9 ms·

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 the

by 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.
- slededit 10y ago
  Funny you mention DOS games, which are one of my earliest examples of bit-rot. A lot of them stopped working with win95/98, and the rest are gone with 64-bit windows. DOS Box can help but there was a period of time when computers were too slow to emulate a DOS machine quickly enough.
  - sangnoir 10y ago
    > Funny you mention DOS games, which are one of my earliest examples of bit-rot The other option is bit-rot and some form of DRM (the only way to enforce subscription) which would make playing the games an impossibility, even with emulators. It's clear to me the non-subscription/non-DRM option is the better one: even with subscriptions, no publisher will last forever.
  - khedoros 10y ago
    Most of my DOS software ran fine on a Windows XP laptop in 2003 (sometimes with the addition of VDMSound to handle FM synthesis emulation). That same laptop will run most of the remainder quickly enough in Dosbox. I've also got a desktop with tech mostly circa 2000. It's got DOS and Windows 98 on it. Among my collection, I haven't found anything that I can't get to run. The hole that I see is during the time shortly after Dosbox's release when its compatibility with software would've been low and before they optimized for speed. It'd be closed up somewhat if we could send the current Dosbox source code back to 2002 ;-)
    - NEDM64 10y ago
      But there, you were lucky to have an open source and free project to help you out. Because without it, you could be 100% sure the developers won't be updating them. Now, lots of games from the late 90's, early 2000's don't work anymore on modern Windows versions. And DOSbox isn't powerful enough to run them. What you do now?
      - khedoros 10y ago
        > What you do now? Me, Personally? I have a Pentium 3 desktop running Windows 98, with a GeForce 4 video card. It's also got a Sound Blaster 16 video card. I consider it my machine to cover an era from the 80s to about 2002, when I can't run the software anywhere else. Actually, I mentioned that machine in my last post. An example piece of software: Rayman 2. I had trouble running it under Windows XP, 7, and Wine in Linux. It won't run in a VM because it requires (I think) DirectX 7 and hardware acceleration. It's a flawed example, though: it's had a few re-releases, including a compatibility fix by GOG for modern Windows versions. A more recent example: Vampire: The Masquerade - Bloodlines. It'll run on more recent versions of Windows, but has trouble with having over 2GB of RAM (or was it 4?) available. Some lovely group logged the system calls and developed a binary patch to allow it to run on modern systems. This illustrates another option: banding together as a community and doing what the publisher won't (or can't). A lot of the posts in this thread (including yours) seem to elevate convenience to the level of a technical requirement. At some high-90s percentage of coverage, that isn't a problem for old software. Every once in a while though, you have to do the inconvenient thing.
- NEDM64 10y ago
  Because resolutions change, for example. And it's the truth of most single player games. Apple is not forcing anyone to adopt this model, and most people won't be comfortable with a subscription based game anyway. However, for MMO's, subscriptions make sense.
berkut 10y ago
The problem with subscriptions is that it allows the app maker to potentially not maintain and improve their app while still earning money. I've been employed by companies (who I've now left) where the management explicitly wanted to move to subscription for this reason: not having to keep adding new features to get customers to buy new versions. (apps were desktop software). That's not to say subscription doesn't make sense - but it's not a complete win for everyone.
- andyfleming 10y ago
  Yeah, that's what's nice about IntelliJ products. You can stop subscribing and are left with a perpetual license for the current version you are on. It provides protection for the stagnation issue you are talking about.
  - conorgil145 10y ago
    This x1000. Just because a piece of software has a subscription does not mean that you automatically lose access to that software if you stop paying. The developer of the software can choose to handle a cancellation any way (s)he deems appropriate. They could cut you off entirely, or they could leave you on the version you have forever with full access, or they could remove features which rely on their servers, or......
  - makomk 10y ago
    Last I heard, IntelliJ actually gave you a perpetual license for the version 12 months behind the current one when you stopped subscribing - with no guarantee it'd even open your current project files. See https://blog.jetbrains.com/blog/2015/09/18/final-update-on-the-jetbrains-toolbox-announcement/ https://blog.jetbrains.com/blog/2015/09/18/final-update-on-t...
  - rbritton 10y ago
    This is the one thing that sold me on recently switching to one of their products. I absolutely refuse to pay Adobe's subscription because I don't get a perpetual license ever.
developer2 10y ago
>> Apple will not force you to subscribe to any apps No, but if the marketplace shifts to 90% of developers using subscriptions in their apps (essentially replacing the existing in-app purchases model), then it was facilitated by Apple as the "preferred" model for monetization. I'm in the same boat as others in the comments. I am willing to pay a subscription for the 2-3 pieces of software that are absolutely core to my daily habits. Beyond those precious few apps, no developer deserves a monthly subscription from me - and they will never suck one out of me. I'm sorry, but too many solo developers think that creating a single app should earn them a $200k/year salary. I've known a couple of these people who think that a single app they worked on for 3 months should set them up for lifetime retirement. The expectations are unreal, and will never be fulfilled no matter the monetization scheme used.
