Apps that shouldn't be Subscriptions
What is the most useless app that you have seen being given as a subscription?
For me, I tried a 'minimalist' launcher app for Android that had a 7 day trial or something and they had a yearly subscription based model for it. I was aghast. I would literally expect the app to blow my mind and do everything one can assume to go that way. In a world, where Nova Launcher (Yes, I know it has been acquired by Branch folks but it still is a sturdy one) or Niagara exist plus many alternatives including minimalist ones on F Droid, the dev must be releasing revolutionary stuff to factor in a subscription service.
Second, is a controversial choice, since it's free tier is quite good and people like it so much. But, Pocketcasts. I checked it's yearly price the other day, and boy, in my country, I can subscribe to Google Play Pass, YouTube Premium and Spotify and still have money left before I hit the ceiling what Pocketcasts is asking for paid upgrade.
Also, what are your views on one time purchase vs subscriptions? Personally, I find it much easier to purchase, if it's good enough even if it was piratable, something if it is a one time purchase rather than repetitive.
A watch face for a smart watch.
This one guy made a really popular Android Wear watch face that mimicked the Pixel lockscreen. It only cost a few bucks, and people loved it. Due to some personal things in his life, he had to sell the app to a new developer to make ends meet. The new developer then started charging something like $7/WEEK subscription for a watchface that he didn't even develop in the first place, and runs entirely locally on the device so it's not like he's maintaining any servers or anything.
Absolutely absurd.
What. If that business model actually works for him, something is wrong with this world.
It's the business model of build or buy trust and then exploit it until you're loaded and your former customers all hate you. But you're loaded.
And yeah, there's something wrong with this world.
It does work. People are distracted and are not reading every message correctly. And payment processing in the appstores is also kind of easy - so you might be able to scam a few people into subscribing and they might not notice this directly. You know that you are not checking your credit card bills in details every month. So you can get a nice revenue stream of unsuspecting customers for a few month until you've burned down every little bit of trust and user base you had
This has to be one of the lamest attempts at getting folks to subscribe. I couldn't have imagined that watch faces could also be subscription based in the first place.
I too ran into an Android Wear watch face that mimicked the Pixel lockscreen. However, it was priced X INR(Indian Rupee) per year in my country and was decently cheap. However, I soon ran into another app, which was a one time purchase, that did what it did mainly(sync and show phone and watch battery on each other) and worked on most lock screens. So the latter was a proper kind of app design amd atleast not subscription hell.
There’s only two reasons an app should be a subscription.
The app requires constant server connection that is an active cost to the developer.
The app requires constant updates for maintaining functionality/ relevancy.
There are a few subscriptions I pay for (Nabu casa for one). There’s real merit in the subscription model, but it should only be about 1% of things not 80%.
You could also argue apps that uses some kind of licensed content the app pays for.
I'm not saying I'm a fan of Netflix and Spotify, but they do use alot of money to keep their content available, and not only for server costs.
They still overcharge tho.
Yeah, paying for content streaming is different than simply paying for an app that runs locally. Spotify proved that people will be willing to pay for music, as long as it is easier than piracy. Netflix’s early days (when it was actually a one stop shop for all of the available content) proved the same with TV/movie streaming. They proved that piracy largely isn’t an issue with cost, but rather convenience and accessibility.
But with a local app, that all goes right out the window. There’s no reason you’d need to pay a subscription for an app that runs everything locally and only gets sporadic updates. There isn’t any licensing to worry about, or third party systems to pay off. The only reason to have the subscription in this instance is pure greed.
Any app that doesn’t require any backend to function.
If you ask for a subscription for an app without the need to support a backend… I won’t subscribe. I’ll find something else.
Mostly anything else is fine.
Though, if it’s something like a Note-Taking app where the cloud infrastructure for backups and sharing would cost pennies and you’re asking more than $1 a month, I’m out. Looking at you, Evernote. $64 a year to replace the built-in Notes app? No thanks.
Ok so I don't completely agree... The thing is: mobile apps today have this approach where they don't have "releases", there's one entry on the app store, and if you buy that you usually get updates for as long as it exists.
In the past, computer software always had periodic (usually yearly) releases, which meant that if you bought one version, afterwards you'd have maybe updates for bugfixes and such, but no new features. The result was that the development of new features was paid by people replacing the old version with the new one, because they wanted the improved version.
Nowadays you buy the app and you keep getting new features, sometimes for years, and that development is paid solely thanks to new buyers. Which is cool if you are the customer but it's not great long term for the developer.
That’s true, but it’s also possible to release apps individually on mobile similar to PC releases.
We also currently get the worst of both worlds with stuff like Goodnotes. They had a one-time buy, but currently they’ve injected AI-related nonsense into v6. They allow owners of the previous version to still use v6, but it’s extremely crippled and functionally worse than 4 or 5. Constant nagging about the new version and features. V6 fully replaced v5 on the App Store, so we can’t do anything about it now. Even in my purchase history, my purchase was forcibly “upgraded.”
What I paid for was a digital notebook app that I could write down notes on with my Apple Pencil and iPad. It had a few nice features I didn’t really need, but were nice to have like writing-to-text replacement. It had cloud backups, but they were through iCloud or OneDrive on the user’s individual storage so I’m assuming it didn’t add a monthly cost overhead to the developer.
Now it’s a subscription model app with features I don’t want nor need that completely replaced the app I paid for.
Good notes has an option to revert to v5 and I haven’t had any issues so far staying on v5.
I thought they also had a one time purchase option for v6 but it’s been awhile since I looked.
