5 ms·

I actually stopped using apps which went from paid to subscription, like Ulysses and Gemini. In some cases, doing so actually helped me find better and sometime

I actually stopped using apps which went from paid to subscription, like Ulysses and Gemini. In some cases, doing so actually helped me find better and sometimes even free alternatives that I can theoretically count on practically forever (e.g. Quiver and good old TextEdit+Git as Ulysses' replacement.) Why? I just find it offensive and predatory. If vastly more complex products of Pixelmator/Affinity's quality can remain on a pay-once model, then a goddamn text editor can too. Don't give me your pity post about how not switching to a monthly subscription will cause children on the moon to starve etc. It feels like a thin veil upon what often just seems like basic greed. An optional yearly upgrade model (a major version jump) is also fine, and has been the most common case throughout computing history. I would even be fine with IAPs presented as completely optional donations. In fact, pay-once + donate-if-you-want would be my preferred model for things like Pixelmator that are still providing free updates for years after my initial purchase. I'd love to effectively repurchase many times over to support something that I appreciate and use regularly, but at my own pace please, without ever having to worry about being locked out.

masklinn 7y ago
> I actually stopped using apps which went from paid to subscription, like Ulysses and Gemini. In some cases, doing so actually helped me find better, free alternatives that I can theoretically count on practically forever. Seems to me "I don't pay for it at all" would be the exact opposite of "count on practically forever". > If vastly more complex products of Pixelmator/Affinity's quality can remain on a pay-once model Unless they can keep expanding their userbase forever, they can't and don't over the long term (though a relatively high initial price helps there). Historically this sort of software has relied on "major version" sales to keep revenue flowing e.g. you'd buy version 2, then would buy version 3 for a reduced price, there would be churn (and buying version 2 would entitle you to using it forever) but there's a point at which continuous work requires continuous pay. Many software houses have switched to subscriptions not because that's fun, but because upgrade pricing was not an option (AFAIK it's available from neither Apple nor Google) and "pay once" is not a sustainable model. > An optional yearly upgrade model (a major version jump) is also fine. That's a good model, but AFAIK no appstore caters to it. You can do either subscriptions or "only get money once", the latter only works for software which is essentially not maintained like video games (and even that's not really the case anymore).
- servercobra 7y ago
  Apple does support upgrade pricing, though mostly as a hack using App Bundles and the Complete My Bundle pricing. For example, upgrading GoodNotes: https://support.goodnotes.com/hc/en-us/articles/360000124915-I-have-already-paid-for-GoodNotes-4-How-can-I-download-GoodNotes-5-for-free- https://support.goodnotes.com/hc/en-us/articles/360000124915...
  - masklinn 7y ago
    Bundles are an interesting hack around store limitations. When did apple implement bundles?
    - Razengan 7y ago
      You keep saying "hack" when all these are advertised, publicized, and officially supported features of the App Store. They literally touted them at various WWDCs.
      - masklinn 7y ago
        > You keep saying "hack" when all these are advertised, publicized, and officially supported features of the App Store. As the proper and official way to implement upgrade pricing?
      - servercobra 7y ago
        I saw them touted as ways to bundle apps together under one price, but never heard anything about using it for version upgrades. But I may have missed that, I've never been to WWDC just watched keynotes and some of the dev talks.
- Razengan 7y ago
