5 ms·

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.

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.