12 ms·

I think the mindset change that needs to happen is this: Apps are a service. I would actually prefer to pay developers of apps that are truly useful to me a m

by chasing 10y ago

I think the mindset change that needs to happen is this: Apps are a service. I would actually prefer to pay developers of apps that are truly useful to me a monthly amount so I know they can continue to update and improve the app. If an app saves me $1000/yr in headache, I'd prefer to spend $30/yr on a subscription rather than lose the app entirely because the developers can't keep the lights on.

mhurron 10y ago
> Apps are a service. We used to call that webpages.
- glhaynes 10y ago
  Throughout the history of computing, a ton of software has been licensed under a service/subscription model. There's nothing special about the web in this respect.
  - mhurron 10y ago
    Throughout the history of the iPhone, iOS apps have been replacing activities that were done on webpages.
    - treebeard901 10y ago
      You make a very important point. There was a time when the community pushed back against the idea of a web that was subscription based, similar to the cable company model. It seems to be more palatable if we replace web pages with apps in this scenario. On the other hand... if a subscription model will dial back the reliance on advertisement income, and by extension the privacy invasion that comes along with the advertisement model, maybe it will be a net positive. If we continue to have excessive privacy invasions to support ad revenue and have to pay a subscription on top of that, then it will be extremely unfortunate. EDIT: a word
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
strgrd 10y ago
I think the mindset change that needs to happen is this: Operating systems are a service. I would actually prefer to pay developers of operating systems that are truly useful to me a monthly amount so I know they can continue to update and improve the OS. If an OS saves me $1000/yr in headache, I'd prefer to spend $30/yr on a subscription rather than lose the OS entirely because the developers can't keep the lights on.
bad_user 10y ago
There aren't many apps that can save you 1000/year. I keep hearing this, but that's nonsense. If a "service" is not producing money and isn't saving you time allowing you to produce money, then it's not worth paying for. Yes, I have subscriptions for IntelliJ IDEA, for Dropbox, for FastMail and for a DigitalOcean VPS. All these are producing money for me. But the list ends here. Because here's the thing: $5/month here, $10/month there and pretty soon we're talking about serious money. Not only that, but as soon as you stop paying for whatever reason (eg temporary financial problems) you're out. Of course, with our oversized salaries, we stop noticing that $5/month for a passwords app is actually expensive. And that's actually a good example because a passwords app at least has some utility. More importantly, subscriptions are immoral because the end result is robbing users of any sense of ownership. And as a software developer, you no longer feel compelled to innovate, to improve, in order to convince users to upgrade. I for one hate renting things, I prefer ownership.
- chasing 10y ago
  I want to address two things, here: 1) You're absolutely right: Pricing matters. If I charge you $10/mo for my app that sends you a text message every time there's a full moon, that would be way too expensive and you'd be well within your rights as a consumer to spend your money on something else. As far as I'm aware, Apple will not force you to subscribe to any apps. 2) "... subscriptions are immoral..." Bullshit. And you don't "own" software you buy and pay for once. Operating systems change. Companies and developers come and go. If you value a piece of software, then you value the developer and should desire that they maintain and improve the app. What is moral is creating a system by which software developers can support themselves by creating products that are useful to the community. I'd say the App Store is currently broken in that regard (with a few high-profile exceptions). If popularizing subscription-based pricing will help fix that, I'm all in favor.
  - _delirium 10y ago
    Operating systems change, and companies/developers come and go, but not all software really needs ongoing maintenance, and some of it really can work indefinitely. I still have DOS games I legally purchased in the 1990s that run fine today. Why shouldn't that be true of mobile games? If the company stops updating the game, fine, but I should still be able to play it in 5 years if I bought it. Or at least, legally be able to; if it stops working for technical reasons, fair enough. I think the shift away from that is more to do with business models than technology— even book publishers have been trying to move from a sale to rental model.
zanny 10y ago
Then use free software and make regular donations to the developer, rather than paying someone to deny you the software freedoms to A. audit the code you run B. make modifications you want, either yourself or through the services of third party developers and C. have options if the lights go out, where you can then pay someone else to maintain critical software for you. Putting all your eggs in one basket is generally considered a bad business model, and the same easily applies to software. Free software does not need to just be ethical to be useful, it is also highly pragmatic.
Nullabillity 10y ago
> If an app saves me $1000/yr in headache, I'd prefer to spend $30/yr on a subscription rather than lose the app entirely because the developers can't keep the lights on. Sounds like Apple is still too incompetent to care about backwards compatibility. In a reasonable world, stuff running locally on your device would keep working, regardless of what happened to the original developers.
yoodenvranx 10y ago
> Apps are a service. So each month we are now going to pay for Netflix, Spotify, Dropbox, Github, Amazon Prime and a bunch of apps...
