4 ms·

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

by 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.
- mrtksn 4y ago
  It's not my English or that I haven't heard of upgrades, App Stores don't offer a mechanism to sell upgrades. That's why Im proposing it as a solution.
  - brookst 4y ago
    Yes, and that’s because developers won’t be able to support multiple versions, and they don’t want people stuck on old versions that don’t support new phones and library security updates. In “solving” the subscription problem, upgrades create more cost, bugs, and exposure for everyone.
    - mrtksn 4y ago
      It's actually more than that. Many apps have a server component and this requires ongoing revenue and support for multiple versions of the app even if the new OS of the device doesn't break that app.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- comfypotato 4y ago
  With phone upgrades, for example, and an iOS app. The cost of maintaining different versions of apps for different tiers of payees seems prohibitive. Especially when libraries change constantly. Maybe I’m wrong and your system would work fine. It doesn’t seem right to me though. Personally, I think subscriptions are the way forward, just lower cost subscriptions. Why is 15 a month such a standard? Most of the 15/month apps I shell out for feel more like 3/month or 4/month apps.
  - funcDropShadow 4y ago
    > The cost of maintaining different versions of apps for different tiers of payees seems prohibitive. Especially when libraries change constantly. Perhaps, developers should look for libraries that don't change constantly. That way the could reduce their workload independent from the pricing model.
bvrlt 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. This. While justified, so many apps messed up the switch to subscriptions. We recently switched our app Genius Scan to a subscription model, but tried to do it The Right Way: users who had purchased the pro features automatically got subscribed to our Plus plan for life. New users will have to subscribe though, as it's the only way to be sustainable. We also introduced a new plan, Ultra, with more advanced features. This way, we still get a chance for long time users to support us if they upgrade to the Ultra plan.
swatcoder 4y ago
It's interesting that in your thoughtful survey of alternatives, you don't consider simply challenging the assumption "and provide updates forever". Subscriptions do indeed fund perpetual development in a way that one time purchases don't, but the implication that comes along with that is that features are to be added along the way. If you only released maintenance patches, you subscriber satisfaction would dry up really darn fast. So now we have this model where publishers charge subscriptions so that they can keep their business stable or growing, and subscribers are demanding features be added so that they're getting value for the ever-growing total cost of ownership. And what do you get from that? Feature Bloat. The subscription model insists that successful products need to continually grow their code base, complexity, and feature set. The idea of stable streamlined applications that do a few jobs really well and otherwise stay out of the way is very hard to sustain in a world of subscriptions. The alternative -- which was common in the past and remains common among many (not all) game publishers now -- is to temporarily expand your team payroll with talent that produces the product, and then scale it back to warranty the product with necessary maintenance patches while your emphasis turns to growing the market through sales instead of growing the product through features. Later, perhaps, you create another related product or a successor product. It can and does still work, and it can make for very high quality products that don't become bloated monstrosities. If subscription fatigue is making the news, I'm sure will see a resurgence of this model soon enough.
- mrtksn 4y ago
  I actually considered that, just didn't call its name explicitly. > Maybe the AppStores can implement something like version limiting and you can ask for a payment for upgrading to the new version. I'm also not sure how I feel about it. Having people using multiple versions of the app in the wild seems wrong. Also, many apps have a server component which has ongoing costs and as a result user who choose not to pay for an upgrade will still cost you money and maintenance of the server for old versions OR they will lose functionality. I guess it can work for offline apps.
  - AlexandrB 4y ago
    > Also, many apps have a server component which has ongoing costs Many apps have a server component to justify charging for a subscription. Sure you might need a server if you're doing something novel, but apps that operate on documents should just use iCloud, Google Drive, Dropbox, etc.
deergomoo 4y ago
> Maybe the AppStores can implement something like version limiting and you can ask for a payment for upgrading to the new version I can only assume this is a deliberate omission to push people into subscriptions.
- mrtksn 4y ago
  IMHO it's not that. I think they don't want to have users with outdated apps. It makes the experience of the device worse and especially Apple is very protective over the user experience since that's how they sell iPhones.
  - AlexandrB 4y ago
    IMHO it's a worse experience to own a device that can't be used for what you want to do without paying monthly fees to app developers.
melagonster 4y ago
many game offer an option that you can pay for remove advertisement.