They did the switch better then notability tried to do. Notability tried to switch otp users to their new plane after a grace period of a year. They caved to backlash and added a legacy plan for older purchasers.
Yeah I think this presents a genuine problem for the active development of apps for smaller developers, for sure.
x
Payroll pretty much always costs more than hosting. Update frequency and quality is a far more useful consideration
I've seen some companies make a valiant effort to make their AWS bill their largest expense, but you're right.
Maybe you can think of the developer like a backend.
the developer's an ass
So companies/indie Devs don't deserve profit. I see
All of them. You should be able to buy a program and its yours.
Disagreed. If it requires a server side element, it incurs an ongoing cost and a subscription can be justified. And to clarify, by "requires", I'm referring to the functionality, not having it shoveled in. And the price should be realistic.
Some apps do this well, Sleep for Android is an example that comes to mind. Free with ads, ad-free is an inexpensive one time purchase. You can also purchase additional plugin apps that add functionality that isn't required or even useful for most people. And finally, they have a cloud plugin app to let you backup your data, you can pay for their cloud subscription which is $2.99 a year, but you can also just use other cloud for storage like Google drive.
But why do that?
You're... Confused why software can require server side features?
Yeah. Not talking about providing a service, that's a different animal (my e-mail provider does it as a hobby on donations). But if you have control over the software and you make it open source anyway, why not make it selfhostable instead? An app bound to a service out of the users control is something with a short live...
For one, lots of software just flat out isn't open source. And plenty of it is far from short lived
Right, i was in a os thread before, my bad. But even then, why have the software run on your server if you can have it in the app? Only reason i see is to bind customers, which you do when you have a business model/income anyway.
For one, things like cloud storage are obviously not particularly viable to have the customer host themselves, on premise.
Secondly, some things can be extremely intensive to process, and thus performed on specialized, high end hardware rather than over hours on whatever shit phone the customer is using
Downvote instead of answer, nice.
I think people don't understand your question, or think it might be sarcastic. So to answer your question: server storage and computation power costs money. Depending on how your app's backend works, this can be cheap or very, very expensive, paid monthly or yearly. It also needs to scale with the number of your clients actively using the backend. Some of us just sit on the costs to give its users a free and ad-less experience with more functions without taking any money (by the thought "I pay for this server anyways, so why not share it"). But it costs me more, if I have more active users and I have to actively compensate this.
But there are also some greedy bastards, taking much more thinking to get rich with a single app (actually met one of this devs)
JetBrains ran aground of this years ago when they introduced a subscription model for their (excellent) software. People (rightly) lost their fricking minds when they heard that if they cancelled their subscription, they'd lose the ability to continue using the software they'd already paid for.
So JetBrains went back and reworked their system so that a cancelled subscription would continue to have the rights to install all the software that existed up to the day of cancellation. Effectively meaning that if v3 came out the day before you cancelled, you can still install and use v3 10 years later.
JetBrains comes to mind as one of the fairest subscription services I know. It also get cheaper the longer you’re subscribed, incentivizing you to to stay subscribed. It’s both smart and user friendly.
The worst one is probably Adobe.
Adobe is the one company i'd never, ever, ever want to support, especially with a subscription. 🏴☠️ all day every day
I love JetBrains.
I do use JetBrains software. If subscriptions all agreed that when you cancel the subscription you can continue to use the latest version before you cancelled, I'd be prepared to consider them. Any software ought to be able to do this except software that uses significant server resources. I'd even consider rent-to-own where you get to keep the software after a certain number of payments. (Splice offers some music software like this.)
Roland have a ton of good software synthesizers but I will never subscribe to them because the moment you stop they take the whole lot away. Even their "lifetime license" requires an active Roland account and the software disappears if you ever close the account or they change their minds. Similarly I haven't used any Adobe software since they went subscription only.
If you want a worse example than Roland, let me tell you about my solitary experience with IK Multimedia. I bought a secondhand hardware synth of theirs off marketplace. Get it home and try to download the software tool to control and update it. It tells me to set up an account, and then lets me download it, awesome. Plug it in and fire up the software, and it tells me I’m not licensed. Wait, what? Search through their support site and it turns out that to transfer the “license” for this piece of hardware you have to pay them $49. Sunk cost fallacy got the better of me at this point and I sent an email through to support asking if I could pay the transfer fee. Nope, only the original owner can transfer the license. I was so immediately turned off it that it sat around as a paperweight for a few months. Ended up selling it to a pawn shop.
Meanwhile, Arturia are the exact opposite. When you buy a digital license of the Arturia V Collection, you own that license. Which includes being able to sell it to someone else, and transfer it to their account for free. I bought a secondhand MIDI controller of theirs, which had some bonus licenses for their software originally included. They transferred the license to me with just a picture of the serial number label. But I could still download and use the software for setting up macros and updating it without doing that.
I hope Arturia don't change. They are one of the most reasonable companies out there when it comes to licensing and pricing.
Licenses for hardware are a concerning trend, because it's unnecessary, and because the terms are never made clear before purchase. I suspect it's mainly there to sabotage the second hand market.
Yeah, I hope they don’t change either. I wouldn’t have been surprised, or particularly disappointed, if they said they wouldn’t transfer the bonus licenses. These weren’t needed to use the device at all. The license was originally for Analog Lab 3, this was a Minilab Mk1, but they’d given free upgrades so the license I got was for Analog Lab V. Having that license meant getting a cheaper upgrade to the V Collection 8. I got a 50% off upgrade to 9 as well, and I just checked now that X is out and they’re offering me the same deal again until late January.
