13 ms·

Subscription fatigue and related musings

94 points by hjuutilainen 4y ago

ghaff 4y ago
In-app purchases (free-to-play) are largely a separate issue although they share some of the same ongoing "Is this worth it?" fatigue. But I'm just super-wary of subscriptions. I mostly don't have the discipline to re-evaluate all my subscriptions every month and then have to agonize over those I get some value from but is it worth $10? And usage goes up and down. So my default is mostly to just say no.
- macjohnmcc 4y ago
  If I find a product useful and a 1-year subscription is available and doesn't feel expensive I will subscribe, then cancel renewal on it. This forces me to reevaluate if it is worth it every year.
  - ghaff 4y ago
    That's a nice theory but a lot of subscriptions are decidedly not cheap on an annual basis ($100+) and there's a lot of potential for money leaks you aren't pro-active about. Though I actually agree that subscriptions as a principle often align developer and user interests.
    - macjohnmcc 4y ago
      There has to be a lot of value in it for me to pay that kind of money for temporary usage of software. The closest thing right now is Jetbrains all products pack. I consider every November when the renewal comes up if I am going to continue. Adobe Photographers subscription is a great deal because the total cost for a year is way less than the price it used to cost to buy Photoshop flat out.
      - ghaff 4y ago
        Adobe Photographers is actually a pretty reasonable subscription for me. I don't use Photoshop a lot. But I do use it and Lightroom I would do pretty much every upgrade anyway. If I just did the occasional Photoshop thing, I'd probably buy Photoshop Elements (Or use GIMP).
        macjohnmcc 4y ago
        The only thing I dislike about it is you are committed to a whole year and timing on cancelling is painful.
candiddevmike 4y ago
I build apps with subscriptions (like https://homechart.app https://homechart.app) and this is why I offer a lifetime subscription/one time payment. To me, the monthly/yearly option gives users more of an "extended trial" option, and they'll hopefully see that it makes sense to just go lifetime. One problem I have (perhaps self inflicted) is that I do not offer my lifetime subscription on app stores. 30% is a huge cut of what is effectively my TCV, and I'd rather they use my web payment processor vs raising the lifetime subscription to cover the increase hit. I think this creates friction to conversions, but I don't know for sure. I do think subscription-based creates better quality software as you are (in theory) having to prove your software is still valuable everytime a customer renews. But too often this just results in redesign churn without any net new features/benefits.
- leipert 4y ago
  Your “Learn more about self-hosted” link on the home page is broken. Looks cool. Might try it.
  - candiddevmike 4y ago
    Thank you for the report! Should be fixed now, consequence of updating the docs. Let me know what you think of the app.
- wongarsu 4y ago
  > I do think subscription-based creates better quality software Maybe compared to pay-once. But the pay-for-every-major-version model that used to be common also provides an incentive to improve, while avoiding redesign churn: the amount of sales you get is directly correlated to how much better your new version is. Meanwhile with subscriptions you mainly have to update the design to attract new customers, your old customers are stuck paying unless you become worse than your competitors.
  - jsmith99 4y ago
    The app store is full of programs that haven't been updated in several years but still attract subscriptions until they get too buggy. Eg most popular ebook readers (eg kybook 3 still costs £15/year).
mrtksn 4y ago
Some apps that I purchased before in full, later turned into subscription based apps(giving me a year of free subscription). This made me feel bad and I lost my warm and fizzy feelings towards these apps. That said, I understand why they are doing it. It doesn't make sense whatsoever to receive one time payment and provide updates forever. Also, despite that people claim that they want "one time payment apps" that doesn't seem to be the case at all. Very small number of people actually pay in full for the apps. What's worse than subscriptions is ad-ridden apps. I love hyper casual games for example but I can get no joy from these anymore because they are overflown with ads, the experience turns into torture. I don't want the ad based model to be the answer too. Maybe there could be other models like trial purchase where you get an old school trial version and pay to continue using it. I think actually there's nothing stopping you to implement this but it doesn't solve the problem of need for continued payments for continued support. Maybe the AppStores can implement something like version limiting and you can ask for a payment for upgrading to the new version. In the grand scheme of things, the subscription model is the best option at this time. People say that subscriptions are devils act but that's also how viable businesses are created.
- xoa 4y ago
  >It doesn't make sense whatsoever to receive one time payment and provide updates forever. Duh? This is written in English but I genuinely have trouble making sense of your words. We had this for decades without subscriptions, they're called UPGRADES! You buy 1.x, or 2.x or whatever, and then when 3.x comes out new customers pay full price but existing ones get it at a much reduced price. But they can do so on their schedule, or if they don't then they don't lose anything they already have, they merely don't gain the new features. Which in turn is one of the few truly hard direct bits of incentivizing feedback, developers don't get money "by default", but must earn it each time. I struggle to understand how suddenly it's like the entire idea of upgrades seems to have vanished. Why would a one time payment mean updates forever for free? But why would it mean subscriptions either? Edit: Maybe if there is anyone truly to blame as the root of this evil it's Apple for being massively hostile to updates in the App Store for reasons that I will never understand either. That really sucks and probably forced subscriptions on the general population more than any other single actor. For that reason alone I really hope to see alternative stores forced on them by law.
silvestrov 4y ago