- jkestner 10y ago
  And if the marketplace shifts to 90% subscription apps and users don't want to pay it, then you'll see the marketplace shift again. We may not see it from our perspective, but the pay-once model is not sustainable for many apps - either they'll lose you, or you'll lose them.
  - developer2 10y ago
    >> if users don't want to pay it, then you'll see the marketplace shift again My pessimistic opinion is that within Apple's walled garden, the consumers don't get to choose. If the majority of apps go the subscription route, they will succeed because there is no alternative. Average users won't stop paying because it's subscription; in the grand scheme of things, I suspect my refusal to go along with that model puts me in the minority. I'm a huge fan of Apple hardware/software, but the App Store is not something I ever expect to operate on a set of ideals I agree with. The day they came out with in-app purchases, I figured the days of a model designed for someone like me will never happen.
sangnoir 10y ago
> What is moral is creating a system by which software developers can support themselves by creating products that are useful to the community Speaking as a developer - what kind of entitled, self-important thinking is this? No one owes developers a decent lifestyle or a liveable income. I can't wait till some idiot sells a subscription to a calculator or flashlight app - I say to them GTFO! The app 'industry' is not the first one to deal with product saturation, but somehow we do not have Dishwasher subscriptions (thank goodness). > "... 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. Sadly, all apps 1) non-consumable & non-perishable and 2) most apps are utilitarian and can't really be improved - if they could be, subscriptions wouldn't be necessary as developers would depend on people buying the improved versions as in every other. If Nike sold you an indestructible trainer (including non-wearing sole) that you could buy tomorrow, would you rather buy it outright or pay subscriptions in perpertuity?
- conorgil145 10y ago
  > No one owes developers a decent lifestyle or a liveable income. If the developer cannot make a living by creating an app (or any other piece of software for that matter), why would they bother creating it at all? > If Nike sold you an indestructible trainer (including non-wearing sole) that you could buy tomorrow, would you rather buy it outright or pay subscriptions in perpertuity This is not a great comparison. As was previously mentioned, software like requires updates to continue running correctly (new OS versions, bugs, etc) while a shoe does not require any changes or maintenance. If the shoe fits, then you wear it and that is that. You can do nothing to it and it will continue to work as a shoe forever (especially, if it is indestructible as in your example). However, if you paid once for a piece of software and then do nothing to it for a few years, the chance of it running correctly on your device is close to zero. People should be paid for creating and maintaining software.
  - Nullabillity 10y ago
    > As was previously mentioned, software like requires updates to continue running correctly (new OS versions, bugs, etc) .. not really? There are only so many bugs to fix (and are they really significant enough to be a major hindrance anyway?), and bit rot is a platform problem, not an application problem. And even then, shouldn't users be able to choose whether the "upgrade" is worth it?
WA 10y ago
I run a niche B2C SaaS with a monthly fee. This lets me maintain the product for a long time. If it was a one-off payment, I probably could've closed shop by now. Thing is, all niche products with tiny markets (say, a few hundred or a few thousand users) won't be able to survive in the long run without subscriptions.
- Nullabillity 10y ago
  Obviously SaaS has to be subscription based, since there are the obvious hosting costs per user. But very little software needs to be SaaS, that was a mess you got yourself into in the first place.
  - WA 10y ago
    The hosting cost are virtually nonexistent. I pay 150 bucks a month for a server which handles thousands of users. I don't understand why you'd call this a mess. It's a win-win in my case, since I serve a tiny niche which currently wouldn't be provided with a good solution at all if it wasn't for my subscription based software.
    - Nullabillity 10y ago
      At some point, done is done. If you can't get users to buy your upgrades anymore, then that might be a sign that it's time to move on? It's pretty crazy that people expect to be able to pay themselves indefinitely from charging the same people repeatedly without any improvements to show for it.
      - WA 10y ago
        > At some point, done is done. Only if the rest of the ecosystem doesn't move. If the OS stays the same, APIs, platforms, and the hardware. Then yes, you're eventually done. See, I guess a lot of this discussion stems from what specific examples people have in their mind. Yes, there is obviously software that is done at some point, that doesn't require updates, that can be run forever and is good enough for most people. And there's software that is essentially useless after a few years if you don't upgrade to the newest version. Offering paid upgrades or providing a SaaS are often the same thing, with slightly different billing schedules. Try to use Microsoft Word 2000 in 2016. The software you bought once and "owned" is of no use in 2016, where businesses email .docx files around. I think software ownership is a myth. Almost every product comes with a best-before date. I think the market will reflect precisely this. Some apps will keep one-off-pricing, because it fits the nature of the app. Other apps will use subscriptions. If a subscription-based app doesn't provide enough value to its users, someone will come, make a better product with a lower price point and that's it. > It's pretty crazy that people expect to be able to pay themselves indefinitely from charging the same people repeatedly without any improvements to show for it. I agree, but my assumption is that the software gets continuously improved, because that's what's expected. If software is subscription-based and doesn't appear to be maintained, people will complain and stop using the service.
