7 ms·

Just what I need. Another subscription service. Happy New Year

howdydoo 5y ago
Logseq pricing: > Both the desktop and web app don't and will not require a commercial license for both personal usage and company usage, as long as if the data are stored locally and doesn't use our server. https://opencollective.com/logseq/contribute/free-tier-30673 https://opencollective.com/logseq/contribute/free-tier-30673
iamstupidsimple 5y ago
People seem to prefer subscriptions to expensive one-time purchases... What's a developer to do?
- dceddia 5y ago
  I wonder if this is actually true. Or maybe if it was, I wonder if the tide is changing. It seems there's more and more "subscription fatigue" these days (parent's reply is a good example). I sell a one-time-purchase Mac app and I've had multiple customers tell me "I wouldn't have bought if it was a subscription" - and this is for an app that saves people hours a week on video editing, what would seem like the prototypical example of a "recurring need". I think people are just tired.
- bavent 5y ago
  Do they? Or do MBAs prefer it? I definitely prefer buying something and actually owning it rather than essentially rent things for forever.
  - iamstupidsimple 5y ago
    Logseq is indie, not a corporation. The author has a profile on HN: https://news.ycombinator.com/user?id=tiensonqin https://news.ycombinator.com/user?id=tiensonqin. I don't blame them for their business model.
    - bavent 5y ago
      I think the way they do the model is the ideal. You want to use their servers? You pay your rent. You want to not use their servers? Then you just use the local app.
- simonebrunozzi 5y ago
  What? Where's the evidence? My 0.02: people feel the exact opposite. People hate subscriptions, people hate not having control over something that they feel has been "purchased".
  - austhrow743 5y ago
    The evidence is all the companies moving to subscriptions and not back. It’s searching app stores and seeing all the non subscription prices being <$20.
    - fredoliveira 5y ago
      Well that's no evidence. That's just the market adjusting to aim for the higher margin model. Doesn't mean this is what users prefer – it just means this is what the companies behind the apps (and thus making the $) prefer.
      - austhrow743 5y ago
        If companies just increased their prices that would mean higher margins as well.
    - approxim8ion 5y ago
      That's poor evidence, considering some of the first movers to this new model were people who ensured their services were going to be used irrespective of what their pricing model was, and then everyone else following without providing an alternative. Where's a consumer to go?
    - latexr 5y ago
      Companies move to subscriptions because it’s more lucrative to them, not because customers prefer it.
      - austhrow743 5y ago
        What else could prefer mean in this case other than that people are willing to pay more money when it’s a subscription? Of course people rather pay $10 x 1 than $10 x some number greater than 1. They rather pay $10x1 than $100x1 as well. All else being equal people prefer to pay less for things. When more are willing to pay $10x20 than $100x1 I don’t know what you’d call that other than expressing a preference.
- brnt 5y ago
  > People seem to prefer subscriptions to expensive one-time purchases Said no-one ever...
- diffeomorphism 5y ago
  That does not seem to be the case, at all. For example, people complained very loudly about not being able to buy photoshop anymore. Any time office365 is discussed, again people complain. People seem to hate subscriptions. What is true instead is that people are forced into subscriptions because one-time purchases are just not offered anymore.
  - vertis 5y ago
    As I mentioned on a thread, one-time purchases are a lie we tell ourselves anyway, and every version of Office or Photoshop (pre subscription). You still have to pay for the newest version with the support for new hardware/OS and features.
    - latexr 5y ago