A significant problem is that the App Store just says "In App Purchases" on the App page. We don't even get a list of prices and functionality of the IAPs. In EU it is a requirement that: "When you buy goods or services in the EU, you have to be clearly informed about the total price, including all taxes and additional charges." https://europa.eu/youreurope/citizens/consumers/shopping/pricing-payments/index_en.htm https://europa.eu/youreurope/citizens/consumers/shopping/pri... I don't think the App store currently respects this law as the advertised price is not the total price for the advertised functionality when InAppPurchases are required to unlock them.
- jsmith99 4y ago
  On my iPhone at least, if I scroll down the app store listing to the app details and expand the IAP section it shows a list of all the IAPs the app offers. The names don't always reveal what they unlock, but sometimes it's clear they are just voluntary donations.
  - silvestrov 4y ago
    This is so well hidden that I didn't even know the info was there. It should be next to the price and should have a full explanation instead of just a title. The CandyCrush App I just checked has multiple IAP with the same title and different prices.
- gnicholas 4y ago
  I’m in the US and I can see prices and titles of all IAPs.
- lazycouchpotato 4y ago
  Pretty sure Apple lists the name and price of IAPs on the App Store. Google on the other hand only provides a range on the Play Store. "In-app purchases: $0.99 – $74.99 per item" is worthless information.
- kruuuder 4y ago
  I think the requirement means something else: If a consumer purchases a product, they cannot be charged more than the declared price, e.g. by adding VAT or "handling fees" during checkout. The price must be transparent up-front. If you download a free app from the App Store that has some obscure in-app purchases or subscription, that's not a problem either, because you didn't purchase anything yet.
the_snooze 4y ago
Kind of orthogonal to the article, but I feel the iOS App Store's subscription mechanism is how online subscriptions as a whole should work. There's a unified predictable way to start subscriptions, and more importantly, a unified predictable way to stop them. I don't have to jump through hoops to stop a subscription, and the UI is clear on when recurring charges will occur next and for how much. I would love it if banks let me unilaterally cancel subscriptions just as easily on my online banking page. It almost makes the Apple tax worth it. Almost.
- DanHulton 4y ago
  This is actually kind of ironic, because Apple's refusal to allow for paid upgrades to pay-once software is actually a major driver of developers switching from pay-once to subscriptions. It's way easier to convince customers to buy a subscription to a piece of software than it is to convince them to buy an _entirely new app_ with a new version number on it, then migrate all their data, re-organize their device so the new version is in the same spot, etc. Don't get me wrong, I really appreciate the Apple subscription interface, too, but I wish it wasn't the only reasonable way for devs to monetize ongoing work.
brookst 4y ago
Subscriptions align developer and user interests and produce better products and less wasted money in the long run. One-time up front purchases only reward developers for expanding the target market of their product; whether the product improves over time has no bearing on revenue. From a developer’s perspective, the one-time price should be the CLV of what they’d get with a subscription. For users, that means much higher risk. I would much rather have 20 apps that I pay $10/mo/ea for than to buy one new $600 app a quarter and hope the developers I bought from years ago still care about me even though they will never make another dime. Oh, you want apps to be one-time purchases for $20 with a useful lifetime of 10 years? Then subscriptions aren’t the problem, you just want $0.17/mo subscriptions, which are unlikely to be economically viable either.
- NikolaNovak 4y ago
  >> I would much rather have 20 apps that I pay $10/mo/ea for than to buy one new $600 Right, and that's a fair preference, as long as we understand that some people have different preferences. I'm in completely opposite camp - I'm paying ridiculous amount of money a month for apps that I use once or twice a year. I am also paying money for apps I use all the time but that I'll lose the moment I stop paying. I have frequently rejected a $5/month app that I would've happily bought for $30, even if I know I only need it once and can cancel after a month (utility type software usually).
  - quickthrower2 4y ago
    It is almost game theory: The SaaS wants to extract as much value as possible. They don't know YOUR individual use case or threshold, but they need to price in a general way so that based on the model of reality, the most revenue will come in (+ whatever other goals). You want to get as much value as possible. If they know that you use it twice a year, they could offer you a special price. But doing that for just you might be not worth the extra code in their licensing and usage tracking system. So there needs to be lots of you. In addition there could be high paying whale users happy to pay a lot and only use it twice a year. So they need to know how tight/loose each customer is, in addition to what they want, to come up with appropriate pricing. It would be like a bazaar where the price for a vase is 1000 but locals will haggle it down to 100, expats will get it for 150, tourists that haggle get it down to 250, and naive tourists pay 1000, the full price. And the seller can look at them, their body language, the look in their eyes, and judge the price accordingly. AI might get us there!
nirav72 4y ago
Few years ago I bought a drive partition manager tool for windows. I only used it a few times over the years. Recently I installed a new primary drive on my gaming machine. Downloaded the latest binary from the vendors site and tried to put in the license key. Nope, wouldn’t activate. So i contacted their support and their response was that I had to pay the new yearly subscription to use the latest version. So I asked if they had the installation binaries for the version I had originally purchased which did not require annual subscription. Their response, “they no longer provide install files for the non-subscription version.” If i can find the original installer somewhere , they will activate the license as a one time courtesy. There is absolutely no way I’m going to pay an annual subscription for software that I do not use often or everyday.
- nunez 4y ago
  This is a perfect example of subscription abuse! It costs that company nothing (except storage, which is cheap) to host old binaries for those that have licenses, even privately (for people who can prove their purchase). They don't even have to support the outdated software. They're just being greedy.
cglong 4y ago