nojvek 10y ago
The way I look at it is you own the app like you own an apartment but you're paying homeowners association fee to keep the grass trimmed, pathways painted and the pool maintained.
paavokoya 10y ago
Regardless of whatever semantic "morality" you're going on about, this guy is an example of a lost customer. His money won't be going to your "favor" and it does no one a service if no one is buying it.
veidr 10y ago
Subscriptions are immoral, but not for those reasons. It's an immoral business model because its success is based on bilking people -- cheating them into paying for 'service' when they don't want to. The mechanism is simple: the slight inconvenience of cancellation prevents a huge number of users from cancelling as soon as they want to. This is why getting your customers to set up automated and recurring payments is the pot of gold everybody wants (not just in software). You don't have to intend to bilk people if you do subscriptions; it's inherent in your business model. Try putting a confirmation screen in your app that makes the user press "Renew" each month before the app charges them again. That would move you toward the moral end of the spectrum, but it would gut your sales. A $2 per month subscription, even if totally unneeded, is not something most busy people can find the time to deal with cancelling. Pretty soon a year has gone by and your "service" has provided zero value to them but you've ripped them off for $24. (For clarity: I don't mean you personally, and also I do work in subscription-based software. I just don't have any illusions about it and it makes me feel icky.)
- detaro 10y ago
  We'll see how Apples interface will look like. With a centralized marketplace like this they have a perfect opportunity to build interfaces to work against this, the question is if they will. (e.g. nice overviews, options for time-limits, notifications for not-used subscriptions, ...)
  - veidr 10y ago
    Yes, this is something where Apple's own interests and the customer's might be aligned. Even just having a central place to cancel subscriptions is significantly better than having to do it individually -- and Apple almost certainly won't allow developers to get too obnoxious with the 'customer retention' hoops we need to jump through to actually cancel.
    - NEDM64 10y ago
      There's already a place for those cancellations: the home screen. Delete the App, and subscription goes away.
ominous 10y ago
Immoral or not, what is being said is: If I were to buy software X and place it on a box I control, without access to the internet, I expect it -- and its bugs -- to work forever. Ruling out time issues (y2k or similar), I expect notepad.exe (for example) or grep to work forever. I can extract from it all the use I am able to. > If you value a piece of software, then (...) No. Just no. If I value X, I value X. Don't try to con me into doing something else. It is "I value X because something.", not "I value X because I want something else to happen in the future." (in this case, maintain and improve the app). I may want to donate, or buy future products from the same developer, just so I can support him. But if I just value X, no further action is implied. > As far as I'm aware, Apple will not force you to subscribe to any apps. True. In the same way nobody will force you to pay taxes. You are not forced to pay taxes. But you are punished if you don't. You are not forced to use this app model, but you are punished if you don't. (if the current model of buying apps completely migrates to a subscription based one).
- NEDM64 10y ago
  Are you punished because what? Do you really think people like subscriptions? People prefer to pay $50 for a 64GB micro SD card in a store, than $1/mo for 50GB cloud storage. Offering your app for a one time fee is an advantage for the developer.
Spivak 10y ago
> And you don't "own" software you buy and pay for once. What else could ownership possibly mean at that point? The thing that's missing from the app store isn't subscriptions, it's service contracts. * I go down to the store and buy a toaster -- I now own that toaster. Now I don't expect the toaster to last forever, but if the toaster breaks or simply stops functioning after a year I have both contractual and legal recourse to have my toaster replaced or refunded. * When I buy a Windows license I know that I am paying for a guaranteed X years of support. * If I buy an app I'm paying for... well that's the thing, I don't really know. Some apps it's indefinite, some apps it's until the VC funding runs out, some apps it's until the dev is bored with the project, etc.. Worse, since apps are all thin clients now when that support ends the app is useless. > What is moral is creating a system by which software developers can support themselves... Don't kid yourself, no morality went into this decision from Apple's side or any Dev that chooses this monetization path. This is about what people think they can get away with. I think the central point worth debating is this: A customer has a reasonable expectation that a one time purchase guarantees them that an app will continue to function and be maintained^1 for either the lifetime of the service or the lifetime of the device on which it runs^2. ^1 Not necessarily any new features, just continuing to function. ^2 Depending on whether the app is a service or not.