by mrtksn 4y ago

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.

mrtksn 4y ago
It's not my English or that I haven't heard of upgrades, App Stores don't offer a mechanism to sell upgrades. That's why Im proposing it as a solution.
- brookst 4y ago
  Yes, and that’s because developers won’t be able to support multiple versions, and they don’t want people stuck on old versions that don’t support new phones and library security updates. In “solving” the subscription problem, upgrades create more cost, bugs, and exposure for everyone.
  - mrtksn 4y ago
    It's actually more than that. Many apps have a server component and this requires ongoing revenue and support for multiple versions of the app even if the new OS of the device doesn't break that app.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
comfypotato 4y ago
With phone upgrades, for example, and an iOS app. The cost of maintaining different versions of apps for different tiers of payees seems prohibitive. Especially when libraries change constantly. Maybe I’m wrong and your system would work fine. It doesn’t seem right to me though. Personally, I think subscriptions are the way forward, just lower cost subscriptions. Why is 15 a month such a standard? Most of the 15/month apps I shell out for feel more like 3/month or 4/month apps.
- funcDropShadow 4y ago
  > The cost of maintaining different versions of apps for different tiers of payees seems prohibitive. Especially when libraries change constantly. Perhaps, developers should look for libraries that don't change constantly. That way the could reduce their workload independent from the pricing model.

bvrlt 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. This. While justified, so many apps messed up the switch to subscriptions. We recently switched our app Genius Scan to a subscription model, but tried to do it The Right Way: users who had purchased the pro features automatically got subscribed to our Plus plan for life. New users will have to subscribe though, as it's the only way to be sustainable. We also introduced a new plan, Ultra, with more advanced features. This way, we still get a chance for long time users to support us if they upgrade to the Ultra plan.

swatcoder 4y ago

It's interesting that in your thoughtful survey of alternatives, you don't consider simply challenging the assumption "and provide updates forever". Subscriptions do indeed fund perpetual development in a way that one time purchases don't, but the implication that comes along with that is that features are to be added along the way. If you only released maintenance patches, you subscriber satisfaction would dry up really darn fast. So now we have this model where publishers charge subscriptions so that they can keep their business stable or growing, and subscribers are demanding features be added so that they're getting value for the ever-growing total cost of ownership. And what do you get from that? Feature Bloat. The subscription model insists that successful products need to continually grow their code base, complexity, and feature set. The idea of stable streamlined applications that do a few jobs really well and otherwise stay out of the way is very hard to sustain in a world of subscriptions. The alternative -- which was common in the past and remains common among many (not all) game publishers now -- is to temporarily expand your team payroll with talent that produces the product, and then scale it back to warranty the product with necessary maintenance patches while your emphasis turns to growing the market through sales instead of growing the product through features. Later, perhaps, you create another related product or a successor product. It can and does still work, and it can make for very high quality products that don't become bloated monstrosities. If subscription fatigue is making the news, I'm sure will see a resurgence of this model soon enough.

mrtksn 4y ago
I actually considered that, just didn't call its name explicitly. > Maybe the AppStores can implement something like version limiting and you can ask for a payment for upgrading to the new version. I'm also not sure how I feel about it. Having people using multiple versions of the app in the wild seems wrong. Also, many apps have a server component which has ongoing costs and as a result user who choose not to pay for an upgrade will still cost you money and maintenance of the server for old versions OR they will lose functionality. I guess it can work for offline apps.
- AlexandrB 4y ago
  > Also, many apps have a server component which has ongoing costs Many apps have a server component to justify charging for a subscription. Sure you might need a server if you're doing something novel, but apps that operate on documents should just use iCloud, Google Drive, Dropbox, etc.

deergomoo 4y ago

> Maybe the AppStores can implement something like version limiting and you can ask for a payment for upgrading to the new version I can only assume this is a deliberate omission to push people into subscriptions.

mrtksn 4y ago
IMHO it's not that. I think they don't want to have users with outdated apps. It makes the experience of the device worse and especially Apple is very protective over the user experience since that's how they sell iPhones.
- AlexandrB 4y ago
  IMHO it's a worse experience to own a device that can't be used for what you want to do without paying monthly fees to app developers.

melagonster 4y ago

many game offer an option that you can pay for remove advertisement.