This article misses the elephant in the room: Apple. For years after the App Store launched, developers asked for an integrated way to provide upgrade pricing to help support major upgrades. Instead, they usually had to resort to creating an entirely new entry in the App Store. How many customers were lost because they didn't know they had to go back to the Store to download a separate app named Thing 2? And how many then felt ripped off that they didn't get a discount after having previously purchased Thing 1? After years of being asked for upgrade pricing, Apple instead introduced and then started pushing developers to embrace the exact subscription model we see today. Unlike paid upgrades, a subscription guarantees recurring revenue not only for the developer, but for Apple themselves.
- gnicholas 4y ago
  > Unlike paid upgrades, a subscription guarantees recurring revenue not only for the developer, but for Apple themselves. Actually, Apple would get more revenue the other way. They only take 15% on subscription revenue after the first year.
  - wafriedemann 4y ago
    The bean counter is not enforcing strategies that make him less money overall, that's certain.
    - hgsgm 4y ago
      No business CEO is trying to make less money.
      - barbazoo 4y ago
        Maybe, in the short term, to make more money in the long term.
  - wlesieutre 4y ago
    Assuming that the cost to users of paid upgrades versus subscriptions are the same, which I don't think is a good assumption. Paid upgrades I only had to buy when they were worth buying, so often I wouldn't. I was using Photoshop CS5 for quite a long time, well after CS6 came out and then into the subscription era, and I got a great value out of that purchase even as someone who wasn't using it professionally. Subscriptions can keep on charging me the same price even when development is stopped or focused on features I don't want. Keep paying forever or you lose it.
radicalriddler 4y ago
I'm building an app at the moment, and I'm thinking to myself, "do people really want another subscription, or would they be happier buying credits or something". It's a really tough question to answer, but I'm so pulled to the subscription because it's been so successful for others.
- reaperducer 4y ago
  Last year I tried to buy a mahjongg game for my iPad. My requirements: No subscription No hoarding my personal data Updated in the last year or so I couldn't find a single one. They're all subscriptions, slurping up personal information, or not updated in a very long time so they can continue to fly under the radar and not report what data they're selling about me. I'd pay $20, maybe $25 for an app the just let me play a simple tile game. But greed rules the app world.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
caseyross 4y ago
The big underlying factor is that so many software prices are artificially low because they're subsidized by collecting and making money off of users' personal data. Unlike with physical goods, users don't know any "objective" ways to judge the fairness of software pricing. So they see (monetarily) free software everywhere and think that good software is cheap to make. You can view the subscription/purchase debate as a second-order effect of people just not wanting to pay much for software, because they think that's what it's worth.
wrycoder 4y ago
And then there's the multiple Substack subscriptions.
deergomoo 4y ago
My biggest issue with App Store subscriptions is that I'm effectively only renting the software, as opposed to buying into future updates. If I cancel my subscription to a JetBrains IDE or the database client I use, I get to use the most recent version I paid for forever. Those are more like auto-opting into paid upgrades, which I'm totally fine with. For an iOS app, if I cancel my subscription I'm left with nothing. It really sucks, because a lot of the software I use is not a service in any sense, but the App Store model forces it to be so.
- ghaff 4y ago
  >I get to continue to use the most recent version I paid money for forever Or until it stops working with an OS upgrade/update.
  - hadlock 4y ago
    I'm still using an ancient copy of Navionics on a 1st or 2nd gen iPad (that was gifted to me from my mother in law, because it wouldn't run any of her Instagram stuff) on my boat to get around San Francisco Bay. The depth near the shore changes by a foot or two from year to year but otherwise it's fine for charting a course from the marina to the float-up bar.
    - ghaff 4y ago
      Cases vary of course but a lot of apps will break at some point if they've been orphaned and there's an OS upgrade (or, as other comments note, an online service has been sunsetted). I expect the majority of apps I downloaded on my 1G iPad would not work today on a current iPad if not upgraded but if there's no server component, they'll presumably continue to work on the original platform.
  - deergomoo 4y ago
    Yeah but that’s always been the case. If whatever window of updates I’ve purchased for a bit of software has expired and work is required to support a new OS release, I don’t think it’s unreasonable for that to require a new purchase. I have the option of running it in a VM or simply not updating the OS if it’s really that important. The issue there is really OS vendors breaking stuff between versions (of which Apple is usually the main culprit).
flaburgan 4y ago
That's a really "proprietary software " point of view. You pay the developers, the price they decided, and you expect bug fixes and new features. As pointed, this model has many limits. I really prefer the free software one, where I am free to try, use, contribute, so then I can estimate myself how worth is a software, and give an appropriate one time or regular donation. This model is so much better.
- morgannewman 4y ago
  Perhaps this is preferable to the user, but if you consider it from the developer's POV, almost no users will contribute meaningful "donations", so it stops making economic sense to follow the latter model you suggest unless the project is an altruistic hobby.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
Awelton 4y ago
There are several pieces of software I would gladly buy if only I could, but I've gotten to the point where when it gets to the subscription fee page I go find something else. Especially in the case of rarely used and nice to have software I am not interested in paying in perpetuity for something I may only use a few times a year.
nunez 4y ago
Agree with the author regarding subscription abuse. I am still furious about Readdle's decision to make removing their built-in "Sent with Spark" call-to-action signature in Spark locked behind a subscription. Sure, I could afford the subscription, but no, I won't support subscription abuse like this. Apple's gotta rein it in at some point. Will they? Probably not unless the EU forces them. But it'd be cool if they did. Generally, I am okay with subscriptions, as they are clearly more economically viable for developers than shrink-wrapped software was.
