5 ms·

> I'm genuinely sorry, but I'm not paying a subscription for an app that doesn't do a lot of back-end work (that's valuable to me) What does count as "a lot of

> I'm genuinely sorry, but I'm not paying a subscription for an app that doesn't do a lot of back-end work (that's valuable to me) What does count as "a lot of back-end work" that's valuable to you? > I know that developers need to earn a living but I'm not willing to sustain it on the back of 10 or 20 or 30 "low annual price of just $9 or $15 or $25 or $49 per year!" subscriptions Why are subscriptions bad and what would your solution to this be?

techsupporter 5y ago
> What does count as "a lot of back-end work" that's valuable to you? By way of examples, something like a weather application or access to content. Weather data is, at least until the end of humanity's existence on Earth, ever-changing and in need of update. > Why are subscriptions bad and what would your solution to this be? Because I do not want to wind up in a situation where an app developer suddenly turns on subscriptions and hides features of an app behind it, on the back of an opaque update. Plus, for most apps I am quite happy to pay for a particular version and be done. (I have no problem with paying for applications.) I want the finality of the transaction, that I've given my $5 or $10 or $20 or what-have-you a single time and our business is done. Application makers have done this since time immemorial, sometimes releasing complimentary bug fixes, other times not. I just don't like the idea that in order to retain access to a program that does all of its work on my device, I have to keep paying rent for it. Like the app at issue here, where it was doing what the user wanted and then poof, a change that cannot be reversed. I also understand that the current model on the app stores is not conducive to one-and-done application purchase transactions. Apple doesn't make it easy to do upgrade-by-version pricing, for example. In-app purchases are available, but they're not (by default, or nearly as widely) sharable on the family-level like outright purchases are.
p2t2p 5y ago
My example is RSS feeds sync. No need for Feedly, Reeder 5 has just landed iCloud support so now it sync through iCloud whatever backend mechanism API it provides and boy was I glad to pay 7.99 AUD for that.
- skinnymuch 5y ago
  Oh that’s nice. I might switch to that.
cgriswald 5y ago
Subscriptions to services are fine. I dislike subscriptions to apps[0] because: 1. If I ever stop paying, I get nothing, no matter how much I've spent on the software over the years. 2. It shifts a lot of the risk of developing the new version onto the customer. I'm paying in advance for the next version, instead of being told what the features are and being able to make an informed decision. If I hate the new version, see (1). 3. It's more winner-take-all. If I'm spending $Y/mo on an app, that's $Y/mo I'm not spreading around to other apps. All-in-all, it feels like a clear win for the developers that 'win', but it feels lose-lose to me as a customer. I get all the joy of (1) and (2), but also I get less variety, both in my own purchases, and probably in available choices in the long run. [0] - To be clear, I'm talking applications which require subscriptions for basic functionality, 'extra' functionality that was clearly removed to push subscriptions, or include useless tacked-on functionality like cloud storage (also clearly to justify a subscription). I'm not talking about apps for which there are recurring costs associated with my continued use of the app. Edit: An addendum: I also like that I don't have a contract that explicitly states what I'm getting for my money each month. Usually it's just access to the app. Then they'll have language about how the subscription allows them to work on new features, offer support, etc. But they're not contractually obligated to provide me with any of that. (I don't have any levers at all, except not giving them more money, which doesn't help much.)
- ModernMech 5y ago
  > 1. If I ever stop paying, I get nothing, no matter how much I've spent on the software over the years. The Zune music service actually had a great fix for this: every month they allowed you to download a couple DRM-free tracks that you could keep forever. So if you ever cancelled, at least you had those tracks. That was nice, but at the same time I disagree that when you stop the service you are left with nothing. In fact, what you got was access to the service. If I ever stop paying for Spotify, I'm left with nothing... except for all the hours I spent listening to and enjoying music on Spotify without ads. Isn't that something?
  - rovr138 5y ago
    I used JetBrain on another comment. I like their license. If I pay for a year, I get to keep access to that version. Regarding Spotify, for Spotify, while yes they have an app, you're mainly for the music streaming from the service. They mention that subscription to services are fine.
8fingerlouie 5y ago
> > I'm genuinely sorry, but I'm not paying a subscription for an app that doesn't do a lot of back-end work (that's valuable to me) > What does count as "a lot of back-end work" that's valuable to you? Perhaps functionality that's not easily recreated using built in tools like shortcuts ? In the case of the app in question, a simple shortcut in the shortcuts app or in i.e. Pythonista that adds a record to a spreadsheet, or even directly to a .csv file, would take <1 hour to write. Another example is apps that provide some kind of backend. Of course keeping infrastructure running is not free. For the app in question it's not providing that.
theshrike79 5y ago
> What does count as "a lot of back-end work" that's valuable to you? Overcast handles a full index of pretty much all podcasts, with specific metadata. For example, it learns how often a podcast updates. Is it a weekly show? If so, what day does it come out on? etc. Just the part where it syncs where I am in each episode is just a bonus, I'm happy to pay for the feed database.