- Sgt_Apone 10y ago
  A real subscription fatigue is already setting in for me and others that I know. I really don't want to add to that list...
- rconti 10y ago
  I live by the motto that MRCs (Monthly Recurring Costs) are the devil.
- Androider 10y ago
  If you enjoy those services... yes? If not, feel free not to! I love and subscribe to all of the above, they provide me with capabilites that were simply not available before, such being able to stream any song I can imagine instantly. Heck, I'd happily pay 5x the current Netflix price if it was more like Spotify in terms of coverage.
addicted 10y ago
What happens if a developer bumps the price of their service that you rely on from $10/mo to $100/mo? At least if I purchase an app I can continue using it for a significant amount of time and look for an alternative. A subscription makes this much harder.
- mmcconnell1618 10y ago
  The article points out that changes in the subscription price will prompt a user to accept. If they take no action the subscription is cancelled automatically. So as a developer, changing your price could have a big attrition rate for current subscribers.
  - reqctomaniac 10y ago
    Yes, but if your customers have a lot of valuable data in your service, cancelling would make them loose that data. You can technically use this to extort money from your users. Not a viable business plan in the long run, for sure, but there are plenty of businesses that would try, I think.
nitrogen 10y ago
> Apps are a service. No. Flat out no. If I spend $x0 or $x00 for an app to create something (music, code, mechanical drawing, whatever), I darn well better be able to access my music/code/drawing at any point in the future, even if the maker of the app has gone out of business.
- Androider 10y ago
  Many, perhaps even most, popular mobile apps have some sort of online component that will surely stop working if the business is closed. And apps made for an OS two releases back or more regularly seem to stop working if not updated. I know I've certainly got paid apps that simply do not work at all anymore. This is not a new phenomenon. Try running a game made for Windows XP or even Photoshop 6.0 on Windows 10, it likely doesn't work even in the backwards compatibility modes. Companies like GoG.com have made it a successful business to take old beloved games and make it convenient to play on today's machines, and I'm a happy customer of theirs even though I also own the originals in many cases. The way I see it, the software was sold to work to work in a certain environment and period of time, and I'm free to try to keep it running best I can. But I'm certainly not entitled to demand that the software developers keep supporting me forever simply because I paid once. Therefore I strongly prefer subscription models for the software that I regularly use, as it's the only model that aligns both my and the developer's incentives in the long run.
  - nitrogen 10y ago
    I disagree with the subscription model helping in the long run, because with a flat fee model, you at least have a chance of keeping the old version running. If I like something and the developers add new features, I'll buy the upgrades to get new features; that's how developer incentives can align with mine.
    - Androider 10y ago
      A subscription model doesn't automatically exclude running old versions after you stop the subscription, see for example the IntellIJ by Jetbrains model. The "available in the next version" effect of one-time purchased software creates bad incentives for the developers to exclusively focus on new features even if they're gimmicks, because that's the only thing that brings in the money. As a customer, I literally cannot give them money (except gifting copies to friends) just to keep polishing what they have even if that's exactly what I'd like them to focus on. I've found that after Adobe switched to Creative Cloud, and Jetbrains to their yearly subscriptions, I've benefited as a customer of Photoshop and IntelliJ respectively by both more rapid releases of genuinely useful features, not in big-bang releases but constantly over time, and that they've stepped up their general polish in the products. Photoshop CC is SO MUCH BETTER these days than the always buggy yearly releases of the past, because they don't have to cram 51 new crap features in every 12 months! A developer with a subscription model doesn't have the constant feature pressure, and can work on what the majority of current customers values most, and some times that is just bug fixing and polish.
r00fus 10y ago
I like the idea of game apps as a service - I'd love to be able to get a steady stream of games/updates for games I play regularly... I know I've gotten way more out of, say, Carcassonne than I feel I've paid, and that's for the game that has incremental IAP/DLC (as opposed to P2W which I avoid like the plague). There are other games that I play all the time where I'd be happy to pay a bit every mo/yr to ensure content/fixes keep flowing.
- iaskwhy 10y ago
  I can play Carcassonne every day for 3 months in a row, dozens of games a day, but I also had 6 months without playing at all or very rarely. I bought all the extensions too. I don't think I would subscribe, I don't like this anxious urge of needing to do something because I'm paying for it. That's why I don't subscribe to cinemas or services like Netflix. I want to be as free as possible to decide what to do in my free time and having a subscription removes some of this freedom.
Angostura 10y ago
> I would actually prefer to pay developers of apps that are truly useful to me a monthly amount so I know they can continue to update and improve the app. Whereas I would prefer to pay for a useful app... and then if they develop in ways that I find attactive, pay some more for the improvements. With the subscription model, they have absolutely no incentive to ' continue to update and improve the app'

by chasing 10y ago

mhurron 10y ago

> Apps are a service. We used to call that webpages.