windex 4y ago
Large corps love subscriptions. The platforms they create impose this upon developers too. I get very exhausted with the never ending stream of payments and T&C updates. Moving to the desktop has been a way out, the other has been clubbing subscriptions and outright cancelling even those that seem useful but have lower functionality alternatives in favor of having better control over my finances.
lmedinas 4y ago
Yeah, this is sad. I even see apps which ask you 20€ per year OR 100€ for Lifetime. This is nonsense. I don't mind paying for a subscription if: there are major updates being delivered with a concrete roadmap and a service which i need to use everyday. Otherwise I'm not interested and i dont see the point of offering subs. Apple plays a major role on this by motivating Developers to use subscriptions, now there are subscriptions for everything!
jwr 4y ago
The article says the author has no solution to propose. I do have a solution to propose. Accept subscriptions, but be very selective about the apps that you use. It's what I do — I happily pay the subscription fees, because this is the only way to sustainably maintain an app. And I'd much rather have a few really good apps than a plethora of half-baked ad-ridden garbage. In other words, I don't have "subscription fatigue", I have "app fatigue": I don't want too many apps, but the ones I do want, I'd like to see maintained over the long term.
- bachmeier 4y ago
  > I happily pay the subscription fees, because this is the only way to sustainably maintain an app. No, it's not. Sustainably building an app requires revenue. Whether that revenue comes in the form of a subscription, a one-time payment, or multiple payments in return for updates does not matter to the developer. There's this idea that people are idiots, not knowing that they're paying more if it's a subscription. If that's your business model, you're screwed, because it doesn't work that way. What makes subscription-only even worse is that it's a big burden to keep track of subscriptions and, if you decide to cancel, putting up with all that BS. I spend far less on software as a result of subscription models. I don't have time to play those games. > And I'd much rather have a few really good apps than a plethora of half-baked ad-ridden garbage. That's not the choice that's being made.
  - jwr 4y ago
    Do you run a software business for a living? I do. And I've done the calculations many times. It's exceedingly difficult to build a sustainable business based on B2C sales, and without subscriptions your customer lifetime value is basically nowhere. Either you have god-level skills at marketing and you're able to get your CAC rock-bottom-low, or your business is destined for failure. Of course, you can also play the game of "a new major version every year". Build new features and encourage users to upgrade. I really dislike this approach, for two reasons: you end up with bloated software instead of well-maintained software (features need to be added to convince users to upgrade), and because it's really a subscription in disguise. If you want proof, look around. There aren't many successful pay-once apps, and those that exist either play the upgrade game, or disappear after a couple of years.
strobe 4y ago
more fair alternative to subscriptions probably is 'pay as you go' model which used by mobile carriers and some games developers. Do you need to use calculator app often? -just buy enough 'credits points' and if you won't need using app anymore is no need to pay anything until your credits is gone and would be new need for app usage again.
tomjen3 4y ago
Subscriptions also come with much increased mental overhead: I have to decide if it is worth the commitment every time the app comes up for renewal. In addition, as the article points out, your price point has to compete with the 10ish dollars I give Spotify every month and for which I get hours of use every day. Can you compete with that?
megan1-brophey 4y ago
If you want to know how to catch a cheating spouse you are in luck because the options are endless. There are may different ways to going about catching a cheating partner, such as hiring a private investigator going through their social media account, or planting a recording device or GSP tracker on their device. However, instead of wasting money on buying an expensive recording device or GSP tracker, you can simply go through your partner phone with the help of digitaltechacker @ gmail com, He can grant you access to your spouse phone, records track their location and analyze social media account at all once, you can conveniently access all the details from one single place a web-based dashboard. So if you want to end your cheating husband’s infidelity, you can choose digitaltechacker @ gmail com to find all the evidence needed to catch a cheater.
tpoacher 4y ago
The problem with "subscription models" isn't "subscription models" per se, it's greed. People aren't showing aversion to "subscription vs non-subscription models", they're showing an aversion to greed, and businesses not treating them as a valued customer, but as a resource to be milked until either the resource dries out or the business goes bust. In the original definition it used to be that a "subscription model" meant a win-win situation for both the user and the business: the business gets some sort of pledge that the customer will continue purchasing the recurring product or service in question because they are a loyal customer, in exchange for extra benefits (typically a discount, or some sort of extra goodies or support). Now we have the reverse situation: greedy companies treat subscription as their "main" business plan, hoping to milk as much money as ephemerally possible without necessarily valuing their loyal customers, offerring either no non-subscription alternative, or a highly crippled or ridiculous alternative to coerce you into subscribing just to get the "base" product "at least once". It's become the software equivalent of hardware companies coming up with "bullshit consumables" that serve no real purpose in a device except forcing users to keep paying after a purchase (this is super common in biomed devices!). People know a greedy model / bullshit service when they see one. As a result, they put off using it as much as they can, and when they finally succumb with a heavy heart and subscribe because they need the "base" product that should have been available without a subscription, they retaliate in other ways that harm the business (e.g. single star reviews, password sharing networks, etc).

