even worse. Are you guys really expecting all plugins will keep compatibility with 1y old version? Are you going to make sure your own setting/themes/colors/whatever is fully compatible with 1y old version at any point of time? Are you going rollback to compatible version of plugins in some magical way?

    I do appreciate your willingness to adjust this hated-by-some subscription model, but this particular adjustment is a joke, for real.

    • Peter says:

      This is my main concern too. I don’t want to fiddle with my projects if, for whatever reason, I cancel the subscription.

      With this subscription model you have to either pay forever or always stay 12 months behind in terms of updates to avoid breaking projects when canceling the subscription.

      • Maxim Shafirov says:

        1. We’ll do our best to ensure compatibility both ways
        2. If you maintain additional year of subscription over the schedule, all updates are yours in perpetuity.

        • Michael says:

          So, stop calling it a “subscription”. Call it “Purchase of current version”. And don’t allow people upgrading to the new versions.

          • dave says:

            Well, there is also something called “self control”. You could try exercising it.

            Just because there is a new version of software out there, you don’t have to download and run it.

            • Michael says:

              So, how I will know if a new version worth paying? Let’s just stop upgrading for good.
              And “self control” has no meaning for this case.

              • dave says:

                Well, you would do what any other reasonable developer does. You read up on what’s new, download it and try it out and see how it works. If you think the new version is worth it, you pay for it.

                Just like virtually any other developer tool.

                Handy tip: don’t check in your project files into your source code control system that you test using the newer IDE with until after you pay for the new version. This is part of “self control”.

              • Michael says:

                You are trying to justify what is unjustifiable.
                Reading and trying is not how you decide if new version is worth paying. You have to work quite long to feel and understand it. With new licensing model it is not available.

              • Maxim Shafirov says:

                > You have to work quite long to feel and understand it. With new licensing model it is not available.
                Ouch! This is exactly what is available with new licensing. In older licensing you only have eval for a month. And evals normally has license restriction.

              • Michael says:

                This is not about evaluation. This is about trying a new version while keeping so called “subscription” active. While I can work with the old version I don’t have time and resources to try a new one in parallel.

              • dave says:

                If you are unwilling to put any time or effort into determining if a new version of any given piece of software is worth upgrading to, do you ever upgrade your software?

              • dave says:

                Yes, it works exactly the same way as with any other software.

                If you have a license to Visual Basic 2001, and you want to try VB 2002, you download it and use it as long as VB 2002’s demo period would permit, then IF YOU CHOOSE to buy the new version, you do and keep working.

                If not, you have to figure out how to go back to VB 2001.

                But I’m leaving this discussion. Between this last post and your problem with “subscription”, you veered into crazytown.

        • Peter says:

          Thank you for your response, Maxim.

          1. Let’s be realistic here: With the subscription based model you (as a company that wants to make money) only care about people subscribing. Those will only move forward. Backwards compatibility will be neglected and things *will* break.

          2. Of course, but this is what I dislike about the new model. If you pay over schedule you will always think “I might as well use the new features, because I already paid for it”. Personally I don’t care if you increase your prices. But be upfront about it and don’t try to deceive me.

          I use your software at work and purchased a PhpStorm license at the doomsday sale for personal use. With every update I thought “man, those guys are awesome for making PhpStorm better and better”. I did not renew the personal license because I don’t have time for side-projects anymore. From my perspective I was thrilled to receive great updates and to be able to keep last version that allowed me to at least maintain my projects. From your perspective you lost a paying customer. And the subscription model is all about keeping people like me paying. I get it. But with the old model I would have not hesitated at all to purchase a new license as soon as I find the time for my side-projects. With the new model I might as well look elsewhere, because I *feel* tricked to pay for something I will not use.

          • Maxim Shafirov says:

            1. Sorry for sounding pathetic but our revenues are made of people’s trust. If we fail to provide value for the price, or users have real problems because something is not backward compatible – no luck with revenues.
            2. You don’t have to pay over the schedule to *use* the features. You have to pay over schedule to own those versions in perpetuity.