They did deactivate my license for 8 because I’d used it to upgrade to 9, but I think that’s pretty reasonable. You can also absolutely choose to pay the full price and keep the previous version. You can still sell and transfer it too though, and their system will happily let the new owner re-download it. They’ll let you activate the license on an offline computer too, and as far as I can tell, it’s indefinite. You could absolutely take advantage of that, but they don’t punish all of their users because there’s a chance a few are bad actors.
Honestly, in my opinion, they are the platinum standard that software companies across the entire industry should strive to be.
Oh I just remembered another thing. You can buy individual V Collection instruments without ever being worse off. The price of it will be discounted off the full collection. Then, after 4-6 instruments, they’ll just upgrade you to the full ~39 for free. I don’t think even when you could still buy the Creative Suite from Adobe, that they would let you upgrade like that.
(Sorry for the lengthy reply. Arturia is just one of the few companies out there that I will legitimately praise.)
Yeah that was basically the sentiment of the developer community when JetBrains announced the change. Thankfully they heeded the screaming and fixed their model. I've been using JetBrains tools for around 10 years now and they continue to impress. I can't recommend them enough.
Not quite - you get a perpetual license for the version that was released a year before you cancelled your subscription. And for most languages this is not really practical anyway, as they get relatively frequent updates that require IDE updates, so you will just stay subscribed.
This was a fairly low business risk, high PR value move by JetBrains.
Someone linked them up thread and it doesn’t quite work like that. You need to have been using a version for 12 months before that becomes your “fallback license”. So, if v3 came out the day before, your fallback license would only be v2 if you cancelled.
Oh! Good to know. I guess that's there to prevent people from reaping 2 years worth of development for a 1 year fee. That still seems reasonable to me.
Yeah I think so too. They give it to you immediately if you pay for annual too.
Sygic broke trust like that with me . The software is/was excellent and very reasonable, so I bought licences for parts of world and suddenly they made it subscription based app, with ability to keep forever licence for only part of world you bought.
So even though I have fully paid software , i have to pay subscription for the feature of Android Auto and world maps.
It was the list betrayal of trust i have seen. I never used sygic after that at all.
Mobile games for kids are the worst. Those and any self-help mental health apps.
It’s $10 a month to access the features of a basic game that runs on the local device, or the subscription renews weekly, or you can get a 7-day free trial after which it charges you for the entire year. And in the latter case, you usually have to sign up for the free trial before you are allowed to see ANY content.
A cheap subscription makes sense for some things, especially those using cloud based resources. But so much of that business model seems to rely on making money by screwing people that forgot they were paying you.
UltimateGuitar.com
It used to be entirely free and the vast majority of its tablature was uploaded by community members for free.
The app used to be a one-time purchase. Thankfully I did purchase it back then and they grandfathered me in with a lifetime pro membership, but I can't blame the people who would never want to use the site/app when they've effectively paywalled a ton of community content.
Fuck that site. Going there now is like looking at the desecrated corpse of an old friend.
Agreed. I bought the lifetime membership back then and I still have to deal with ads and upsells. Unfortunately they are still the most comprehensive tab source.
Its crazy to think of a subscription for something like community sourced tabs. They're often literal text files. You could host thousands of them off a thumbdrive. :)
What the fuck. I used to go there for tabs all the time when I picked up guitar. Sadly I stopped playing but to hear that that website is all pay walled now is disgusting.
Software as a Service is only a value when the service offers you something that the software on its own cannot do; otherwise it's just rent seeking.
Paying for cloud storage, for continuous content updates (especially news), or a server to process or generate content that can't be done on my device, all fine. Paying for a messaging service to pass my messages to others, or for a game to maintain servers for multiplayer play? No problem.
But a subscription to remove ads? Your app doesn't need an external server to do that. That's rent-seeking. Same with a subscription to unlock widgets or some third-party connection.
A subscription for regular software updates are right on the line for me. In a sane world, the software package you purchase would be provided with some amount of security updates, but you wouldn't have to pay any extra until you decided to purchase the next version for new features. You know, like it was until Adobe decided to upend the industry. (Incidentally, it's weird that Adobe has gone from being the poster child for rent seeking in software to one of the more reasonable companies that's doing software as a service. I still hate that there's no way to get their software without a subscription, but at least they are providing some form of continuous value in the form of continuous updates, as well as fonts and stock images and such.)
On the other end of the spectrum you have something like Minecraft, where my ($20? I don't remember) purchase from over a decade ago is still receiving regular content updates for free, multiple times a year, with no subscription needed. I can pay a subscription fee to get an online realm for myself and my family, but I don't have to because I can also just set up and operate a server myself. More than reasonable.
This is kind of a bad example because the value proposition is different but still very clear - the default version of the app provides a regular income stream to the developers. If you don't like that, you can choose to provide an alternative income stream instead.
It is still unfair because the subscription cost is usually many times more than what the ads will earn for a single user - but it's a matter of quantity at that point, not quality.
The Adobe case is still a much better example, IMO. Yes, they may offer regular content updates worth subscribing for, but their products could still work perfectly well as one-time purchases without access to the content stream. The only reason they didn't is that they don't have enough competition to be worried about customers moving away.
No, I was quite intentional about that example. My assertion remains: if they're not providing regular value, then I don't feel obliged to provide them with regular income.
I don't hope that they go hungry or anything. I just don't think it's my responsibility to subsidize them forever just because they made an app for me once. I've got bills to pay too.