94 points by hjuutilainen 4y ago

In-app purchases (free-to-play) are largely a separate issue although they share some of the same ongoing "Is this worth it?" fatigue. But I'm just super-wary of subscriptions. I mostly don't have the discipline to re-evaluate all my subscriptions every month and then have to agonize over those I get some value from but is it worth $10? And usage goes up and down. So my default is mostly to just say no.

macjohnmcc 4y ago
If I find a product useful and a 1-year subscription is available and doesn't feel expensive I will subscribe, then cancel renewal on it. This forces me to reevaluate if it is worth it every year.
- ghaff 4y ago
  That's a nice theory but a lot of subscriptions are decidedly not cheap on an annual basis ($100+) and there's a lot of potential for money leaks you aren't pro-active about. Though I actually agree that subscriptions as a principle often align developer and user interests.
  - macjohnmcc 4y ago
    There has to be a lot of value in it for me to pay that kind of money for temporary usage of software. The closest thing right now is Jetbrains all products pack. I consider every November when the renewal comes up if I am going to continue. Adobe Photographers subscription is a great deal because the total cost for a year is way less than the price it used to cost to buy Photoshop flat out.
    - ghaff 4y ago
      Adobe Photographers is actually a pretty reasonable subscription for me. I don't use Photoshop a lot. But I do use it and Lightroom I would do pretty much every upgrade anyway. If I just did the occasional Photoshop thing, I'd probably buy Photoshop Elements (Or use GIMP).
      - macjohnmcc 4y ago
        The only thing I dislike about it is you are committed to a whole year and timing on cancelling is painful.

candiddevmike 4y ago

I build apps with subscriptions (like https://homechart.app https://homechart.app) and this is why I offer a lifetime subscription/one time payment. To me, the monthly/yearly option gives users more of an "extended trial" option, and they'll hopefully see that it makes sense to just go lifetime. One problem I have (perhaps self inflicted) is that I do not offer my lifetime subscription on app stores. 30% is a huge cut of what is effectively my TCV, and I'd rather they use my web payment processor vs raising the lifetime subscription to cover the increase hit. I think this creates friction to conversions, but I don't know for sure. I do think subscription-based creates better quality software as you are (in theory) having to prove your software is still valuable everytime a customer renews. But too often this just results in redesign churn without any net new features/benefits.

leipert 4y ago
Your “Learn more about self-hosted” link on the home page is broken. Looks cool. Might try it.
- candiddevmike 4y ago
  Thank you for the report! Should be fixed now, consequence of updating the docs. Let me know what you think of the app.
wongarsu 4y ago
> I do think subscription-based creates better quality software Maybe compared to pay-once. But the pay-for-every-major-version model that used to be common also provides an incentive to improve, while avoiding redesign churn: the amount of sales you get is directly correlated to how much better your new version is. Meanwhile with subscriptions you mainly have to update the design to attract new customers, your old customers are stuck paying unless you become worse than your competitors.
- jsmith99 4y ago
  The app store is full of programs that haven't been updated in several years but still attract subscriptions until they get too buggy. Eg most popular ebook readers (eg kybook 3 still costs £15/year).

mrtksn 4y ago

Some apps that I purchased before in full, later turned into subscription based apps(giving me a year of free subscription). This made me feel bad and I lost my warm and fizzy feelings towards these apps. That said, I understand why they are doing it. It doesn't make sense whatsoever to receive one time payment and provide updates forever. Also, despite that people claim that they want "one time payment apps" that doesn't seem to be the case at all. Very small number of people actually pay in full for the apps. What's worse than subscriptions is ad-ridden apps. I love hyper casual games for example but I can get no joy from these anymore because they are overflown with ads, the experience turns into torture. I don't want the ad based model to be the answer too. Maybe there could be other models like trial purchase where you get an old school trial version and pay to continue using it. I think actually there's nothing stopping you to implement this but it doesn't solve the problem of need for continued payments for continued support. Maybe the AppStores can implement something like version limiting and you can ask for a payment for upgrading to the new version. In the grand scheme of things, the subscription model is the best option at this time. People say that subscriptions are devils act but that's also how viable businesses are created.

xoa 4y ago
>It doesn't make sense whatsoever to receive one time payment and provide updates forever. Duh? This is written in English but I genuinely have trouble making sense of your words. We had this for decades without subscriptions, they're called UPGRADES! You buy 1.x, or 2.x or whatever, and then when 3.x comes out new customers pay full price but existing ones get it at a much reduced price. But they can do so on their schedule, or if they don't then they don't lose anything they already have, they merely don't gain the new features. Which in turn is one of the few truly hard direct bits of incentivizing feedback, developers don't get money "by default", but must earn it each time. I struggle to understand how suddenly it's like the entire idea of upgrades seems to have vanished. Why would a one time payment mean updates forever for free? But why would it mean subscriptions either? Edit: Maybe if there is anyone truly to blame as the root of this evil it's Apple for being massively hostile to updates in the App Store for reasons that I will never understand either. That really sucks and probably forced subscriptions on the general population more than any other single actor. For that reason alone I really hope to see alternative stores forced on them by law.