  160. Steve Holmes says:

    I have to admit I’m surprised at the response to this announcement. For my part I’m happy to pay the cost and I hope Jetbrains is wildly profitable.

  161. Mike Edgewood says:

    Suggestion: Have a subscription model for the Bundle Package (Toolbox) and for those that wish to pay monthly. Otherwise, leave it as it is with a few minor exceptions. For instance, under your current Maintenance agreement, a user may upgrade a full year after the expiration date. Trim that back and have the upgrade price only be available while the current maintenance agreement is in effect. After that, it reverts back to full price. Almost all developer libraries that I am aware of are priced exactly this way. This is, in essence, what you attempting to achieve with minor difference that are far more *comfortable* and acceptable for the paying public. This way, the user gets to maintain the current version at the time the maintenance agreement ends (as it is now). This will give more confidence to the purchasing consumer as they are encouraged to (not forced to) continue on the maintenance agreement. They may have to pay full price to renew at a later date, but they don’t lose what they already have installed either. That is huge. If you ever had hard times, you need to pay attention to this.

    You really kicked over a hornet’s nest here. To boldly say “I’m sorry it didn’t work as you expected but this scheme is final and not going to change.” may be slightly premature and, if I might say so, a wee bit arrogant. Based on the number of disgruntled posters just in this comment section alone, it looks like you are going to lose more than a few paying customers. In fact, it looks like you stand to lose quite a lot.

    I found you looking for alternatives to apps in the Adobe Master Suite after Adobe went to the “continuously pay me in perpetuity or we’ll make it quit working”. That was the last dollar of mine they will ever see. If you are proceeding with your subscription model, I will pass on you too and pick an alternative. You have a great product, but it is not vastly superior to the competition and I will take a lessor product to not have to deal with your subscription nonsense.

    I am definitely curious to see how it works out. However, I will be watching only as a spectator and not as nail biting paying subscriber hoping you didn’t make the wrong decision.

    Good luck.

    • Maxim Shafirov says:

      Lack of the safety need to those who pays monthly and those who need all of the tools doesn’t seem fair. We have accounted for real concerns people voiced after our initial Toolbox announcement.
      Anyway, perpetual fallback license model is really flexible. It’s gives a new version fair run in your particular usage scenarios so you can decide if continuing the subscription makes sense. Additionally, if you maintain 12 month of subscription over the schedule this is effectively old upgrade subscription model.

      • Michael says:

        You got it wrong. After buying 12-months pack I cannot upgrade for the whole 12 months for safety reasons since I don’t know if I will be able to buy another pack after 12 months.
        Otherwise I will have a lot of problems with downgrading to the fallback version.
        So, I will not be able to test your new version.

        • Maxim Shafirov says:

          What kind of problems do you foresee downgrading?
          If it’s about project files or settings, we’ll do our best to keep compatibility both ways.

          • Michael says:

            “What kind of problems you foresee downgrading?” – any kind we don’t see now.
            “If that’s about project files or settings, we’ll do our best to keep compatibility both ways.” – I wish we could trust it. But you can change your mind and leave us with problems to solve on our own.

            • dave says:

              Well, like I posted elsewhere, there is a simple, absolutely no effort on your part, solution to this “problem”.

              Only download the version of Jetbrains that you have a perpetual license for.

              Ignore all the rest. Consider them all early alpha versions of next years product.

              • Michael says:

                And this is a reason I’m asking to stop calling it a “subscription”. There is nothing to “subscribe” to.

              • dave says:

                Michael, you can call it whatever you want. I would suggest “blue”.

              • Michael says:

                You personally can call it whatever you want. But when a company releases a product and wants people to understand what it is, the product name should reflect the content.