Ok, yeah, upon reflection I think I agree with you.
Adobe. Anything Adobe. Fuck Adobe.
Finding that Gimp, and Darktable are at least as useful as photoshop and lightroom is really satisfying
One-time purchase. If I'm buying something, I want to own it. No compromises. Luckily basically every software that I use is free and open-source so I don't have to worry about that. If I can't find a particular software for a niche usage, I make it.
The best subscription model I have seen so far is for the JetBrains products. They call it the perpetual fallback license.
Quote: "A perpetual fallback license is a license that allows you to use a specific version of software without an active subscription for it. The license also includes all bugfix updates, more specifically in X.Y.Z version all Z releases are included."
This is standard perpetual licensing seen across many software.
One off payment = you get a perpetual license for the major version of the software including all patches for it.
Subscription = you pay a smaller fee than the one off payment per annum. You get all updates and patches. But when you stop paying, you don't get anymore updates or patches and you can lose access to the software.
Yeah i guess you are right. Did not even think about it.
Is that only for certain editors? Because at work, the second I go offline I'm forced to close Idea.
Maybe you use the corporative version? My products don't ask me to close when I'm offline, and even when I'm not logged in with JB account they start asking to log in after some weeks
I dont know really, havent used paid versions of JetBrains products. I was always just eyeing with them.
Microsoft Office.
The subscription service is actually alright for businesses, but for retail users there is no compelling reason for it to be a subscription.
the pricing of '365' is essentially a subscription to cloud storage, whether you use it or not, and getting office 'free' with that sub.
Microsoft only tolerates retail users, it has always intended its products to be for commercial entities.
A subscription to a mobile game that gives more gold when buying gold
Beside mentions of Jetbrains license model, I would like to mention the license model of a note taking app called Agenda[1].
It has a subscription wherein the customer retains the software and all of its functionality even after the subscription expires. One may resume the subscription down the line if they see a new feature worth having.
The creators of the app liken it to a magazine subscription wherein the customer retains the magazines even after the subscription lapses.
From my own experience of using it, I purchased the license for a year back in 2021 and let it lapse as I did not find the any of the new features to be worthwhile. I still keep an eye on their updates as it is my daily driver.
[1] https://agenda.community/t/get-all-features/21
I second that this kind of licence seems very reasonable.
I find subscription licences to be frustrating but kind of reasonable, because those let the developers to focus on improving the product rather than making stuff broken on purpose to make the user pay for an upgrade. But that's really controversial even in my own mind, don't know if there's a good solution but "magazine subscription" licence looks really good
Indeed, it is very reasonable.
It strikes a balance between subscriptions and perpetual licences.
Wow, I wouldn't ever expect this, what a great license model
I too was pleasantly surprised when I stumbled upon the app a few years back. The licence model was a major factor in choosing the app over the rest.
Bitwig Studio also works this way
Products aren't services.
So much bullshit has come from pretending otherwise.
But loans are temporal. That's all that is happening – you're renting out software (akin to digital library borrowing), in some sense, not buying a product.
The problem is how to do it otherwise and maintain enough income to ensure continued active development for future updates.
I don't have a solution to it, and subscriptions aren't ideal, but that's the problem at least.
Geocaching. Like come on.
Awww I had forgotten about that. Now I’m sad.
I do miss it, that changed very much killed my koy for the past time. The alternatives were never as good.
x
$30/yr? $2.50 a month? A hobby that gets you outdoors, exploring nature, exploring cities, learning the history and culture of an area, getting you to spend time with your kids in those same spaces if that's applicable to you isn't worth that?
$10 a month or $50 a year in Canada. Aren't all the caches community created? Where does the $50 a year go?
Well, Canadian costs change the equation, even for me. $10/month is significant compared to $2.50. Caches are community created. But no one would known they were there unless someone published the information. So the money goes to a team of developers working to maintain the app and website, and the API they share with other 3rd parties. They have an office in Seattle as well. They have office staff and a foyer that is maintained for geocachers to visit and earn the find of Geocaching HQ.
In all fairness to Pocket Casts, the yearly cost in the US is $40, which is about the monthly cost of the three things you mentioned together. If your country gives you yearly Google Play Pass, YouTube Premium, and Spotify Premium for less than $40 US, that’s a fucking steal.
In all fuck you to Pocket Casts, Basic App functionality like folders shouldn’t be behind a subscription. I can understand a one-time unlock fee for app functionality or ongoing subscription costs to cover cloud storage and sync capabilities. I cannot fucking understand why folders would cost me $40 US a year.
Apparently it used to be one time payment for Pocketcasts back in the day. They then switched to subscription model. The old users were grandfathered in into the new version, so from today's point of view, they got a steal deal.
I was one of those old purchasers. There was a huge uproar on the subreddit back in the day cause they said everyone who purchased the app before the subscription model would only get like 1 or 2 years of subscription access instead of lifetime. People got so pissed they changed it to lifetime.
And yet it still has a bunch of ads for PC+ littered throughout it. Despite being grandfathered in, I abandoned it earlier this year for Podcast Republic, which hasn't spammed me or locked me out of any features I've tried to play with despite not having paid them anything.
I myself switched to Audiobookshelf. I initially set it up for my wife to have her audio books while traveling but I found it does podcasts and normal epub books really well also.
Me too! Thanks for the info. I was never a part of that community and I have to admit I've been wondering when someone was going to realise my 3 year membership should've finished
The most useless I've ever seen was wallpaper packs for roku for $10/month
Is that why every TV has that god awful purple background photo?