by chasing 10y ago

_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.

slededit 10y ago
Funny you mention DOS games, which are one of my earliest examples of bit-rot. A lot of them stopped working with win95/98, and the rest are gone with 64-bit windows. DOS Box can help but there was a period of time when computers were too slow to emulate a DOS machine quickly enough.
- sangnoir 10y ago
  > Funny you mention DOS games, which are one of my earliest examples of bit-rot The other option is bit-rot and some form of DRM (the only way to enforce subscription) which would make playing the games an impossibility, even with emulators. It's clear to me the non-subscription/non-DRM option is the better one: even with subscriptions, no publisher will last forever.
- khedoros 10y ago
  Most of my DOS software ran fine on a Windows XP laptop in 2003 (sometimes with the addition of VDMSound to handle FM synthesis emulation). That same laptop will run most of the remainder quickly enough in Dosbox. I've also got a desktop with tech mostly circa 2000. It's got DOS and Windows 98 on it. Among my collection, I haven't found anything that I can't get to run. The hole that I see is during the time shortly after Dosbox's release when its compatibility with software would've been low and before they optimized for speed. It'd be closed up somewhat if we could send the current Dosbox source code back to 2002 ;-)
  - NEDM64 10y ago
    But there, you were lucky to have an open source and free project to help you out. Because without it, you could be 100% sure the developers won't be updating them. Now, lots of games from the late 90's, early 2000's don't work anymore on modern Windows versions. And DOSbox isn't powerful enough to run them. What you do now?
    - khedoros 10y ago
      > What you do now? Me, Personally? I have a Pentium 3 desktop running Windows 98, with a GeForce 4 video card. It's also got a Sound Blaster 16 video card. I consider it my machine to cover an era from the 80s to about 2002, when I can't run the software anywhere else. Actually, I mentioned that machine in my last post. An example piece of software: Rayman 2. I had trouble running it under Windows XP, 7, and Wine in Linux. It won't run in a VM because it requires (I think) DirectX 7 and hardware acceleration. It's a flawed example, though: it's had a few re-releases, including a compatibility fix by GOG for modern Windows versions. A more recent example: Vampire: The Masquerade - Bloodlines. It'll run on more recent versions of Windows, but has trouble with having over 2GB of RAM (or was it 4?) available. Some lovely group logged the system calls and developed a binary patch to allow it to run on modern systems. This illustrates another option: banding together as a community and doing what the publisher won't (or can't). A lot of the posts in this thread (including yours) seem to elevate convenience to the level of a technical requirement. At some high-90s percentage of coverage, that isn't a problem for old software. Every once in a while though, you have to do the inconvenient thing.
NEDM64 10y ago
Because resolutions change, for example. And it's the truth of most single player games. Apple is not forcing anyone to adopt this model, and most people won't be comfortable with a subscription based game anyway. However, for MMO's, subscriptions make sense.