silvestrov 4y ago

A significant problem is that the App Store just says "In App Purchases" on the App page. We don't even get a list of prices and functionality of the IAPs. In EU it is a requirement that: "When you buy goods or services in the EU, you have to be clearly informed about the total price, including all taxes and additional charges." https://europa.eu/youreurope/citizens/consumers/shopping/pricing-payments/index_en.htm https://europa.eu/youreurope/citizens/consumers/shopping/pri... I don't think the App store currently respects this law as the advertised price is not the total price for the advertised functionality when InAppPurchases are required to unlock them.

jsmith99 4y ago
On my iPhone at least, if I scroll down the app store listing to the app details and expand the IAP section it shows a list of all the IAPs the app offers. The names don't always reveal what they unlock, but sometimes it's clear they are just voluntary donations.
- silvestrov 4y ago
  This is so well hidden that I didn't even know the info was there. It should be next to the price and should have a full explanation instead of just a title. The CandyCrush App I just checked has multiple IAP with the same title and different prices.
gnicholas 4y ago
I’m in the US and I can see prices and titles of all IAPs.
lazycouchpotato 4y ago
Pretty sure Apple lists the name and price of IAPs on the App Store. Google on the other hand only provides a range on the Play Store. "In-app purchases: $0.99 – $74.99 per item" is worthless information.
kruuuder 4y ago
I think the requirement means something else: If a consumer purchases a product, they cannot be charged more than the declared price, e.g. by adding VAT or "handling fees" during checkout. The price must be transparent up-front. If you download a free app from the App Store that has some obscure in-app purchases or subscription, that's not a problem either, because you didn't purchase anything yet.

the_snooze 4y ago

Kind of orthogonal to the article, but I feel the iOS App Store's subscription mechanism is how online subscriptions as a whole should work. There's a unified predictable way to start subscriptions, and more importantly, a unified predictable way to stop them. I don't have to jump through hoops to stop a subscription, and the UI is clear on when recurring charges will occur next and for how much. I would love it if banks let me unilaterally cancel subscriptions just as easily on my online banking page. It almost makes the Apple tax worth it. Almost.

DanHulton 4y ago
This is actually kind of ironic, because Apple's refusal to allow for paid upgrades to pay-once software is actually a major driver of developers switching from pay-once to subscriptions. It's way easier to convince customers to buy a subscription to a piece of software than it is to convince them to buy an _entirely new app_ with a new version number on it, then migrate all their data, re-organize their device so the new version is in the same spot, etc. Don't get me wrong, I really appreciate the Apple subscription interface, too, but I wish it wasn't the only reasonable way for devs to monetize ongoing work.

brookst 4y ago

Subscriptions align developer and user interests and produce better products and less wasted money in the long run. One-time up front purchases only reward developers for expanding the target market of their product; whether the product improves over time has no bearing on revenue. From a developer’s perspective, the one-time price should be the CLV of what they’d get with a subscription. For users, that means much higher risk. I would much rather have 20 apps that I pay $10/mo/ea for than to buy one new $600 app a quarter and hope the developers I bought from years ago still care about me even though they will never make another dime. Oh, you want apps to be one-time purchases for $20 with a useful lifetime of 10 years? Then subscriptions aren’t the problem, you just want $0.17/mo subscriptions, which are unlikely to be economically viable either.

NikolaNovak 4y ago
>> I would much rather have 20 apps that I pay $10/mo/ea for than to buy one new $600 Right, and that's a fair preference, as long as we understand that some people have different preferences. I'm in completely opposite camp - I'm paying ridiculous amount of money a month for apps that I use once or twice a year. I am also paying money for apps I use all the time but that I'll lose the moment I stop paying. I have frequently rejected a $5/month app that I would've happily bought for $30, even if I know I only need it once and can cancel after a month (utility type software usually).
- quickthrower2 4y ago
  It is almost game theory: The SaaS wants to extract as much value as possible. They don't know YOUR individual use case or threshold, but they need to price in a general way so that based on the model of reality, the most revenue will come in (+ whatever other goals). You want to get as much value as possible. If they know that you use it twice a year, they could offer you a special price. But doing that for just you might be not worth the extra code in their licensing and usage tracking system. So there needs to be lots of you. In addition there could be high paying whale users happy to pay a lot and only use it twice a year. So they need to know how tight/loose each customer is, in addition to what they want, to come up with appropriate pricing. It would be like a bazaar where the price for a vase is 1000 but locals will haggle it down to 100, expats will get it for 150, tourists that haggle get it down to 250, and naive tourists pay 1000, the full price. And the seller can look at them, their body language, the look in their eyes, and judge the price accordingly. AI might get us there!

nirav72 4y ago

Few years ago I bought a drive partition manager tool for windows. I only used it a few times over the years. Recently I installed a new primary drive on my gaming machine. Downloaded the latest binary from the vendors site and tried to put in the license key. Nope, wouldn’t activate. So i contacted their support and their response was that I had to pay the new yearly subscription to use the latest version. So I asked if they had the installation binaries for the version I had originally purchased which did not require annual subscription. Their response, “they no longer provide install files for the non-subscription version.” If i can find the original installer somewhere , they will activate the license as a one time courtesy. There is absolutely no way I’m going to pay an annual subscription for software that I do not use often or everyday.

nunez 4y ago
This is a perfect example of subscription abuse! It costs that company nothing (except storage, which is cheap) to host old binaries for those that have licenses, even privately (for people who can prove their purchase). They don't even have to support the outdated software. They're just being greedy.