techsupporter 5y ago

> What does count as "a lot of back-end work" that's valuable to you? By way of examples, something like a weather application or access to content. Weather data is, at least until the end of humanity's existence on Earth, ever-changing and in need of update. > Why are subscriptions bad and what would your solution to this be? Because I do not want to wind up in a situation where an app developer suddenly turns on subscriptions and hides features of an app behind it, on the back of an opaque update. Plus, for most apps I am quite happy to pay for a particular version and be done. (I have no problem with paying for applications.) I want the finality of the transaction, that I've given my $5 or $10 or $20 or what-have-you a single time and our business is done. Application makers have done this since time immemorial, sometimes releasing complimentary bug fixes, other times not. I just don't like the idea that in order to retain access to a program that does all of its work on my device, I have to keep paying rent for it. Like the app at issue here, where it was doing what the user wanted and then poof, a change that cannot be reversed. I also understand that the current model on the app stores is not conducive to one-and-done application purchase transactions. Apple doesn't make it easy to do upgrade-by-version pricing, for example. In-app purchases are available, but they're not (by default, or nearly as widely) sharable on the family-level like outright purchases are.

p2t2p 5y ago

My example is RSS feeds sync. No need for Feedly, Reeder 5 has just landed iCloud support so now it sync through iCloud whatever backend mechanism API it provides and boy was I glad to pay 7.99 AUD for that.

skinnymuch 5y ago
Oh that’s nice. I might switch to that.

cgriswald 5y ago

Subscriptions to services are fine. I dislike subscriptions to apps[0] because: 1. If I ever stop paying, I get nothing, no matter how much I've spent on the software over the years. 2. It shifts a lot of the risk of developing the new version onto the customer. I'm paying in advance for the next version, instead of being told what the features are and being able to make an informed decision. If I hate the new version, see (1). 3. It's more winner-take-all. If I'm spending $Y/mo on an app, that's $Y/mo I'm not spreading around to other apps. All-in-all, it feels like a clear win for the developers that 'win', but it feels lose-lose to me as a customer. I get all the joy of (1) and (2), but also I get less variety, both in my own purchases, and probably in available choices in the long run. [0] - To be clear, I'm talking applications which require subscriptions for basic functionality, 'extra' functionality that was clearly removed to push subscriptions, or include useless tacked-on functionality like cloud storage (also clearly to justify a subscription). I'm not talking about apps for which there are recurring costs associated with my continued use of the app. Edit: An addendum: I also like that I don't have a contract that explicitly states what I'm getting for my money each month. Usually it's just access to the app. Then they'll have language about how the subscription allows them to work on new features, offer support, etc. But they're not contractually obligated to provide me with any of that. (I don't have any levers at all, except not giving them more money, which doesn't help much.)

ModernMech 5y ago
> 1. If I ever stop paying, I get nothing, no matter how much I've spent on the software over the years. The Zune music service actually had a great fix for this: every month they allowed you to download a couple DRM-free tracks that you could keep forever. So if you ever cancelled, at least you had those tracks. That was nice, but at the same time I disagree that when you stop the service you are left with nothing. In fact, what you got was access to the service. If I ever stop paying for Spotify, I'm left with nothing... except for all the hours I spent listening to and enjoying music on Spotify without ads. Isn't that something?
- rovr138 5y ago
  I used JetBrain on another comment. I like their license. If I pay for a year, I get to keep access to that version. Regarding Spotify, for Spotify, while yes they have an app, you're mainly for the music streaming from the service. They mention that subscription to services are fine.

8fingerlouie 5y ago

> > I'm genuinely sorry, but I'm not paying a subscription for an app that doesn't do a lot of back-end work (that's valuable to me) > What does count as "a lot of back-end work" that's valuable to you? Perhaps functionality that's not easily recreated using built in tools like shortcuts ? In the case of the app in question, a simple shortcut in the shortcuts app or in i.e. Pythonista that adds a record to a spreadsheet, or even directly to a .csv file, would take <1 hour to write. Another example is apps that provide some kind of backend. Of course keeping infrastructure running is not free. For the app in question it's not providing that.

theshrike79 5y ago

> What does count as "a lot of back-end work" that's valuable to you? Overcast handles a full index of pretty much all podcasts, with specific metadata. For example, it learns how often a podcast updates. Is it a weekly show? If so, what day does it come out on? etc. Just the part where it syncs where I am in each episode is just a bonus, I'm happy to pay for the feed database.