berkut 10y ago

The problem with subscriptions is that it allows the app maker to potentially not maintain and improve their app while still earning money. I've been employed by companies (who I've now left) where the management explicitly wanted to move to subscription for this reason: not having to keep adding new features to get customers to buy new versions. (apps were desktop software). That's not to say subscription doesn't make sense - but it's not a complete win for everyone.

andyfleming 10y ago
Yeah, that's what's nice about IntelliJ products. You can stop subscribing and are left with a perpetual license for the current version you are on. It provides protection for the stagnation issue you are talking about.
- conorgil145 10y ago
  This x1000. Just because a piece of software has a subscription does not mean that you automatically lose access to that software if you stop paying. The developer of the software can choose to handle a cancellation any way (s)he deems appropriate. They could cut you off entirely, or they could leave you on the version you have forever with full access, or they could remove features which rely on their servers, or......
- makomk 10y ago
  Last I heard, IntelliJ actually gave you a perpetual license for the version 12 months behind the current one when you stopped subscribing - with no guarantee it'd even open your current project files. See https://blog.jetbrains.com/blog/2015/09/18/final-update-on-the-jetbrains-toolbox-announcement/ https://blog.jetbrains.com/blog/2015/09/18/final-update-on-t...
- rbritton 10y ago
  This is the one thing that sold me on recently switching to one of their products. I absolutely refuse to pay Adobe's subscription because I don't get a perpetual license ever.

developer2 10y ago

>> Apple will not force you to subscribe to any apps No, but if the marketplace shifts to 90% of developers using subscriptions in their apps (essentially replacing the existing in-app purchases model), then it was facilitated by Apple as the "preferred" model for monetization. I'm in the same boat as others in the comments. I am willing to pay a subscription for the 2-3 pieces of software that are absolutely core to my daily habits. Beyond those precious few apps, no developer deserves a monthly subscription from me - and they will never suck one out of me. I'm sorry, but too many solo developers think that creating a single app should earn them a $200k/year salary. I've known a couple of these people who think that a single app they worked on for 3 months should set them up for lifetime retirement. The expectations are unreal, and will never be fulfilled no matter the monetization scheme used.

jkestner 10y ago
And if the marketplace shifts to 90% subscription apps and users don't want to pay it, then you'll see the marketplace shift again. We may not see it from our perspective, but the pay-once model is not sustainable for many apps - either they'll lose you, or you'll lose them.
- developer2 10y ago
  >> if users don't want to pay it, then you'll see the marketplace shift again My pessimistic opinion is that within Apple's walled garden, the consumers don't get to choose. If the majority of apps go the subscription route, they will succeed because there is no alternative. Average users won't stop paying because it's subscription; in the grand scheme of things, I suspect my refusal to go along with that model puts me in the minority. I'm a huge fan of Apple hardware/software, but the App Store is not something I ever expect to operate on a set of ideals I agree with. The day they came out with in-app purchases, I figured the days of a model designed for someone like me will never happen.