  > there's a point at which continuous work requires continuous pay. The majority of software has been pay-once (not counting major version upgrades) throughout the history of software, and still is. I just mentioned some major examples: Pixelmator and Affinity, along with Astropad, CrossOver, DaisyDisk, Duet, Final Cut, Motion, Path Finder, Pixen, SiteSucker, Textual, Unarchiver, to name a few from my Applications folder, and also the vast majority of games. > That's a good model, but AFAIK no appstore caters to it. Acorn 4: https://apps.apple.com/us/app/acorn-4-the-image-editor-for-humans/id634108295?mt=12 https://apps.apple.com/us/app/acorn-4-the-image-editor-for-h... Acorn 5: https://apps.apple.com/us/app/acorn-5-the-image-editor-for-humans/id1019272813?mt=12 https://apps.apple.com/us/app/acorn-5-the-image-editor-for-h... Acorn 6: https://apps.apple.com/us/app/acorn-6-image-editor/id1233861775?mt=12 https://apps.apple.com/us/app/acorn-6-image-editor/id1233861... You may not be able to view the product pages for Acorn 4 & 5, but they show up in my purchase history and I can still redownload them. There are other examples like that. If a company chooses to keep its older versions on display they could.
blihp 7y ago
Applications like Pixelmator are likely depending on the growing userbase of the Apple ecosystem for their own growth. Should they ever see that growth stall out, expect them to move to subscriptions as well. Also, they have 'disabled' their (pre-app store) apps at least once in the past: I got the original Pixelmator as part of one of the old 'good forever' Humble Bundles and it stopped functioning when they (i.e. Pixelmator) turned off their old license validation server. That's not to pick on them exclusively: everyone who wants to make a living writing software needs a recurring revenue stream. Even open source developers are starting to get tired of leeches (though it's more on the corporate side in that situation. But barring corporate sponsorship, the revenue is going to have to come from somewhere...)
- Razengan 7y ago
  > * Applications like Pixelmator are likely depending on the growing userbase of the Apple ecosystem for their own growth.* What about Affinity? > expect them to move to subscriptions as well. > everyone who wants to make a living writing software needs a recurring revenue stream. Why is preying on your current users and pulling a bait-and-switch on them the only option? If the continued development of a pay-once/optional-yearly-upgrade product really is unsustainable for you, branch out into more products. Or review your expenses. You don't have to live in San Francisco or replace all your computers with the latest Mac Pro. It's like, "Oh no our single product cannot sustain our extravagances/desired lifestyle, so let's flay our existing flock some more instead of attracting new customers or creating new/better products." That only delays your demise, because the users will definitely review their expenses.
- jakobegger 7y ago
  > everyone who wants to make a living writing software needs a recurring revenue stream You can have a recurring revenue stream with pay once software. Every day, hundreds of thousands of new people are born who don't have a license yet! It's really easy to make the same amount of money with pay once licenses compared to subscriptions: just take the average number of months that someone uses your app, multiply with monthly price, make that the "pay once" price, done! Now you have the same revenue but don't need to charge for subscriptions, and you get all the money up front!
rstuart4133 7y ago
I don't mind paid subscriptions in principle. If I *using the app I want it to be around for a long time. That ain't going to happen unless it's written by some open source idealist (which is the ideal situation - think Signal), or the author makes some money out of it. The used to charge $5..$10 for an app. I love that to change to $5 plus $1/year thereafter. I'm not going to notice the $1, and if they have 100K users they've got an excellent reason to maintain it. But that isn't what has happened. Instead the price has dropped to free, but the subscription has gone up $20/yr. I'm not paying that. I got along perfectly fine without the app before. I am somewhat perplexed anybody does pay that, but I guess there must be some out there that do.
- Razengan 7y ago
  Another thing that some proponents of subscriptions don't seem to get, is that pay-once software competes with each other only once; when I decide what to purchase first. I could buy App A now and buy App B later. But subscription-based apps/services compete with each other every single month; they are constantly at risk of me cancelling a subscription – and realizing that I can live without it after all – whenever I review my needs and finances.
m-p-3 7y ago
I switched from Evernote to Joplin, and also sponsors the developer on GitHub. At least I'm fully in control of my data now.

