11 ms·

Lifetime pricing / one-time purchases seem to be a double-edged sword for app sellers. You satisfy users who are happy to pay a large amount upfront by they ar

Lifetime pricing / one-time purchases seem to be a double-edged sword for app sellers. You satisfy users who are happy to pay a large amount upfront by they are also likely your most enthusiastic customers. So in essence they would be the customers who would probably pay more than 3 years of subscriptions over the period the lifetime payment covers. Users who aren't that enthusiastic are more likely to not use the app for long periods and also unlikely to pay a large upfront cost.

latexr 4y ago
Your most enthusiastic users are also the ones who help you get more users. They hype your app to others and get the less enthusiastic to buy or subscribe. So by not satisfying the most enthusiastic you’re denying one of the strongest word-of-mouth and recommendation channels, which also makes you lose the less enthusiastic.
- jzb 4y ago
  I think influencers, sorry, “the enthusiastic” tend to vastly overestimate the value of word of mouth recommendations vs recurring revenue.
  - torstenvl 4y ago
    How did neglecting enthusiastic users work out for, say, Firefox's market share?
    - zztop44 4y ago
      It’s a tricky one. I feel like enthusiastic users’ recommendations (browser tabs!!) is what grew Firefox in the first place, but also what killed its market share as users became enthusiastic about Chrome instead (fast! crashes limited to one tab only!!). These days, Firefox just isn’t better than it’s competition in ways that large numbers of people care about, alas. In fact, there doesn’t seem to be any big cohort of users enthusiastic about any browser in particular right now. I doubt Mozilla can fix that easily. I think it’ll take the next revolution in browser tech (whatever that is).
    - Aldo_MX 4y ago
      Well, back in the day the FF devs said "no" to background-position-x and y in CSS (when we didn't had HTTP 2 and we used CSS sprites as a way to load websites faster by decreasing the number of connections). My reaction was to "sabotage" FF users by prioritizing IE and Chrome and not actively testing my websites in FF, but only waiting until users reported bugs. My thinking back in the day was: Why would I write N times more lines of code for a browser that had way less market share than Internet Explorer, especially when Chrome was faster and worked better? By the time Firefox corrected course and prioritized parity with other browsers (ie. the -webkit fiasco), their market share was already an order of magnitude smaller. 15 years later, I don't feel proud of my actions, but my own conclusion is that every individual action added up. Now I feel sad to see Firefox with less than 3% market share because the damage is irreparable now.
    - jzb 4y ago
      Those are massively different scenarios. Off the top of my head: - Mozilla doesn't derive its revenue directly from users. - Mozilla is/was competing with a corporation with vastly more resources on every level. More engineering resources, ability to leverage other parts of its business to promote/favor Chrome, and fairly direct financial control over Mozilla. - Mozilla's wrong moves aren't related to asking people to pay - they have at various times alienated or disappointed developers and end users. Also worth noting that Firefox has artificially been blocked from competing on iOS (as has Chrome, but Google has its own mobile OS...) - so that's been a factor in their declining share that has little to nothing to do with their "neglecting" anybody. There is value in advocates, but I'll say again: it tends to be overstated. And I hardly ever see self-professed enthusiastic users actually arguing for price increases / changes to support the development that generates the products. It would be so refreshing to see self-professed enthusiastic users actually lobbying for people to pay for what they use instead of constantly tearing down companies trying to stay afloat. I know the subscription model is a problem for end users as it spreads to more and more apps and services. The lifetime license model is a problem for the vendors. Especially for something like macOS where Apple releases a new OS every year. Right now shops that support macOS have to support like three macOS releases + two hardware architectures + the upcoming macOS. Just how many users can an "enthusiastic user" convert to paid to make it worthwhile, if it ties the company's hands in terms of changing its revenue model as the world changes? Especially when that user is actively advocating against revenue?
  - asdff 4y ago
    The "this product is ordained by the subreddit" effect is very real
- WA 4y ago
  Furthermore, people who paid a lifetime subscription are presumably less likely to switch to a competing product without a good reason, because they already paid for one.

latexr 4y ago

Your most enthusiastic users are also the ones who help you get more users. They hype your app to others and get the less enthusiastic to buy or subscribe. So by not satisfying the most enthusiastic you’re denying one of the strongest word-of-mouth and recommendation channels, which also makes you lose the less enthusiastic.

jzb 4y ago
I think influencers, sorry, “the enthusiastic” tend to vastly overestimate the value of word of mouth recommendations vs recurring revenue.
- torstenvl 4y ago
  How did neglecting enthusiastic users work out for, say, Firefox's market share?
  - zztop44 4y ago
    It’s a tricky one. I feel like enthusiastic users’ recommendations (browser tabs!!) is what grew Firefox in the first place, but also what killed its market share as users became enthusiastic about Chrome instead (fast! crashes limited to one tab only!!). These days, Firefox just isn’t better than it’s competition in ways that large numbers of people care about, alas. In fact, there doesn’t seem to be any big cohort of users enthusiastic about any browser in particular right now. I doubt Mozilla can fix that easily. I think it’ll take the next revolution in browser tech (whatever that is).
  - Aldo_MX 4y ago
    Well, back in the day the FF devs said "no" to background-position-x and y in CSS (when we didn't had HTTP 2 and we used CSS sprites as a way to load websites faster by decreasing the number of connections). My reaction was to "sabotage" FF users by prioritizing IE and Chrome and not actively testing my websites in FF, but only waiting until users reported bugs. My thinking back in the day was: Why would I write N times more lines of code for a browser that had way less market share than Internet Explorer, especially when Chrome was faster and worked better? By the time Firefox corrected course and prioritized parity with other browsers (ie. the -webkit fiasco), their market share was already an order of magnitude smaller. 15 years later, I don't feel proud of my actions, but my own conclusion is that every individual action added up. Now I feel sad to see Firefox with less than 3% market share because the damage is irreparable now.
  - jzb 4y ago
    Those are massively different scenarios. Off the top of my head: - Mozilla doesn't derive its revenue directly from users. - Mozilla is/was competing with a corporation with vastly more resources on every level. More engineering resources, ability to leverage other parts of its business to promote/favor Chrome, and fairly direct financial control over Mozilla. - Mozilla's wrong moves aren't related to asking people to pay - they have at various times alienated or disappointed developers and end users. Also worth noting that Firefox has artificially been blocked from competing on iOS (as has Chrome, but Google has its own mobile OS...) - so that's been a factor in their declining share that has little to nothing to do with their "neglecting" anybody. There is value in advocates, but I'll say again: it tends to be overstated. And I hardly ever see self-professed enthusiastic users actually arguing for price increases / changes to support the development that generates the products. It would be so refreshing to see self-professed enthusiastic users actually lobbying for people to pay for what they use instead of constantly tearing down companies trying to stay afloat. I know the subscription model is a problem for end users as it spreads to more and more apps and services. The lifetime license model is a problem for the vendors. Especially for something like macOS where Apple releases a new OS every year. Right now shops that support macOS have to support like three macOS releases + two hardware architectures + the upcoming macOS. Just how many users can an "enthusiastic user" convert to paid to make it worthwhile, if it ties the company's hands in terms of changing its revenue model as the world changes? Especially when that user is actively advocating against revenue?
- asdff 4y ago
  The "this product is ordained by the subreddit" effect is very real
WA 4y ago
Furthermore, people who paid a lifetime subscription are presumably less likely to switch to a competing product without a good reason, because they already paid for one.