sangnoir 10y ago

> What is moral is creating a system by which software developers can support themselves by creating products that are useful to the community Speaking as a developer - what kind of entitled, self-important thinking is this? No one owes developers a decent lifestyle or a liveable income. I can't wait till some idiot sells a subscription to a calculator or flashlight app - I say to them GTFO! The app 'industry' is not the first one to deal with product saturation, but somehow we do not have Dishwasher subscriptions (thank goodness). > "... 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. Sadly, all apps 1) non-consumable & non-perishable and 2) most apps are utilitarian and can't really be improved - if they could be, subscriptions wouldn't be necessary as developers would depend on people buying the improved versions as in every other. If Nike sold you an indestructible trainer (including non-wearing sole) that you could buy tomorrow, would you rather buy it outright or pay subscriptions in perpertuity?

conorgil145 10y ago
> No one owes developers a decent lifestyle or a liveable income. If the developer cannot make a living by creating an app (or any other piece of software for that matter), why would they bother creating it at all? > If Nike sold you an indestructible trainer (including non-wearing sole) that you could buy tomorrow, would you rather buy it outright or pay subscriptions in perpertuity This is not a great comparison. As was previously mentioned, software like requires updates to continue running correctly (new OS versions, bugs, etc) while a shoe does not require any changes or maintenance. If the shoe fits, then you wear it and that is that. You can do nothing to it and it will continue to work as a shoe forever (especially, if it is indestructible as in your example). However, if you paid once for a piece of software and then do nothing to it for a few years, the chance of it running correctly on your device is close to zero. People should be paid for creating and maintaining software.
- Nullabillity 10y ago
  > As was previously mentioned, software like requires updates to continue running correctly (new OS versions, bugs, etc) .. not really? There are only so many bugs to fix (and are they really significant enough to be a major hindrance anyway?), and bit rot is a platform problem, not an application problem. And even then, shouldn't users be able to choose whether the "upgrade" is worth it?

WA 10y ago

I run a niche B2C SaaS with a monthly fee. This lets me maintain the product for a long time. If it was a one-off payment, I probably could've closed shop by now. Thing is, all niche products with tiny markets (say, a few hundred or a few thousand users) won't be able to survive in the long run without subscriptions.

Nullabillity 10y ago
Obviously SaaS has to be subscription based, since there are the obvious hosting costs per user. But very little software needs to be SaaS, that was a mess you got yourself into in the first place.
- WA 10y ago
  The hosting cost are virtually nonexistent. I pay 150 bucks a month for a server which handles thousands of users. I don't understand why you'd call this a mess. It's a win-win in my case, since I serve a tiny niche which currently wouldn't be provided with a good solution at all if it wasn't for my subscription based software.
  - Nullabillity 10y ago
    At some point, done is done. If you can't get users to buy your upgrades anymore, then that might be a sign that it's time to move on? It's pretty crazy that people expect to be able to pay themselves indefinitely from charging the same people repeatedly without any improvements to show for it.
    - WA 10y ago
      > At some point, done is done. Only if the rest of the ecosystem doesn't move. If the OS stays the same, APIs, platforms, and the hardware. Then yes, you're eventually done. See, I guess a lot of this discussion stems from what specific examples people have in their mind. Yes, there is obviously software that is done at some point, that doesn't require updates, that can be run forever and is good enough for most people. And there's software that is essentially useless after a few years if you don't upgrade to the newest version. Offering paid upgrades or providing a SaaS are often the same thing, with slightly different billing schedules. Try to use Microsoft Word 2000 in 2016. The software you bought once and "owned" is of no use in 2016, where businesses email .docx files around. I think software ownership is a myth. Almost every product comes with a best-before date. I think the market will reflect precisely this. Some apps will keep one-off-pricing, because it fits the nature of the app. Other apps will use subscriptions. If a subscription-based app doesn't provide enough value to its users, someone will come, make a better product with a lower price point and that's it. > It's pretty crazy that people expect to be able to pay themselves indefinitely from charging the same people repeatedly without any improvements to show for it. I agree, but my assumption is that the software gets continuously improved, because that's what's expected. If software is subscription-based and doesn't appear to be maintained, people will complain and stop using the service.

nojvek 10y ago

The way I look at it is you own the app like you own an apartment but you're paying homeowners association fee to keep the grass trimmed, pathways painted and the pool maintained.