Microsoft Solitaire on Android. The ads were driving me nuts so I went to pay for the app. If I recall they wanted almost 10 bucks a month for that shit. Deleted, forgotten, until now.
Subscription only makes sense if there's an ongoing service, e.g. processing in the cloud, cloud data storage, etc.
Apps that don't need to be subscription:
I would say if you accept subscription services as justifiable, Duolingo is justified. What you’re raising is poor performance, not a reason for it to be purchase only.
Of course, I would be in favor of “the app is free, pay a set price for a language pack” rather than a subscription for premium.
I agree that a lot of subscriptions are really overpriced, but updates to an app are also a sort-of service. Pixelmator explained it quite well when their app switched to a subscription model, mentioning some fair (I think) pros and cons of the succession model, both from the perspective of users and developers.
https://www.pixelmator.com/blog/2022/08/18/why-pixelmator-photo-is-switching-to-subscription-pricing-and-a-sneak-peek-at-pixelmator-photo-for-mac/
YouTube is a weird one, personally. Why shouldn't it have a subscription based service like any other streaming network? Because the content is not created by, funded by, or even necessarily supported by YouTube.
It would make more sense for the subscription to be put upon uploaders to host the content, since their business is hosting the files, not really the content itself.
Now, if they had a better or at least more transparent way of giving the creators a truly fair cut of the monetary gains earned through their videos I would have nothing against YouTube Premium aside from hating that a completely free service has to move to a paid service.
Nope, that would be horrible.
One of the biggest draws of YouTube is that anyone can go and upload their stuff. We literally have youtubers who started out in their rooms with a webcam, and became big because of the quality of their stuff. This would put a barrier of entry for new youtubers to enter.
I don't agree with this. It creates a monetary barrier to starting a new channel. If uploading costs money the number of uploads is going to reduce considerably, no one likes to throw money away.
100% onboard with this. Just like imgur before it went shit in like 2014. Free uploaders get basic hosting, limited to 1080p, 5 min videos, max of ~5gb uploads, low-priority authentication/verification/approval, monetization/in-video advertising not allowed.
Subscription for 1hr videos, 50gb storage, streaming (50hrs/mth) monetization allowed.
Premium subscription for 4k, arbitrary length, 500gb (can be increased as required for additional cost)
Except Google is established. Paying a company that has shown complete disregard for users and privacy and ethics doesn't work.
An upstart? Sure. They don't have a proven track record of being assholes.
Filebot, I like and use the app but it shouldn't be a subscription. You can buy a lifetime license for $48 but it's too expensive for what it is.
Filebot is wildly useful. U cray
I'm with you here. I figure I'll buy the year when I need it. I did the math and figured the lifetime was about 10 years worth. I figured if I end up paying for 10 years worth eventually, they've earned it. Likely something free will come out and I won't need it anymore.
I've mostly stopped using it because I have had no more issues with plex recognizing files now.
Only subscriptions that make sense to me a cloud based ones that can't function at all without access to the internet due to not being able to retrieve content needed to function. Examples that come to mind are netflix and spotify, since even though you can download content to watch or hear offline you need internet to retrieve new content. Means there are hosting costs, and I'm basically paying to not host all that content myself.
But, anything else doesn't make sense to me. If app wants to charge again then they can do another version release, and let people keep using the old version if they want while stopping updates for it. I don't do subscriptions.
The problem with one time purchases is that you might be investing time in an app that later will go out of business. Keeping an app up to date requires real constant work, before you even think of adding features and fixing bugs. People got used to paying 2 bucks for an app and keep it forever. That's completely unsustainable.
But yeah, sure, some companies push it.
On the flip side, this is one of the reasons open source projects can be really great. When a community of people can contribute to something to make it better over time and when people can fix their own problems with an app you can get something really great that can get updates sustainably without a subscription model... Everybody just kind of contributes what they can to get what they want. Of course, maintaining an open source project is work and has its own problems and volunteer contributions aren't necessarily sustainable either and aren't great for large chunks of work... But there is something nice about the model of "everybody contributes to this thing a little to make something better than we'd be able to make on our own," even if that's a bit idealistic in practice, haha.
Yup. I used FOSS apps whenever possible and have contributed to several in the past, both with code and tips. I don't mind having way less "features" as long as the core functionality is there.
It's not like the entire foundation of software and computing and essentially all of Silicon Valley was built upon a non-subscription model. It's completely unsustainable.
Yes, you are totally right. The specific thing we have lost is the right to buy a specific version of an app and forgo future updates.
It was built on yearly releases of software instead, also known as yearly subscriptions.
Those are two blatantly different things. There's nothing wrong with selling new versions of software.
There's everything wrong with removing the ability to use software you paid for unless you continue to actively pay for it.
Except using software without updates nowadays is a very bad idea because of the Internet and security being a real concern.
I don't know much about app design so what work does it take to keep an app up to date and is it possible just to not update it?
On the low end, yearly OS upgrade compliance.
On the high end, dealing with the Kafkaesque whims of the App and Play stores randomly deciding to nuke your app (and thus business) from orbit as an "oopsie"
Specially in mobile, if you don't update your app yearly, it will probably be removed from the store soon. Google and Apple can randomly Review your app and decide that it failed review even if it passed in the past. And fixing it to pass review is often not trivial and can take weeks of work.
Also, with each new version of Android and iOS, your app can stop working or become outdated. The platform API changes frequently.
Finally, if you use any third party libraries in your app, vulnerabilities might be found in the that you'll want to have patched ASAP.