glhaynes 10y ago
Throughout the history of computing, a ton of software has been licensed under a service/subscription model. There's nothing special about the web in this respect.
- mhurron 10y ago
  Throughout the history of the iPhone, iOS apps have been replacing activities that were done on webpages.
  - treebeard901 10y ago
    You make a very important point. There was a time when the community pushed back against the idea of a web that was subscription based, similar to the cable company model. It seems to be more palatable if we replace web pages with apps in this scenario. On the other hand... if a subscription model will dial back the reliance on advertisement income, and by extension the privacy invasion that comes along with the advertisement model, maybe it will be a net positive. If we continue to have excessive privacy invasions to support ad revenue and have to pay a subscription on top of that, then it will be extremely unfortunate. EDIT: a word

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

strgrd 10y ago

I think the mindset change that needs to happen is this: Operating systems are a service. I would actually prefer to pay developers of operating systems that are truly useful to me a monthly amount so I know they can continue to update and improve the OS. If an OS saves me $1000/yr in headache, I'd prefer to spend $30/yr on a subscription rather than lose the OS entirely because the developers can't keep the lights on.

bad_user 10y ago

There aren't many apps that can save you 1000/year. I keep hearing this, but that's nonsense. If a "service" is not producing money and isn't saving you time allowing you to produce money, then it's not worth paying for. Yes, I have subscriptions for IntelliJ IDEA, for Dropbox, for FastMail and for a DigitalOcean VPS. All these are producing money for me. But the list ends here. Because here's the thing: $5/month here, $10/month there and pretty soon we're talking about serious money. Not only that, but as soon as you stop paying for whatever reason (eg temporary financial problems) you're out. Of course, with our oversized salaries, we stop noticing that $5/month for a passwords app is actually expensive. And that's actually a good example because a passwords app at least has some utility. More importantly, subscriptions are immoral because the end result is robbing users of any sense of ownership. And as a software developer, you no longer feel compelled to innovate, to improve, in order to convince users to upgrade. I for one hate renting things, I prefer ownership.

chasing 10y ago
I want to address two things, here: 1) You're absolutely right: Pricing matters. If I charge you $10/mo for my app that sends you a text message every time there's a full moon, that would be way too expensive and you'd be well within your rights as a consumer to spend your money on something else. As far as I'm aware, Apple will not force you to subscribe to any apps. 2) "... subscriptions are immoral..." Bullshit. And you don't "own" software you buy and pay for once. Operating systems change. Companies and developers come and go. If you value a piece of software, then you value the developer and should desire that they maintain and improve the app. What is moral is creating a system by which software developers can support themselves by creating products that are useful to the community. I'd say the App Store is currently broken in that regard (with a few high-profile exceptions). If popularizing subscription-based pricing will help fix that, I'm all in favor.
- _delirium 10y ago
  Operating systems change, and companies/developers come and go, but not all software really needs ongoing maintenance, and some of it really can work indefinitely. I still have DOS games I legally purchased in the 1990s that run fine today. Why shouldn't that be true of mobile games? If the company stops updating the game, fine, but I should still be able to play it in 5 years if I bought it. Or at least, legally be able to; if it stops working for technical reasons, fair enough. I think the shift away from that is more to do with business models than technology— even book publishers have been trying to move from a sale to rental model.

zanny 10y ago

Then use free software and make regular donations to the developer, rather than paying someone to deny you the software freedoms to A. audit the code you run B. make modifications you want, either yourself or through the services of third party developers and C. have options if the lights go out, where you can then pay someone else to maintain critical software for you. Putting all your eggs in one basket is generally considered a bad business model, and the same easily applies to software. Free software does not need to just be ethical to be useful, it is also highly pragmatic.

Nullabillity 10y ago

> If an app saves me $1000/yr in headache, I'd prefer to spend $30/yr on a subscription rather than lose the app entirely because the developers can't keep the lights on. Sounds like Apple is still too incompetent to care about backwards compatibility. In a reasonable world, stuff running locally on your device would keep working, regardless of what happened to the original developers.

yoodenvranx 10y ago

> Apps are a service. So each month we are now going to pay for Netflix, Spotify, Dropbox, Github, Amazon Prime and a bunch of apps...