      You do not have to pay for the newest version. I know plenty of people who are several versions behind on Adobe apps because they are enough for their needs and they cannot afford new ones. Those same people can’t afford the newest hardware and are fine with not upgrading their OS to be able to use their apps.
      - vertis 5y ago
        Right, it was a massive generalization. However, I highly doubt those people are using Windows 98 (insert other example), and they probably did at some point (depending on age, ecosystem etc). They may well not be using the 'most current' version of the software, and I can think of a few pieces of software where that's been the case for me too. Either because I don't use it enough to justify the upgrade, or I actively object to being fleeced again for essentially the same product that's been "updated". But eventually, if they want to continue doing the task they'll end up paying for a new version. Unless it's open source, it's always under the control of the product creator, and their incentives are always going to be on extracting money, and indeed they need to, to continue supporting the software. In the Apple Ecosystem, the move to M1 Macs is an example that will force people to pay for upgrades. Buying it once and riding it as long as possible is undoubtly cheaper than subscriptions, however it's still got a lifespan that eventually requires the next payment.
haswell 5y ago
What is your preferred/proposed monetization strategy? I see this comment or some variation of it every time a new product is shared here that has such a model. What I rarely if ever see is a proposal for how the developer should make money instead of a subscription. Very often, especially for hosted apps, the alternative is not better.
- Jedd 5y ago
  Not parent, but ... > I see this comment or some variation of it every time a new product is shared here that has such a model. I observe something similar, but we seem to have drawn different conclusions. > What I rarely if ever see is a proposal for how the developer should make money instead of a subscription. At the risk of sounding trite, I think people who find subscriptions unpalatable would be happy with anything that isn't a subscription. These could be offered in parallel, so subscription-averse consumers have an alternative to evaluate. A one-off payment is the obvious and most simple choice -- wrap some limits or caveats around data / transit usage if needed. Freemium option may work in some cases (I think there's sufficient successful examples to validate this as viable). (Only) enterprise users pay. Tier the offerings to protect yourself from the heavy eaters. I don't think expressing fatigue at the relentlessness of subscription-ONLY services is invalid.
  - haswell 5y ago
    I think a one time payment is great when you’re selling a standalone app, but for online services, I don’t think there are many options beyond a subscription or possibly some kind of pay-as-you-go model, the latter of which has a whole host of other issues. I don’t think it’s invalid to express fatigue at the model, but as feedback on a specific app/service here, it’s a bit tired without at least some kind of suggested alternative. And truly I get it - I too have far too many subscriptions to things, but putting myself into the devs shoes, I get why it’s a prevailing approach these days.
    - vertis 5y ago
      One-time payments for Apps are a lie we tell ourselves anyway. There will always be another version, and the new version with have that feature we need (or support for new hardware). Like you, I find the attitude about subscriptions frustrating. "Wants to be paid but doesn't want to pay". And yes, it's possible that the person objecting lives outside capitalist society and contributes an enormous volume to open source (or other volunteering), but statistically less likely. I can see the benefit of bundling (e.g. Setapp), so that you're not killed by a million tiny subscriptions, but people need to be paid for their work, so one way or another money needs to flow to the creator.