cglong 4y ago

This article misses the elephant in the room: Apple. For years after the App Store launched, developers asked for an integrated way to provide upgrade pricing to help support major upgrades. Instead, they usually had to resort to creating an entirely new entry in the App Store. How many customers were lost because they didn't know they had to go back to the Store to download a separate app named Thing 2? And how many then felt ripped off that they didn't get a discount after having previously purchased Thing 1? After years of being asked for upgrade pricing, Apple instead introduced and then started pushing developers to embrace the exact subscription model we see today. Unlike paid upgrades, a subscription guarantees recurring revenue not only for the developer, but for Apple themselves.

gnicholas 4y ago
> Unlike paid upgrades, a subscription guarantees recurring revenue not only for the developer, but for Apple themselves. Actually, Apple would get more revenue the other way. They only take 15% on subscription revenue after the first year.
- wafriedemann 4y ago
  The bean counter is not enforcing strategies that make him less money overall, that's certain.
  - hgsgm 4y ago
    No business CEO is trying to make less money.
    - barbazoo 4y ago
      Maybe, in the short term, to make more money in the long term.
- wlesieutre 4y ago
  Assuming that the cost to users of paid upgrades versus subscriptions are the same, which I don't think is a good assumption. Paid upgrades I only had to buy when they were worth buying, so often I wouldn't. I was using Photoshop CS5 for quite a long time, well after CS6 came out and then into the subscription era, and I got a great value out of that purchase even as someone who wasn't using it professionally. Subscriptions can keep on charging me the same price even when development is stopped or focused on features I don't want. Keep paying forever or you lose it.

radicalriddler 4y ago

I'm building an app at the moment, and I'm thinking to myself, "do people really want another subscription, or would they be happier buying credits or something". It's a really tough question to answer, but I'm so pulled to the subscription because it's been so successful for others.

reaperducer 4y ago
Last year I tried to buy a mahjongg game for my iPad. My requirements: No subscription No hoarding my personal data Updated in the last year or so I couldn't find a single one. They're all subscriptions, slurping up personal information, or not updated in a very long time so they can continue to fly under the radar and not report what data they're selling about me. I'd pay $20, maybe $25 for an app the just let me play a simple tile game. But greed rules the app world.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]

caseyross 4y ago

The big underlying factor is that so many software prices are artificially low because they're subsidized by collecting and making money off of users' personal data. Unlike with physical goods, users don't know any "objective" ways to judge the fairness of software pricing. So they see (monetarily) free software everywhere and think that good software is cheap to make. You can view the subscription/purchase debate as a second-order effect of people just not wanting to pay much for software, because they think that's what it's worth.

wrycoder 4y ago

And then there's the multiple Substack subscriptions.

deergomoo 4y ago

My biggest issue with App Store subscriptions is that I'm effectively only renting the software, as opposed to buying into future updates. If I cancel my subscription to a JetBrains IDE or the database client I use, I get to use the most recent version I paid for forever. Those are more like auto-opting into paid upgrades, which I'm totally fine with. For an iOS app, if I cancel my subscription I'm left with nothing. It really sucks, because a lot of the software I use is not a service in any sense, but the App Store model forces it to be so.

ghaff 4y ago
>I get to continue to use the most recent version I paid money for forever Or until it stops working with an OS upgrade/update.
- hadlock 4y ago
  I'm still using an ancient copy of Navionics on a 1st or 2nd gen iPad (that was gifted to me from my mother in law, because it wouldn't run any of her Instagram stuff) on my boat to get around San Francisco Bay. The depth near the shore changes by a foot or two from year to year but otherwise it's fine for charting a course from the marina to the float-up bar.
  - ghaff 4y ago
    Cases vary of course but a lot of apps will break at some point if they've been orphaned and there's an OS upgrade (or, as other comments note, an online service has been sunsetted). I expect the majority of apps I downloaded on my 1G iPad would not work today on a current iPad if not upgraded but if there's no server component, they'll presumably continue to work on the original platform.
- deergomoo 4y ago
  Yeah but that’s always been the case. If whatever window of updates I’ve purchased for a bit of software has expired and work is required to support a new OS release, I don’t think it’s unreasonable for that to require a new purchase. I have the option of running it in a VM or simply not updating the OS if it’s really that important. The issue there is really OS vendors breaking stuff between versions (of which Apple is usually the main culprit).

flaburgan 4y ago

That's a really "proprietary software " point of view. You pay the developers, the price they decided, and you expect bug fixes and new features. As pointed, this model has many limits. I really prefer the free software one, where I am free to try, use, contribute, so then I can estimate myself how worth is a software, and give an appropriate one time or regular donation. This model is so much better.

morgannewman 4y ago
Perhaps this is preferable to the user, but if you consider it from the developer's POV, almost no users will contribute meaningful "donations", so it stops making economic sense to follow the latter model you suggest unless the project is an altruistic hobby.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

Awelton 4y ago

There are several pieces of software I would gladly buy if only I could, but I've gotten to the point where when it gets to the subscription fee page I go find something else. Especially in the case of rarely used and nice to have software I am not interested in paying in perpetuity for something I may only use a few times a year.