Oh and of course, you need to pay 99$ a year for Appstore access.
Yeah, so many really nice apps that were abandoned since the 99 cent app doesn't pay the development bills.
Pocket Casts has a server component that makes sense you have to pay for, and for the most part the only things you don't get with the free version are the server stuff and a little bit of cosmetic stuff. $40/year for 20GB is a little steep, but the fact that they charge for it doesn't bother me.
With the exception of the folders; that doesn't make sense to me being a Plus-only thing.
All that being said, I bought the app before it went free, so I am grandfathered in to a lifetime Plus plan; but if that hadn't been the case I would not be paying for a subscription today.
Same, I don't think I'd be paying for it otherwise
Duolingo. Why can't I just pay $100 or whatever one time? Languages don't change to the extent that it needs to be a subscription.
They do update the learning material over time as recommendations for teaching the languages changes, plus they do have server costs to keep in mind.
Yeah, the japanese course had a total reboot, I think I lost some progress because of it? It's been years so I don't remember exactly.
Yeah and every update seems worse than the last.
They don't let you at all skip around so I'd never pay. It only gets worse with them.
There really should be a free and open source alternative for Duolingo. I know that there is Librelingo, but that is currently only doing Spanish for English speakers.
If you pretend your a teacher and create a class then you get infinite hearts for free.
Well, there are too many to name, but one that called my attention recently was Battery Guru.... I thought you could buy the app, but it seems that it has only a subscription model? Yeah I'd rather buy it once than having to pay each day, month or year.
Lol, I was actually browsing Mobilism yesterday and came across a modded version of this app, I think. I didn't install it though. I wonder if I should that a try.
I'd say you are going to be fine with the free app, at least I don't see ads as I have AdAway always on lol.
Would you rather drain your battery or your bank account
I chose none 😆
There is BetterBatteryStats and Franco Kernel Manager, AccuBattery and GSam Battery Monitor to track the battery, most tools should exist too.
Anyway, the free version of Battery Guru doesn't bother me in the slightest.
This seems to be the model I've witnessed with many apps over the years. Free at first to get traction and users, then ads, then pay one time fee to get rid of ads, then subscription to keep using the app.
Then there are those that wouldn't even pay a single fee and get upset at the thought as everything should be free.
The part that is upsetting is the contributions the early community made is monetized when they were
theythere for the benefit of the community.I do see there are costs to maintaining and updating these apps so I can understand a need to keep revenue flowing for these future costs. The one time payment is a hell of a deal for years with updates to accommodate the revisions needed for each system update let alone functionality improvements.
In the old days we would buy software for our PC and that was it. There wasn't really any updates or further support for newer versions of Windows. The software would become very insecure or just stop functioning altogether with enough changes to windows.
It's hard to find the right balance. I know I only want to pay once, or heck never, but I want these upgrades and updates too.
Enshittification :(
I have a photography program, that is a "buy once" model, but if you bought it, you can get a subscription for updates on-top. Once you unsubscribe the updates stop, but aren't retracted. I find that to be a very reasonable solution.
Personally, I'd love a "buy this version" option, where you can just pay once, and get a version that doesn't recieve updates, and I could then choose to subscribe to the "live" version from there.
Of course, this would just blow back in company's faces when it comes to the "average" user, who would be a total fucking idiot and harass support about not getting updates they didn't pay for
There’s actually quite a lot of software that monetises similarly to what you’re proposing. DxO and Ableton, just off the top of my head. Millions of happy users between those 2.
You get minor version updates for “free” (included in the one-time purchase). Upgrades to the next major version are discounted. Don’t need the features in the next major version? Stick with what you have for however long it works for you.
It’s by far my favourite model because it allows the developers to get paid, whilst not squeezing my neck. Everyone’s happy.
I generally have little need for paid software since I don't (or more accurately, can't) do any work at home, so it figures I wasn't aware of what's out there lol. The closest thing I use is cracked office. Because yeah, that payment type sounds pretty good, so long as releases are priced reasonably.
I figure a big difficulty is deciding on "major releases" vs rolling incremental development. If they're going to sell major releases, they actually need to be able to consistently make pretty sizable upgrades, and not just "streamlined a couple menus, big fixes" type updates.
Precisely! It keeps them honest. Furthermore, it forces closing the feedback loop with users. Developers need to understand what features users want most, and what bugs or usability issues need to be prioritised. Not listening to feedback means no future revenue, simple as that.
The subscription model does none of that. It’s just a greedy money-grab.
I disagree that major version updates equates to keeping them honest. Not everything needs major overhauls every few years. You can have a perfectly closed feedback loop, and still fail to sell people on buying 5.0.0 when 4.7.12 is still good enough, and recieved the little things that matter.
You fail to sell when you fail to timely implement desirable features. And you fail to prioritise properly when you disregard or misinterpret feedback.
None of this is better mitigated by subscription models.
Are you just talking to hear yourself speak?
I'm a big fan of the way Plex does it. I paid like 100 dollars a decade ago and all my apps stay up to date forever
What's great about it is that it's optional and not forced on you. I'm a Plexamp power user so it makes sense to me with my expansive music collection
Might be a slightly unpopular opinion, but Volumio (software for a raspberry pi to run it as a headless audio system). It's good, it's relatively well maintained and works. But paying 7,50 a month for this software to get multiroom audio, Tidal integration and some other stuff is ridiculously expensive. That's nearly 90 euro a year and the only thing that is actually an addition server side is syncing settings across devices and the Tidal integration (requires license fees iirc).