paavokoya 10y ago

Regardless of whatever semantic "morality" you're going on about, this guy is an example of a lost customer. His money won't be going to your "favor" and it does no one a service if no one is buying it.

veidr 10y ago

Subscriptions are immoral, but not for those reasons. It's an immoral business model because its success is based on bilking people -- cheating them into paying for 'service' when they don't want to. The mechanism is simple: the slight inconvenience of cancellation prevents a huge number of users from cancelling as soon as they want to. This is why getting your customers to set up automated and recurring payments is the pot of gold everybody wants (not just in software). You don't have to intend to bilk people if you do subscriptions; it's inherent in your business model. Try putting a confirmation screen in your app that makes the user press "Renew" each month before the app charges them again. That would move you toward the moral end of the spectrum, but it would gut your sales. A $2 per month subscription, even if totally unneeded, is not something most busy people can find the time to deal with cancelling. Pretty soon a year has gone by and your "service" has provided zero value to them but you've ripped them off for $24. (For clarity: I don't mean you personally, and also I do work in subscription-based software. I just don't have any illusions about it and it makes me feel icky.)

detaro 10y ago
We'll see how Apples interface will look like. With a centralized marketplace like this they have a perfect opportunity to build interfaces to work against this, the question is if they will. (e.g. nice overviews, options for time-limits, notifications for not-used subscriptions, ...)
- veidr 10y ago
  Yes, this is something where Apple's own interests and the customer's might be aligned. Even just having a central place to cancel subscriptions is significantly better than having to do it individually -- and Apple almost certainly won't allow developers to get too obnoxious with the 'customer retention' hoops we need to jump through to actually cancel.
  - NEDM64 10y ago
    There's already a place for those cancellations: the home screen. Delete the App, and subscription goes away.

ominous 10y ago

Immoral or not, what is being said is: If I were to buy software X and place it on a box I control, without access to the internet, I expect it -- and its bugs -- to work forever. Ruling out time issues (y2k or similar), I expect notepad.exe (for example) or grep to work forever. I can extract from it all the use I am able to. > If you value a piece of software, then (...) No. Just no. If I value X, I value X. Don't try to con me into doing something else. It is "I value X because something.", not "I value X because I want something else to happen in the future." (in this case, maintain and improve the app). I may want to donate, or buy future products from the same developer, just so I can support him. But if I just value X, no further action is implied. > As far as I'm aware, Apple will not force you to subscribe to any apps. True. In the same way nobody will force you to pay taxes. You are not forced to pay taxes. But you are punished if you don't. You are not forced to use this app model, but you are punished if you don't. (if the current model of buying apps completely migrates to a subscription based one).

NEDM64 10y ago
Are you punished because what? Do you really think people like subscriptions? People prefer to pay $50 for a 64GB micro SD card in a store, than $1/mo for 50GB cloud storage. Offering your app for a one time fee is an advantage for the developer.

Spivak 10y ago

> And you don't "own" software you buy and pay for once. What else could ownership possibly mean at that point? The thing that's missing from the app store isn't subscriptions, it's service contracts. * I go down to the store and buy a toaster -- I now own that toaster. Now I don't expect the toaster to last forever, but if the toaster breaks or simply stops functioning after a year I have both contractual and legal recourse to have my toaster replaced or refunded. * When I buy a Windows license I know that I am paying for a guaranteed X years of support. * If I buy an app I'm paying for... well that's the thing, I don't really know. Some apps it's indefinite, some apps it's until the VC funding runs out, some apps it's until the dev is bored with the project, etc.. Worse, since apps are all thin clients now when that support ends the app is useless. > What is moral is creating a system by which software developers can support themselves... Don't kid yourself, no morality went into this decision from Apple's side or any Dev that chooses this monetization path. This is about what people think they can get away with. I think the central point worth debating is this: A customer has a reasonable expectation that a one time purchase guarantees them that an app will continue to function and be maintained^1 for either the lifetime of the service or the lifetime of the device on which it runs^2. ^1 Not necessarily any new features, just continuing to function. ^2 Depending on whether the app is a service or not.