              • dave says:

                Well, the primary focus of the license, from JetBrains POV, is one of a subscription, where developers subscribe for X months, and they can use the product for X months.

                However, in an effort to accommodate developers who which to have a perpetual license, they have made that part of the subscription.

                If this description [not “name”] is a problem for you, you must not be able to handle watching advertising on tv.

  162. MuppetGate says:

    One other small thing before I head out for beer and bad food. I’ve always been impressed by the professionalism shown by Jetbrains staff, but over the past two weeks they taken that professionalism to another level.

    They’ve stayed calm and done their very best to answer questions and address concerns, while enduring some really unpleasant comments.

    Impressive stuff. Nicely done.

    Me? I’ll be installing IntelliJ, PyCharm, RubyMine and AppCode as soon as the subs go live.

    For the people who are still not happy … let’s face it; you never wanted to be, did you?

  163. Lazyyninja says:

    Will 0xDBE be offered as a separate IDE under new subscription model with fallback perpetuity licensing? Is there an expected release date yet or an estimate? 2015/16?

    The update to the new model is fair in my opinion and a positive step on behalf of JetBrains to actually listen to customer feedback.

    • Eugene Toporov says:

      Thank you for the feedback!

      There is a plan to release 0xDBE (under some other name) before the end of this year. It will of course be available as a separate IDE under the same model.

  164. trukhinyuri says:

    Awesome! I want to buy upgrade subscription with Jetbrains Toolbox! JetBrains – supercool!

  165. AGM says:

    Every single sucessful company is the same, they start with a great product that will satisfy the customers the way no other available option does, it doesnt matter if its price or features.

    And every single one of them get to the point where they’ve become big enough that they stop thinking what got them there in the first place and they start thinking in just one thing: money.

    Then they start doing things that by no means are under the customers’ best interest, it doesnt matter how many lies you try to come up with, it just isn’t.

    By this time there’s already so many people accustomed to their products that its hard to just move to another tool, because this was the tool that was different than others in the first place!

    So some people quit but most of them keep using it until the next best/different product comes.

    The company doesn’t notice that big dmg immediately because they keep seen growth, not really caring that they were already growing before and it’s not because of this last choice.

    This is that moment, were Jetbrains can decide whether they want to be good because they have a good and accessible product and they care about their customers or they can fck customers up by changing the rules of their product after they had already accepted and make people start looking somewhere else they might not find it right away, but the new neccesity will be there and others will take the chance.

    Fallback license is good, but having to go back to a 12 months old product after you’ve been constantly upgrading for a year is just stupid and prone error. And please face it, there will be errors.

    This not only not in the best interest of your loyal customers its also way worse than the option they had before, when they kept the last upgrade.

    If what you are charging is really not cutting it, which I seriously doubt, charge more, period, don’t go around figuring out stupid models hoping people will not notice that it’s setup with only one thing in mind: that they keep paying every year.

    Yes, as a single programmer I have the choice to not upgrade, but what about a company that just rolls out licenses to their 200 employees ? Do you really think is that easy to control 2 hundred people from upgrading just to avoid issues one year from now?

    I like the product and I just bought a license for myself, I don’t think it’s the best out there but its very good, stills there’s some others that are best are certain things. But it was accessible and I’ve been trying to make the 200 people company I work for, to get it, because there was really no reason not to, its wasn’t that expensive and it had an accessible model. With this change there’s just no way to convince them now because even I can foresee many issues that can come up with this model and to be honest now I just distrust the company to recommend it because it just doesn’t have the best interest of the customer as their priority as it looked like when I first used the product.

    • Minong Akok says:

      +1 Well said AGM. Well said…

    • dave says:

      Actually, yes, it is. If you are part of a company of that size, you already know the pain of developers not using the same tools and the same versions of tools as everyone else on their team, and stuff not working for one person but working for another.