nunez 4y ago

Agree with the author regarding subscription abuse. I am still furious about Readdle's decision to make removing their built-in "Sent with Spark" call-to-action signature in Spark locked behind a subscription. Sure, I could afford the subscription, but no, I won't support subscription abuse like this. Apple's gotta rein it in at some point. Will they? Probably not unless the EU forces them. But it'd be cool if they did. Generally, I am okay with subscriptions, as they are clearly more economically viable for developers than shrink-wrapped software was.

windex 4y ago

Large corps love subscriptions. The platforms they create impose this upon developers too. I get very exhausted with the never ending stream of payments and T&C updates. Moving to the desktop has been a way out, the other has been clubbing subscriptions and outright cancelling even those that seem useful but have lower functionality alternatives in favor of having better control over my finances.

lmedinas 4y ago

Yeah, this is sad. I even see apps which ask you 20€ per year OR 100€ for Lifetime. This is nonsense. I don't mind paying for a subscription if: there are major updates being delivered with a concrete roadmap and a service which i need to use everyday. Otherwise I'm not interested and i dont see the point of offering subs. Apple plays a major role on this by motivating Developers to use subscriptions, now there are subscriptions for everything!

jwr 4y ago

The article says the author has no solution to propose. I do have a solution to propose. Accept subscriptions, but be very selective about the apps that you use. It's what I do — I happily pay the subscription fees, because this is the only way to sustainably maintain an app. And I'd much rather have a few really good apps than a plethora of half-baked ad-ridden garbage. In other words, I don't have "subscription fatigue", I have "app fatigue": I don't want too many apps, but the ones I do want, I'd like to see maintained over the long term.

bachmeier 4y ago
> I happily pay the subscription fees, because this is the only way to sustainably maintain an app. No, it's not. Sustainably building an app requires revenue. Whether that revenue comes in the form of a subscription, a one-time payment, or multiple payments in return for updates does not matter to the developer. There's this idea that people are idiots, not knowing that they're paying more if it's a subscription. If that's your business model, you're screwed, because it doesn't work that way. What makes subscription-only even worse is that it's a big burden to keep track of subscriptions and, if you decide to cancel, putting up with all that BS. I spend far less on software as a result of subscription models. I don't have time to play those games. > And I'd much rather have a few really good apps than a plethora of half-baked ad-ridden garbage. That's not the choice that's being made.
- jwr 4y ago
  Do you run a software business for a living? I do. And I've done the calculations many times. It's exceedingly difficult to build a sustainable business based on B2C sales, and without subscriptions your customer lifetime value is basically nowhere. Either you have god-level skills at marketing and you're able to get your CAC rock-bottom-low, or your business is destined for failure. Of course, you can also play the game of "a new major version every year". Build new features and encourage users to upgrade. I really dislike this approach, for two reasons: you end up with bloated software instead of well-maintained software (features need to be added to convince users to upgrade), and because it's really a subscription in disguise. If you want proof, look around. There aren't many successful pay-once apps, and those that exist either play the upgrade game, or disappear after a couple of years.

strobe 4y ago

more fair alternative to subscriptions probably is 'pay as you go' model which used by mobile carriers and some games developers. Do you need to use calculator app often? -just buy enough 'credits points' and if you won't need using app anymore is no need to pay anything until your credits is gone and would be new need for app usage again.

tomjen3 4y ago

Subscriptions also come with much increased mental overhead: I have to decide if it is worth the commitment every time the app comes up for renewal. In addition, as the article points out, your price point has to compete with the 10ish dollars I give Spotify every month and for which I get hours of use every day. Can you compete with that?

megan1-brophey 4y ago

If you want to know how to catch a cheating spouse you are in luck because the options are endless. There are may different ways to going about catching a cheating partner, such as hiring a private investigator going through their social media account, or planting a recording device or GSP tracker on their device. However, instead of wasting money on buying an expensive recording device or GSP tracker, you can simply go through your partner phone with the help of digitaltechacker @ gmail com, He can grant you access to your spouse phone, records track their location and analyze social media account at all once, you can conveniently access all the details from one single place a web-based dashboard. So if you want to end your cheating husband’s infidelity, you can choose digitaltechacker @ gmail com to find all the evidence needed to catch a cheater.

tpoacher 4y ago

The problem with "subscription models" isn't "subscription models" per se, it's greed. People aren't showing aversion to "subscription vs non-subscription models", they're showing an aversion to greed, and businesses not treating them as a valued customer, but as a resource to be milked until either the resource dries out or the business goes bust. In the original definition it used to be that a "subscription model" meant a win-win situation for both the user and the business: the business gets some sort of pledge that the customer will continue purchasing the recurring product or service in question because they are a loyal customer, in exchange for extra benefits (typically a discount, or some sort of extra goodies or support). Now we have the reverse situation: greedy companies treat subscription as their "main" business plan, hoping to milk as much money as ephemerally possible without necessarily valuing their loyal customers, offerring either no non-subscription alternative, or a highly crippled or ridiculous alternative to coerce you into subscribing just to get the "base" product "at least once". It's become the software equivalent of hardware companies coming up with "bullshit consumables" that serve no real purpose in a device except forcing users to keep paying after a purchase (this is super common in biomed devices!). People know a greedy model / bullshit service when they see one. As a result, they put off using it as much as they can, and when they finally succumb with a heavy heart and subscribe because they need the "base" product that should have been available without a subscription, they retaliate in other ways that harm the business (e.g. single star reviews, password sharing networks, etc).