And sure, I can't buy multiroom speakers for that kind of money, but damn, is it expensive.
I tried Volumio recently, and was prepared to maybe get the paid version if it was as great as it seemed. But the user interface was so god-awful! Absolutely unusable for me. Would never pay for it.
Instead I googled a bit and found Moode - a million times better, and free. Don't remember if it does multiroom audio, but personally I don't need that currently.
That looks good! I think I'll try it out soon, thanks for the tip 🙂
That's more than Duolingo costs and Duolingo is constantly adding new languages
I thought about using it a few years ago but their pricing was just too expensive.
All of them
I generally hate them in consumer-targeted apps. Theoretically, there's nothing wrong with the model. Devs have to keep the lights on, especially if there is a cloud service behind the app. It's all about what pricing model they set. However, pricing is hard. A lot of companies really screw this up right at the start. I also think a lot of businesses cannot resist the temptation to boil the frog and ask for more and more over time, until their pricing is way out of alignment with value delivery.
Don't remember the name but there was a magisk module manager that had ads and didn't even install the modules. Just downloaded them after an ad. It asked money for removing ads
No app should be a subscription
Keeping an app up to date takes time and work. Especially if it needs cloud services (e.g. multiplayer games).
Good luck trying to maintain an app forever if people just pay it once.
Then you're paying for your user account with the cloud services, not the client apps (which you may not even use, e.g. if there is a Web version or a third party client).
A subtle distinction, I know, but it matters.
I don't care
Companies are using subscription models because it has proven to be far more profitable than a one-time purchase. Why sell the product to each person just once when you can sell it to them over and over again? You no longer have to constantly develop new products and versions, and you now only have to maintain your existing product.
And it works because people buy it.
There's was a scanner app that I loved, for Android. Turned into a subscription, even though most people use it less than once a month and even though the app was basically complete and never got updates.
Apps that provide server time either synchronizing data and storing information or providing an api to bring info to the device.
Data intensive apps like windy can charge whatever they need, now MF like Strava pushing an $79/yr for routes is about BS.
FitoTrack on Android and OutRun on IOS are good alternatives. Both are totally free.
I like Tim, he seems like a lovely guy.
a VR app called "Supernatural" that was a fitness based beat saber clone
Adobe CC. They've added new features recently to justify a subscription, but it's still not that good of a pitch. Some editors will have offline PCs so that their software doesn't get fucked up by anything (SUPER common in music), so having a subscription model works against professional users of their software.
Visual Studio. You can buy it for mid- to high-three figures, or you can use the nerfed version of VS Code (or, better yet, VSCodium) for free. In practice, most people pay a monthly subscription and never actually own it.
Yeah the Pocketcasts pricing is stupid as hell. I've been having some issues with Overcast and was looking to switch but there's no way that price is worth it.
I purchased pocketcasts years ago when it was a one time fee and when they moved to a subscription model they gave everyone who purchased a lifetime pass on the subscription model but that rubbed me so wrong I moved away from it. Currently I run Audiobookshelf on my server and have all my podcasts in a library on there. Works really well and I have control over it.
Yeah I've recently gone the self hosted route for video and may go for audio soon too, but not quite there yet. I think for now I can deal with the few minor annoyances I have with Overcast.
What I'd really like to see someone crack is an machine learning prodcast player that can snip out ads. A few of the podcasts I like have gotten fucking insufferable for ads lately.
id rather pay a webhost a monthly fee and host most things i need myself your better of donating/buying a opensorce project /app than pay for a licensen to a company whom enforces always online apps . if possible sadly its not always an option as not all things have an alternative or a lacking
I'm going to go with the unpopular opinion, that all apps should have the subscription support model.
Especially open source apps!
Ideally the code is open, and under GPL or a GPL.
Unless you have a device completely disconnected from the internet, there needs to be constant development, to update libraries, to get security updates, to fix rare but critical bugs. Nobody, and I mean nobody, should be running a binary that never gets updates from 10 years ago, on a device connected to the internet.
I seen a variety of approaches to supporting app development, I think a lot of the pricing is targeted towards the richest people, ignoring the vast majority of the world. For open source apps having the app itself with a nag screen, or a supported version of the app that is just a recurring donation maybe a dollar a month.
All that being said, when the subscription ends, the app should still work at the last version, and the user just assumes the risk of running older software un maintained.
(I'm aware there's ways to mitigate the risk of unmaintained software, running in a very highly protected VM for example...)
Most users can't name a single reason why their programs should update.
They don't see risks in running unmaintained software. The developer does. I could get behind your all-subscriptions ideal, but if the user terminates the subscripition, he should be made unable to keep using the software. Hence why this cannot be the norm with Free software.
If the app doesn't have network access, though, the OS sandbox should be more than sufficient to keep it secure.
A calculator app should be safe to run without updates at least until the OS APIs undergo a breaking changes (which should take several years at least).
As long as somebody is maintaining the software, it really doesn't matter if it's the original developers. If somebody takes the code and rebuilds the software, they are de facto responsible / maintaining it.
Software such as signal, and Molly, mostly because they talk to a central server have minimum version requirements. So if you go too far without updating you can no longer participate.
I think from the internet health perspective, a nag pop up when a software hasn't been updated in it's a 6 months, saying this software is out of date and proposes a security risk, should be sufficient. This could be done by the app store, the operating system, or even the app itself
Wow… lots of people in here bashing the subscription model, but let me point out it’s maybe not as bad as you think…
If you sell a product under a perpetual license model (I.e the one-time purchase model). Once you’ve sold the product, the manufacturer has almost no incentive to offering any support or updates to the product. At best it’s a marketing ploy, you offer support only to get word of mouth advertising of your product which is generally a losing proposition.