      You WILL have figured out how to get everyone onto the same page, and keep them there, just to make sure that everybody CAN keep working. You will have a well-defined build system, and you will require each developer has to make sure that what they do works with the build system or else that developer has to fix what they do.

      Anything else results in chaos pretty quickly.

      • AGM says:

        You said it yourself, I know the pain, and if you know it too its because you know its NOT easy, otherwise there would be no pain. I didn’t ask if it was possible, I asked if they really think it was easy, and no, its not.

        Now, tools like this are supposed to help with the burdens a developer has to deal with, this weird suddenly fallback to an old version is just moronic and harmful for the developer, it adds an extra burden that is by no means neccesary at all.

        I am not saying they shouldn’t raise their prices, I am not saying they should never change their prices or their model. If they absolutely have to, then raise them. If the raise in price comes with an improvement of the tool we already love cool.

        But this specific part of the new model is totally a setback, its a raise in prices along with a harmful feature, it not an improvement but the opposite.

        There are many ways to do this, they should at least give to option to charge more and keep the last upgrade you get. Options, customer likes to have options, sometimes we end up paying more, but its our choice, not the company’s rigid rules.

        And like I said, this is no different than any other company, but that’s the point I’m trying to make, after this change, they’ll stop being a different company and start becoming the same sh*t all others are.

        • dave says:

          Yes, it is easy.If you have a company with 200 developers, you have a bunch of processes, several of which deal with developer tools. And as part of starting up new projects or even in the middle of projects, there would be a process for determining which versions of which dev tools the project uses and when updating tools is acceptable. Each project will have a bunch of variables as to if and/or when it is appropriate to change the versions of the tools you use. This would be one more factor into what the decision for each project would be.

          The only pain is before you get to this stage, where developers are doing whatever the hell they want, using whatever tools they want to use.

          you can easily have zero problems with having to figure out how to revert back to an older version of the tool. it takes ABSOLUTELY NO EFFORT on the part of any of your development team. stick with the version that you have a perpetual license for, and don’t allow the developers to update the tool.

          Just like any other tool, with any other licensing method.

          • AGM says:

            Agree to disagree.

            I do not have a company with 200 developers, I work for one. I don’t make the process, I constantly try to make management adjust them to help with the chaos, sometimes they listen, sometimes they don’t. It’s usually harder to make them listen when they have to pay. One of the constant suggestions I do is the introduction of this tool, but now not only I have to convince them that the tool is worth the price, I’d have to convince them that somehow this whole weird modeling and extra process to make sure no one upgrades is worth it when I dont even think is worth it myself.

            I want my tools to help me out, to make things and process easier, not to add extra stuff to them and more things to worry about. At least for me, I will not be recommending this to the company I work for anymore.

            • dave says:

              Well, then your company hasn’t really figured out ‘process’ then.

              Eventually the “OMG, I have to use the new version right now” people in your company will cost it enough time and money that someone in authority puts a stop to it.

              What did your project managers do when Microsoft released Windows 10? Did everyone immediately upgrade to it? Did anyone about to do a release upgrade? Or did everyone ignore it [or rather, were explicitly forced to ignore it on their work machines], except for a few people who were explicitly tasked with evaluating how it worked with your existing development tools.

              • AGM says:

                haha I’m sorry dave I dont even know what point you are trying to make anymore. I never said they had figured the process yet, I’ve been saying the exact opposite.

                It’s not only an “OMG I have to have the latest version” attitude you have to look for.

                In a 200 people wide company there’s so many unpredictable things that can happen, not everyone in the company will know about IntelliJ’s special licenses. Any new person can arrive to the company and while everyone’s busy he’ll start trying to figure out his environment and the first thing he’ll try is the IDE, the IDE will give him the option to upgrade and he won’t really think there’s an issue with it, that is just one other thing that can happen.

                Once Again, I am not saying there aren’t ways to control this. I am saying this is not something I or my company is going to want to deal with because there really isn’t a need to do so, it brings absolutely no value to them.