Sgt_Apone 10y ago
A real subscription fatigue is already setting in for me and others that I know. I really don't want to add to that list...
rconti 10y ago
I live by the motto that MRCs (Monthly Recurring Costs) are the devil.
Androider 10y ago
If you enjoy those services... yes? If not, feel free not to! I love and subscribe to all of the above, they provide me with capabilites that were simply not available before, such being able to stream any song I can imagine instantly. Heck, I'd happily pay 5x the current Netflix price if it was more like Spotify in terms of coverage.

addicted 10y ago

What happens if a developer bumps the price of their service that you rely on from $10/mo to $100/mo? At least if I purchase an app I can continue using it for a significant amount of time and look for an alternative. A subscription makes this much harder.

mmcconnell1618 10y ago
The article points out that changes in the subscription price will prompt a user to accept. If they take no action the subscription is cancelled automatically. So as a developer, changing your price could have a big attrition rate for current subscribers.
- reqctomaniac 10y ago
  Yes, but if your customers have a lot of valuable data in your service, cancelling would make them loose that data. You can technically use this to extort money from your users. Not a viable business plan in the long run, for sure, but there are plenty of businesses that would try, I think.

nitrogen 10y ago

> Apps are a service. No. Flat out no. If I spend $x0 or $x00 for an app to create something (music, code, mechanical drawing, whatever), I darn well better be able to access my music/code/drawing at any point in the future, even if the maker of the app has gone out of business.

Androider 10y ago
Many, perhaps even most, popular mobile apps have some sort of online component that will surely stop working if the business is closed. And apps made for an OS two releases back or more regularly seem to stop working if not updated. I know I've certainly got paid apps that simply do not work at all anymore. This is not a new phenomenon. Try running a game made for Windows XP or even Photoshop 6.0 on Windows 10, it likely doesn't work even in the backwards compatibility modes. Companies like GoG.com have made it a successful business to take old beloved games and make it convenient to play on today's machines, and I'm a happy customer of theirs even though I also own the originals in many cases. The way I see it, the software was sold to work to work in a certain environment and period of time, and I'm free to try to keep it running best I can. But I'm certainly not entitled to demand that the software developers keep supporting me forever simply because I paid once. Therefore I strongly prefer subscription models for the software that I regularly use, as it's the only model that aligns both my and the developer's incentives in the long run.
- nitrogen 10y ago
  I disagree with the subscription model helping in the long run, because with a flat fee model, you at least have a chance of keeping the old version running. If I like something and the developers add new features, I'll buy the upgrades to get new features; that's how developer incentives can align with mine.
  - Androider 10y ago
    A subscription model doesn't automatically exclude running old versions after you stop the subscription, see for example the IntellIJ by Jetbrains model. The "available in the next version" effect of one-time purchased software creates bad incentives for the developers to exclusively focus on new features even if they're gimmicks, because that's the only thing that brings in the money. As a customer, I literally cannot give them money (except gifting copies to friends) just to keep polishing what they have even if that's exactly what I'd like them to focus on. I've found that after Adobe switched to Creative Cloud, and Jetbrains to their yearly subscriptions, I've benefited as a customer of Photoshop and IntelliJ respectively by both more rapid releases of genuinely useful features, not in big-bang releases but constantly over time, and that they've stepped up their general polish in the products. Photoshop CC is SO MUCH BETTER these days than the always buggy yearly releases of the past, because they don't have to cram 51 new crap features in every 12 months! A developer with a subscription model doesn't have the constant feature pressure, and can work on what the majority of current customers values most, and some times that is just bug fixing and polish.

r00fus 10y ago

I like the idea of game apps as a service - I'd love to be able to get a steady stream of games/updates for games I play regularly... I know I've gotten way more out of, say, Carcassonne than I feel I've paid, and that's for the game that has incremental IAP/DLC (as opposed to P2W which I avoid like the plague). There are other games that I play all the time where I'd be happy to pay a bit every mo/yr to ensure content/fixes keep flowing.

iaskwhy 10y ago
I can play Carcassonne every day for 3 months in a row, dozens of games a day, but I also had 6 months without playing at all or very rarely. I bought all the extensions too. I don't think I would subscribe, I don't like this anxious urge of needing to do something because I'm paying for it. That's why I don't subscribe to cinemas or services like Netflix. I want to be as free as possible to decide what to do in my free time and having a subscription removes some of this freedom.

Angostura 10y ago

> I would actually prefer to pay developers of apps that are truly useful to me a monthly amount so I know they can continue to update and improve the app. Whereas I would prefer to pay for a useful app... and then if they develop in ways that I find attactive, pay some more for the improvements. With the subscription model, they have absolutely no incentive to ' continue to update and improve the app'