masklinn 7y ago

> I actually stopped using apps which went from paid to subscription, like Ulysses and Gemini. In some cases, doing so actually helped me find better, free alternatives that I can theoretically count on practically forever. Seems to me "I don't pay for it at all" would be the exact opposite of "count on practically forever". > If vastly more complex products of Pixelmator/Affinity's quality can remain on a pay-once model Unless they can keep expanding their userbase forever, they can't and don't over the long term (though a relatively high initial price helps there). Historically this sort of software has relied on "major version" sales to keep revenue flowing e.g. you'd buy version 2, then would buy version 3 for a reduced price, there would be churn (and buying version 2 would entitle you to using it forever) but there's a point at which continuous work requires continuous pay. Many software houses have switched to subscriptions not because that's fun, but because upgrade pricing was not an option (AFAIK it's available from neither Apple nor Google) and "pay once" is not a sustainable model. > An optional yearly upgrade model (a major version jump) is also fine. That's a good model, but AFAIK no appstore caters to it. You can do either subscriptions or "only get money once", the latter only works for software which is essentially not maintained like video games (and even that's not really the case anymore).

servercobra 7y ago
Apple does support upgrade pricing, though mostly as a hack using App Bundles and the Complete My Bundle pricing. For example, upgrading GoodNotes: https://support.goodnotes.com/hc/en-us/articles/360000124915-I-have-already-paid-for-GoodNotes-4-How-can-I-download-GoodNotes-5-for-free- https://support.goodnotes.com/hc/en-us/articles/360000124915...
- masklinn 7y ago
  Bundles are an interesting hack around store limitations. When did apple implement bundles?
  - Razengan 7y ago
    You keep saying "hack" when all these are advertised, publicized, and officially supported features of the App Store. They literally touted them at various WWDCs.
    - masklinn 7y ago
      > You keep saying "hack" when all these are advertised, publicized, and officially supported features of the App Store. As the proper and official way to implement upgrade pricing?
    - servercobra 7y ago
      I saw them touted as ways to bundle apps together under one price, but never heard anything about using it for version upgrades. But I may have missed that, I've never been to WWDC just watched keynotes and some of the dev talks.
Razengan 7y ago
> there's a point at which continuous work requires continuous pay. The majority of software has been pay-once (not counting major version upgrades) throughout the history of software, and still is. I just mentioned some major examples: Pixelmator and Affinity, along with Astropad, CrossOver, DaisyDisk, Duet, Final Cut, Motion, Path Finder, Pixen, SiteSucker, Textual, Unarchiver, to name a few from my Applications folder, and also the vast majority of games. > That's a good model, but AFAIK no appstore caters to it. Acorn 4: https://apps.apple.com/us/app/acorn-4-the-image-editor-for-humans/id634108295?mt=12 https://apps.apple.com/us/app/acorn-4-the-image-editor-for-h... Acorn 5: https://apps.apple.com/us/app/acorn-5-the-image-editor-for-humans/id1019272813?mt=12 https://apps.apple.com/us/app/acorn-5-the-image-editor-for-h... Acorn 6: https://apps.apple.com/us/app/acorn-6-image-editor/id1233861775?mt=12 https://apps.apple.com/us/app/acorn-6-image-editor/id1233861... You may not be able to view the product pages for Acorn 4 & 5, but they show up in my purchase history and I can still redownload them. There are other examples like that. If a company chooses to keep its older versions on display they could.

blihp 7y ago

Applications like Pixelmator are likely depending on the growing userbase of the Apple ecosystem for their own growth. Should they ever see that growth stall out, expect them to move to subscriptions as well. Also, they have 'disabled' their (pre-app store) apps at least once in the past: I got the original Pixelmator as part of one of the old 'good forever' Humble Bundles and it stopped functioning when they (i.e. Pixelmator) turned off their old license validation server. That's not to pick on them exclusively: everyone who wants to make a living writing software needs a recurring revenue stream. Even open source developers are starting to get tired of leeches (though it's more on the corporate side in that situation. But barring corporate sponsorship, the revenue is going to have to come from somewhere...)

Razengan 7y ago
> * Applications like Pixelmator are likely depending on the growing userbase of the Apple ecosystem for their own growth.* What about Affinity? > expect them to move to subscriptions as well. > everyone who wants to make a living writing software needs a recurring revenue stream. Why is preying on your current users and pulling a bait-and-switch on them the only option? If the continued development of a pay-once/optional-yearly-upgrade product really is unsustainable for you, branch out into more products. Or review your expenses. You don't have to live in San Francisco or replace all your computers with the latest Mac Pro. It's like, "Oh no our single product cannot sustain our extravagances/desired lifestyle, so let's flay our existing flock some more instead of attracting new customers or creating new/better products." That only delays your demise, because the users will definitely review their expenses.
jakobegger 7y ago
> everyone who wants to make a living writing software needs a recurring revenue stream You can have a recurring revenue stream with pay once software. Every day, hundreds of thousands of new people are born who don't have a license yet! It's really easy to make the same amount of money with pay once licenses compared to subscriptions: just take the average number of months that someone uses your app, multiply with monthly price, make that the "pay once" price, done! Now you have the same revenue but don't need to charge for subscriptions, and you get all the money up front!

rstuart4133 7y ago

I don't mind paid subscriptions in principle. If I *using the app I want it to be around for a long time. That ain't going to happen unless it's written by some open source idealist (which is the ideal situation - think Signal), or the author makes some money out of it. The used to charge $5..$10 for an app. I love that to change to $5 plus $1/year thereafter. I'm not going to notice the $1, and if they have 100K users they've got an excellent reason to maintain it. But that isn't what has happened. Instead the price has dropped to free, but the subscription has gone up $20/yr. I'm not paying that. I got along perfectly fine without the app before. I am somewhat perplexed anybody does pay that, but I guess there must be some out there that do.

Razengan 7y ago
Another thing that some proponents of subscriptions don't seem to get, is that pay-once software competes with each other only once; when I decide what to purchase first. I could buy App A now and buy App B later. But subscription-based apps/services compete with each other every single month; they are constantly at risk of me cancelling a subscription – and realizing that I can live without it after all – whenever I review my needs and finances.

m-p-3 7y ago

I switched from Evernote to Joplin, and also sponsors the developer on GitHub. At least I'm fully in control of my data now.