                They’ve been using Eclipse for years without issues, when I even start to tell them they’ll have to control that people don’t upgrade they’ll immediatly stop listening because they don’t think we need this, and we don’t actually need it.

                All I am saying is this part of the new licensing model is harmful, I wouldn’t mind just paying more If I can get rid of this annoyance. Charge me a little more and let me keep the latest upgrade, plain and simple.

                All I want is an option to avoid this annoyance, other than having to pay every single year, because there’s no way I can convince my company of this if they haven’t even tried it.

                In my personal use I’ll just keep my current license and later I’ll see If I upgrade or not. But as for my company goes this change means I will not be able to convince them to use it now. It doesn’t even matter that I’m convinced or not anymore. I doesn’t matter how beautiful or easy the process in your company is. It doesn’t matter anything you say.

                The only thing that matters or what I am trying to say is that this change won’t allow me to convince my company to use it, nothing less, nothing more. That is it, plain and simple.

                If JetBrains don’t care, cool, If they care and they give it an extra thought of giving an option to avoid this annoyance, even better !

                It’s not about me, you or my company’s rights or wrongs, its just simple facts.

              • Maxim Shafirov says:

                > Charge me a little more and let me keep the latest upgrade, plain and simple.
                I said this many times already in the comments: this option exists.

                If you maintain one additional year of your subscription over standard schedule (which existing users get by default with their intro offer) this is effectively becomes current upgrade subscription model.

                Does it work for you?

              • AGM says:

                Maxim, I cannot reply to you because of the nesting, you are not understanding the issue.

                Yes, it will work for first year, but the next year it’ll start getting upgraded to the following year’s version.

                Not only the company still needs to control people from upgrading, it will need to remember to start controlling that one year from now, it’s even worst.

                Like many people have said before, this is not an issue about money, this is what I consider a royalty product, its not a product anyone needs, but it may be worth for some to help them avoid annoyances from other free products making them more efficient.

                This new model adds an annoyance to a royalty product I wanted to avoid annoyances with in the first place, how does this makes any sense?

              • Maxim Shafirov says:

                If you decide to prolong next year the story continues. If you decide not to prolong – that’s firm decision you do not want upgrades anymore. Why even bother downloading versions and upgrading? We’ll make it very visible BTW, which version is under subscription and what is available in perpetuity.

              • AGM says:

                That’s what I am saying, My company will need to control people so they don’t upgrade. Is not that I want to bother upgrading. I want an option that avoids people from upgrading !

                If possible controlled by the license, not by my company’s department, otherwise they’ll just not buy your product.

                I need to be able to tell them:

                “You’ll pay once, and you won’t care anymore and don’t pay anymore unless you want to upgrade later on”

                without the part:

                “And as long as you control you people from upgrading, you’ll never have retro-compatibility issues to care about”.

              • dave says:

                Well, if your development team has to be controlled by external companies DRM, you’ve got bigger, more basic, problems than Jetbrain’s licensing.

              • Maxim Shafirov says:

                So you effectively blame us for providing free year run? Great.

              • AGM says:

                @Dave Once again, I agree with you, my company has way bigger issues than Jetbrains’ new model, I never said any different. That doesn’t change the fact that they will not want to add extra complexity to the issues they already have.

                I am not blaming you for anything, I am pointing out that this model does not work for my company and there are ways that can make it work without changing your new model, just by adding a new option.

                The issue I’ve been saying has nothing to do with money, so the fact that you give something free changes nothing, that’s a cool option for me, 1 developer, but for my company it makes no difference (200 devs), they’ll only hear to things:
                1- It costs money
                2- I have to deal with people not upgrading.

                I’m not saying you are wrong, I am not saying my company is right. I’m merely stating facts, if you care enough you might find a way to fix this issue, if not, that’s fine, I am certaintly not going to stalk you or threaten you. My company will continue without using your product like it has always been and nothing will change, nothing wrong with that.