Since there’s little incentive to improve the experience for existing customers. Your main income comes from if you can increase your market share which generally means making products bloated often leading to a worse experience for everyone.
If the customer wants support, you need to sell them a support contract. If they want updates you have to make a new version and hope the customer sees enough additional value to be worth upgrading. Either way we’re back to a subscription model with more steps, more risk, and less upside than market expansion so it takes a backseat.
If you want to make a great product without some variation on a subscription. You need to invest heavily upfront in development (which most companies don’t have the capital to do, and investors generally won’t invest in unproven software)
From a product perspective, you don’t know if you’ve hit the mark until people start using your product. The first versions of anything but the most trivial of products is usually terrible, because no matter how good you are, half to three quarters of the ideas you build are going to be crap and not going to be what the customers need.
Perpetual licensing works for a small single purpose application with no expectation of support or updates.
It works for applications with broad market needs like office software.
For most niche applications, subscription models offer a better experience for both the customer and the manufacturer.
The customer isn’t facing a large transition cost to switch to a competitor’s product like they would if they had to buy a perpetual license of it, so you have a lot more incentive to support and improve your product. You also don’t see significant revenue if the customer that drops your service a couple months in… even more reason to focus on improving the product for existing customers.
People ought hate the idea of paying small reoccurring fees for software instead of a few big upfront costs. But from a business model perspective, businesses are way more incentivized to focus on making their products better for you under that model.
Lots of words and lots of assumptions. You can improve a product and release another version with a paid upgrade, while the old version remains completely functional. If your works have made the software substantially better, people will be happy to pay for a new version. If you aren't adding real value, having the last version should not be necessary.
Updates can both add real value, but not be worth piecemealing out as separate purchases.
Your biggest assumption is that you don't have the drive to better a product if you don't have a subscription model. It's simply not true. You can and in fact must work to better your product if you want to stay relevant in the market and drive your customer to pay for a new version of your software.
Then, you proceed by describing the positives of a subscription model. While you're not wrong about those points, you are leaving out the negatives and forgetting that every business model would have symmetrical points to be made.
There are some context in which subscription model are suited for or in fact even necessary, but the harsh reality is that now every software is turning into a subscription model only for two reason: you can extract 10x 100x more money for your customer, and you can lock-in them in order to keep them paying. This has proven to be detrimental for the quality of the softwares too: software loose interoperability and compatibility, updates are so frequent and gimmicky that they can be a problem, etc etc.
Totally fair if you don’t like the subscription model.
But I am genuinely curious what you think I’m making assumptions about.
This sounds almost identical to the script our former VP of PM parroted. Everyone in engineering was vehemently opposed. But the C suite loved it, so we switched to a subscription model. Guess what, NEMs and govt clients don’t like paying subscriptions. No one does, but these are huge, powerful business entities we’re talking about here. You can’t force their hand. We lost 3 of our 4 biggest clients within 6 months. It took a massive amount of work to reverse course.
Just admit it. Subscriptions are nothing more than a blatant money grab. We (the SW industry) have been successfully releasing software and making fucktonnes of money for decades before some bean counter decided to get too greedy and come up with this bullshit.
I will absolutely give you that transitioning an established mature product to the subscription model is usually a terrible idea. Plenty of examples of that going horribly wrong.
As for subscriptions being a “blatant money grab” that definitely happens sometimes… notably when there’s a mature product with a dominating market share. The company already captured most of the market share, so they can’t get much more revenue from new customers, existing customers are satisfied with the version they have so they’re not buying any updates. Sales go down and someone comes along say just make it a subscription and keep milking the cash cow forever…. Yep, I admit it, that totally happens. The enshitification ensues.
But none of that’s the fault of the subscription model per se.
The same subscription model that becomes the incumbent’s downfall, is what creates a market opportunity for a new competitor.
A new competitor can coming in with a new product that was built with a subscription model from the start. The competitors product is cheap to try for a month, cheap to switch to with no big upfront costs. The newcomers can generally react much faster to customers needs than the incumbent. (Not because of the model, they can because they’re smaller)
Established software companies doing blatant money grabs happen all the time. Hell most of us are here using Lemmy because Spez attempted a blatant money grab on Reddit. Had nothing to do with the model.
Subscription model gets a lot of hate because greedy companies tried to use it as a blatant money grab exactly as you described. But it doesn’t have to be that way.
Subscription models make it easier for newcomers entering a space, which is good for consumers. It’s more compatible with agile development methodologies because you don’t need wait until you’ve bundled enough features together to market it as a new version worth upgrading to. It’s in your best interest to ship new features immediately as they’re developed.
It’s totally fair of you don’t like the model.
But the model itself isn’t the problem.
Shitty companies being greedy will always happen.
Fair enough. I think us and everyone else on this thread can definitely agree on that last point, at the very least. 🫡
I don't want or need continuous updates.
I want to buy something and have it be left alone without trying to steal more money from me for the thing I already bought.
The only possible valid excuse for a subscription to software is services that cannot possibly exist without meaningful spending on server infrastructure. If that's cloud storage as the core of the purchase of the app, computations that are literally impossible to do locally or rely on data that's expensive to maintain, a subscription is legitimate.
If it's anything else it's shitty and you're a shitty person for doing it. Sell actual upgrades when they're actually upgrades, without stealing access to what people bought. It's the only acceptable model.