Logseq pricing: > Both the desktop and web app don't and will not require a commercial license for both personal usage and company usage, as long as if the data are stored locally and doesn't use our server. https://opencollective.com/logseq/contribute/free-tier-30673 https://opencollective.com/logseq/contribute/free-tier-30673

iamstupidsimple 5y ago

People seem to prefer subscriptions to expensive one-time purchases... What's a developer to do?

dceddia 5y ago
I wonder if this is actually true. Or maybe if it was, I wonder if the tide is changing. It seems there's more and more "subscription fatigue" these days (parent's reply is a good example). I sell a one-time-purchase Mac app and I've had multiple customers tell me "I wouldn't have bought if it was a subscription" - and this is for an app that saves people hours a week on video editing, what would seem like the prototypical example of a "recurring need". I think people are just tired.
bavent 5y ago
Do they? Or do MBAs prefer it? I definitely prefer buying something and actually owning it rather than essentially rent things for forever.
- iamstupidsimple 5y ago
  Logseq is indie, not a corporation. The author has a profile on HN: https://news.ycombinator.com/user?id=tiensonqin https://news.ycombinator.com/user?id=tiensonqin. I don't blame them for their business model.
  - bavent 5y ago
    I think the way they do the model is the ideal. You want to use their servers? You pay your rent. You want to not use their servers? Then you just use the local app.
simonebrunozzi 5y ago
What? Where's the evidence? My 0.02: people feel the exact opposite. People hate subscriptions, people hate not having control over something that they feel has been "purchased".
- austhrow743 5y ago
  The evidence is all the companies moving to subscriptions and not back. It’s searching app stores and seeing all the non subscription prices being <$20.
  - fredoliveira 5y ago
    Well that's no evidence. That's just the market adjusting to aim for the higher margin model. Doesn't mean this is what users prefer – it just means this is what the companies behind the apps (and thus making the $) prefer.
    - austhrow743 5y ago
      If companies just increased their prices that would mean higher margins as well.
  - approxim8ion 5y ago
    That's poor evidence, considering some of the first movers to this new model were people who ensured their services were going to be used irrespective of what their pricing model was, and then everyone else following without providing an alternative. Where's a consumer to go?
  - latexr 5y ago
    Companies move to subscriptions because it’s more lucrative to them, not because customers prefer it.
    - austhrow743 5y ago
      What else could prefer mean in this case other than that people are willing to pay more money when it’s a subscription? Of course people rather pay $10 x 1 than $10 x some number greater than 1. They rather pay $10x1 than $100x1 as well. All else being equal people prefer to pay less for things. When more are willing to pay $10x20 than $100x1 I don’t know what you’d call that other than expressing a preference.
brnt 5y ago
> People seem to prefer subscriptions to expensive one-time purchases Said no-one ever...
diffeomorphism 5y ago
That does not seem to be the case, at all. For example, people complained very loudly about not being able to buy photoshop anymore. Any time office365 is discussed, again people complain. People seem to hate subscriptions. What is true instead is that people are forced into subscriptions because one-time purchases are just not offered anymore.
- vertis 5y ago
  As I mentioned on a thread, one-time purchases are a lie we tell ourselves anyway, and every version of Office or Photoshop (pre subscription). You still have to pay for the newest version with the support for new hardware/OS and features.
  - latexr 5y ago
    You do not have to pay for the newest version. I know plenty of people who are several versions behind on Adobe apps because they are enough for their needs and they cannot afford new ones. Those same people can’t afford the newest hardware and are fine with not upgrading their OS to be able to use their apps.
    - vertis 5y ago
      Right, it was a massive generalization. However, I highly doubt those people are using Windows 98 (insert other example), and they probably did at some point (depending on age, ecosystem etc). They may well not be using the 'most current' version of the software, and I can think of a few pieces of software where that's been the case for me too. Either because I don't use it enough to justify the upgrade, or I actively object to being fleeced again for essentially the same product that's been "updated". But eventually, if they want to continue doing the task they'll end up paying for a new version. Unless it's open source, it's always under the control of the product creator, and their incentives are always going to be on extracting money, and indeed they need to, to continue supporting the software. In the Apple Ecosystem, the move to M1 Macs is an example that will force people to pay for upgrades. Buying it once and riding it as long as possible is undoubtly cheaper than subscriptions, however it's still got a lifespan that eventually requires the next payment.

haswell 5y ago

What is your preferred/proposed monetization strategy? I see this comment or some variation of it every time a new product is shared here that has such a model. What I rarely if ever see is a proposal for how the developer should make money instead of a subscription. Very often, especially for hosted apps, the alternative is not better.

Jedd 5y ago
Not parent, but ... > I see this comment or some variation of it every time a new product is shared here that has such a model. I observe something similar, but we seem to have drawn different conclusions. > What I rarely if ever see is a proposal for how the developer should make money instead of a subscription. At the risk of sounding trite, I think people who find subscriptions unpalatable would be happy with anything that isn't a subscription. These could be offered in parallel, so subscription-averse consumers have an alternative to evaluate. A one-off payment is the obvious and most simple choice -- wrap some limits or caveats around data / transit usage if needed. Freemium option may work in some cases (I think there's sufficient successful examples to validate this as viable). (Only) enterprise users pay. Tier the offerings to protect yourself from the heavy eaters. I don't think expressing fatigue at the relentlessness of subscription-ONLY services is invalid.
- haswell 5y ago
  I think a one time payment is great when you’re selling a standalone app, but for online services, I don’t think there are many options beyond a subscription or possibly some kind of pay-as-you-go model, the latter of which has a whole host of other issues. I don’t think it’s invalid to express fatigue at the model, but as feedback on a specific app/service here, it’s a bit tired without at least some kind of suggested alternative. And truly I get it - I too have far too many subscriptions to things, but putting myself into the devs shoes, I get why it’s a prevailing approach these days.
  - vertis 5y ago
    One-time payments for Apps are a lie we tell ourselves anyway. There will always be another version, and the new version with have that feature we need (or support for new hardware). Like you, I find the attitude about subscriptions frustrating. "Wants to be paid but doesn't want to pay". And yes, it's possible that the person objecting lives outside capitalist society and contributes an enormous volume to open source (or other volunteering), but statistically less likely. I can see the benefit of bundling (e.g. Setapp), so that you're not killed by a million tiny subscriptions, but people need to be paid for their work, so one way or another money needs to flow to the creator.