I need help from the QuickHash-GUI user base.
In 2018, I launched a poll to try and determine how many of the users would want (and be willing to pay for) a code-signed version of the QuickHash-GUI executable. The poll suggested a significant percentage would, because they either worked in corporate IT where running unsigned software was tricky. Or they just valued code-signed software more than unsigned software.
So, I bought a code signing certificate from DigiCert for $250 and made code-signed versions available to buy for £1.99. I made the money back, just, but not by a huge majority.
This year I’ve examined the number of downloads of the unsigned software over the signed software. To date there have been about 30K downloads of the unsigned software compared to about 125 signed. That is about 0.4% of the user base of QuickHash-GUI paid £1.99 for the code signed copy.
Well that certificate expired a few months ago, and v3.1.0 of QuickHash is ready for release. But without a new code signing certificate, I can’t make the new version available as a signed release. Digicert now expect nearly $500 for a standard certificate. On the face of it, I don’t think it’s worth me buying another, given the ratio of downloads mentioned above. But then again, it’s nearly a year further on since I last asked the question and I don’t really want my users to not have the choice of getting a code-signed version if they want one.
One solution might be to charge a bit more for it. But then if not that many people bought it at £1.99, how many more will buy it if I charge more like £10? It’s a difficult question to try and guess about, and I don’t really want to be $500 poorer!
So please use the comments below to express your views and let me know what you think. I need the opinions of the users to best answer this one. Shall I just release v3.1.0 with no code signed option? Or shall I buy a new certificate and make code-signed copies available? Let me know folks.