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.
-
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 if the server side element is just cloud storage, you should be able to supply your own server.
Then the dev needs to build out a range of protocols and API’s to enable users to “supply their own server”, which can bring a range of additional headaches, like having to provide support for external dependencies outside their control, etc.
What if the users “server” fails? Should the dev waste hours of their life assisting a user with a highly specific Google Drive issue when they spent $5, 3 years ago?
I mean, there are pretty standard protocols for most of the cloud services, like S3 API - the defacto.
Hell, sftp is fine for most stuff. They just want your data.
But the developer doesn’t need to provide support if you opt to use your own data storage and the storage itself fails. And
Google would be the one to contact if Google drive has an issue.
But the developer doesn’t need to provide support if you opt to use your own data storage and the storage itself fails. Google would be the one to contact if Google drive has an issue.
Well yes, but that’s not how your average user thinks and acts. They will either a) contact you as the developer of the app that doesn’t seem to work and when your say it’s not your fault give you bad reviews or b) directly give you bad reviews.
If you’re developing an app that has you provide your own backend then I don’t think you’ll be getting many average users.
You could also hide it in advanced settings to weed out those unwilling to learn and offer users a fee to use your server.
Ultimately the only reason I can think of not wanting people to self host is because you want to make money off having people’s data.
The average user doesn’t work like that, also an average user does not always think he is average. There are many people thinking they are advanced, because they know where settings in Windows or Android are located. You will probably get bad reviews then emails, because quote “your app doesn’t work”. This comment is based on real experiences with Google Play Store and its users, thinking they know what they do.
You clearly haven’t dealt with the “average user”. Get ready for a boatload of idiots who followed some crappy tutorial for “how to get it for free” making a problem for support or review bombing the app when they lose all their data through incompetence.
I’m not putting my data up some random server run by some dev
If it requires a server side element, it incurs an ongoing cost and a subscription can be justified.
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)
deleted by creator
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
deleted by creator
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.
I try to use as much FOSS as is reasonable for my daily usage. For things I use a lot I’ll donate to the developers if they allow it, with the exception of Mesa and Proton since Valve fund their development and I buy games on Steam a good portion of the time.
In general I try to support projects that are made in that open and sharing spirit of the early internet rather than getting baited into more disingenuous traps like what happened with UltimateGuitar.
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.
But a subscription to remove ads? Your app doesn’t need an external server to do that.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Adobe. Anything Adobe. Fuck Adobe.
Finding that Gimp, and Darktable are at least as useful as photoshop and lightroom is really satisfying
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.”
deleted by creator
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.
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.
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.
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.