              • dave says:

                Well, the other solution, if your developers can’t help themselves from using the very latest version of JB’s tools, AND they don’t want to worry about loosing access to the tool because your company stops paying for it, would be for your company to pay in advance.

                So, if you want to use any version of JB’s tools for the next year, in perpetuity, without any need to downgrade if your company misses a payment, is:

                pay JB for 2 years worth of subscription now, then going forward, each year after this, just pay for 1 year subscription.

                You no longer have to worry about using a version of JB’s tools that will expire.

                But now you will go “but that costs money, and my company won’t go for that”

                And it doesn’t include a pony, either.

              • AGM says:

                The solution I’m proposing:

                Charge me more and let me keep the latest upgrade, with no further upgrades.

                The solution you think I’m expecting:
                A Pony.

                It’s been fun talking to you dave, take care =)

              • dave says:

                Guess what. Jetbrains supports your proposal.

                Pay them a extra year’s subscription in advance. Pay them now for 2 years subscription, you can use every upgrade of JB’s tools for the next year forever. Next year and after that, pay them one years subscription, and you can use every upgrade released during that year forever.

                At least that’s my understanding of their licensing scheme.

    • Marcos Antonio says:

      +1 Masterpiece comment.

      I like specially this part:

      “Then they start doing things that by no means are under the customers’ best interest, it doesnt matter how many lies you try to come up with, it just isn’t.”

      So true.

  166. Pingback: – dahinter :: behind » Tweet :: RT @jetbrains: Final update on the JetBrains Toolb…

  167. Minong Akok says:

    I think the new license is really a burden to indie developer. For an example, if the developer only needs a PyCharm IDE and he don’t care about other IDE, the following is the pricing:

    Current license (personal license):
    US $99 (first year) + US $59 (second year) = US $158

    New subscription licensing model (personal license):
    US $89 (first year) + US $71 (second year) = US $160

    Now, if he still want to continue to get updates, he will continue paying the PyCharm’s license:

    Current license (personal license):
    US $158 (1+2 year) + US $59 (3rd year) = US $217

    New subscription licensing model (personal license):
    US $160 (1+2 year) + US $53 (3rd year) = US $213

    You(JetBrains) will say, “See, the developer can save US $4 by using subscription licensing model”.

    I will say, “No, you’re playing trick.”

    You will say, “Why?”

    Here is the answer:
    If the developer do not want to continue paying for the license for the third year maybe because he already satisfy with the existing PyCharm IDE, he can stop paying it.

    But for the 4th year, he thinking to get update again, here is the pricing :

    Current license (personal license):
    US $158 (1+2 year) + US $59 (4th year) = US $217

    New subscription licensing model (personal license):
    US $160 (1+2 year) + US $89 (4th year – the pricing has been reset because he not continuously pay for the subscription ) = US $249

    See? He needs to pay extra US $32.

    And about perpetual fallback license, I do not want to talk about it. I think you just added complexity in your licensing model.

    • Chip says:

      Obviously, there are some situations where the new model is more expensive and there are other situations where the new model is cheaper. Are you really complaining about $32 over 4 years?

      (Not from Jet brains – just a customer )

    • dave says:

      Yes, welcome to Earth. Things change.

      Jetbrains changed their licensing scheme so that you have a financial incentive to maintain a current subscription instead of keeping a subscription every once in awhile.

      You still can get a perpetual license to a quality tool.

      You know the license ahead of time, and you can decide for yourself if you want to:
      1) stop using Jetbrains and pay nothing
      2) keep using Jetbrains and maintaining a continuous subscription and paying something
      3) keep using Jetbrains and having a discontinuous subscription and paying less overall, but more than you did under the old licensing system

      It is not reasonable to expect Jetbrains to never raise their prices. And for the case you presented, it’s not much of an increase, relative to how long they have been keeping prices the same.