5 ms·

The fact that this isn't grubby subscription pricing immediately puts this app on my radar as something worth buying. I was steeling myself to write it off as s

by _zzaw 3y ago

The fact that this isn't grubby subscription pricing immediately puts this app on my radar as something worth buying. I was steeling myself to write it off as soon as I saw the "in-app purchases" section. I'll agree that charging $6 for dark mode does come off as nickel-and-diming. Honestly, I'd have avoided a free version and just made the basic price at least $6, one-time, with options for larger donations to the dev if you really like it.

hnand 3y ago
> I'd have avoided a free version and just made the basic price at least $6 I would definitely get less heat, but the user would paradoxically end up in a worse position. I feel like there's always a disconnect between the user and developer when it comes to a freemium model. Developer thinks that it's a paid app that the user can actually try and make an informed decision before buying. User thinks that it's a free app with arbitrary annoying restrictions. And I understand the user perspective. I think things would be better if refunding was less painful for the user and developer both. If there was a zero friction way of refunding things, we could just abandon freemium.
- causi 3y ago
  As a user, I've found utility in apps that offer all features and customizations for free, but reset your preferences every time you start the app. It's like a demo except it never stops working and you can see the maximum amount of value the app can provide you.
  - anonymouse008 3y ago
    Curious if you have an example app for this? I have a stored records based app I work on occasionally and I wonder if an X day storage would fit this bill… but it feels weird to say, “if you want to store data permanently then it’s $y a month”
    - causi 3y ago
      My personal experience with it is game emulators that reset your customized control layouts and such but I imagine it could work for other sorts of apps.
  - hnand 3y ago
    That's how my app handles customizations - they just get resetted once in a while, but you can use them without paying, Premium just makes them permanent. I wonder if it's not obvious from the UI and people think that you can't use them at all.
xp84 3y ago
> grubby subscription pricing Not sure if you're a dev yourself, but I don't think yours is an uncommon feeling among developers reacting to pricing. [TL;DR - I think our expectations are out of whack though] Why do you think this is, though? As a developer, we know that all code has a carrying cost, and that when building on the sand that is the iOS SDK, that almost mandates at minimum a yearly compatibility update, and possibly occasional significant rewrites if some critical SDK feature is removed or broken. Also, this app is building against a third-party (HN) api as this one does, which could change at any time and require the developer to update the app to be compatible. Having a periodic subscription is the only way to align developer and user interests -- they need to keep earning your money a little at a time, and as long as there is a good audience, there is a matching revenue stream to justify continued maintenance on the app. A one-time unlock front-loads 100% of revenue, making all maintenance work have negative ROI unless the app experiences constant, consistent growth forever. And there's certainly a limit on how many people will ever regularly read HN. Eventually that ceiling will be hit, and the app's revenue could drop to effectively zero, even if a million users count on it daily. As humans though, especially analytical ones who are keenly aware that $1 a month for the next 10 years is $120, we hate to think of spending an 'absurd amount' like that on any apps unless they fit a certain mental model (it seems things like Spotify fit a profile that we understand comes with monthly bills attached). But I think it's odd that, while we would feel completely fine spending $6 about once a month for an ice cream cone, Starbucks, a package of cookies, etc. we balk at the prospect of paying even $1 a month for an app, even when it's an app we use daily, like a podcast client or, for some, a HN app. I think I place the blame on the expectations accidentally set up in the 1990s, when software for most consumers was preinstalled (thus invisible in cost) and everything else was "one-time" because both the need and the ability to distribute updates regularly was so much less. I assume companies like Microsoft and Adobe who did need to maintain their software could count on the massive ongoing computer adoption in that era to make them profitable even when many end-users would decline paid updates once the apps reached a certain level of maturity -- which I think was the predominant practice among anyone except certain classes of "professional" users. While I agree some apps are out there that charge say, a $19 monthly subscription to crop images, just exploiting ignorance of customers or preying on children, I think we should normalize apps that receive maintenance having a subscription model.

by _zzaw 3y ago

hnand 3y ago

> I'd have avoided a free version and just made the basic price at least $6 I would definitely get less heat, but the user would paradoxically end up in a worse position. I feel like there's always a disconnect between the user and developer when it comes to a freemium model. Developer thinks that it's a paid app that the user can actually try and make an informed decision before buying. User thinks that it's a free app with arbitrary annoying restrictions. And I understand the user perspective. I think things would be better if refunding was less painful for the user and developer both. If there was a zero friction way of refunding things, we could just abandon freemium.

causi 3y ago
As a user, I've found utility in apps that offer all features and customizations for free, but reset your preferences every time you start the app. It's like a demo except it never stops working and you can see the maximum amount of value the app can provide you.
- anonymouse008 3y ago
  Curious if you have an example app for this? I have a stored records based app I work on occasionally and I wonder if an X day storage would fit this bill… but it feels weird to say, “if you want to store data permanently then it’s $y a month”
  - causi 3y ago
    My personal experience with it is game emulators that reset your customized control layouts and such but I imagine it could work for other sorts of apps.
- hnand 3y ago
  That's how my app handles customizations - they just get resetted once in a while, but you can use them without paying, Premium just makes them permanent. I wonder if it's not obvious from the UI and people think that you can't use them at all.

xp84 3y ago

> grubby subscription pricing Not sure if you're a dev yourself, but I don't think yours is an uncommon feeling among developers reacting to pricing. [TL;DR - I think our expectations are out of whack though] Why do you think this is, though? As a developer, we know that all code has a carrying cost, and that when building on the sand that is the iOS SDK, that almost mandates at minimum a yearly compatibility update, and possibly occasional significant rewrites if some critical SDK feature is removed or broken. Also, this app is building against a third-party (HN) api as this one does, which could change at any time and require the developer to update the app to be compatible. Having a periodic subscription is the only way to align developer and user interests -- they need to keep earning your money a little at a time, and as long as there is a good audience, there is a matching revenue stream to justify continued maintenance on the app. A one-time unlock front-loads 100% of revenue, making all maintenance work have negative ROI unless the app experiences constant, consistent growth forever. And there's certainly a limit on how many people will ever regularly read HN. Eventually that ceiling will be hit, and the app's revenue could drop to effectively zero, even if a million users count on it daily. As humans though, especially analytical ones who are keenly aware that $1 a month for the next 10 years is $120, we hate to think of spending an 'absurd amount' like that on any apps unless they fit a certain mental model (it seems things like Spotify fit a profile that we understand comes with monthly bills attached). But I think it's odd that, while we would feel completely fine spending $6 about once a month for an ice cream cone, Starbucks, a package of cookies, etc. we balk at the prospect of paying even $1 a month for an app, even when it's an app we use daily, like a podcast client or, for some, a HN app. I think I place the blame on the expectations accidentally set up in the 1990s, when software for most consumers was preinstalled (thus invisible in cost) and everything else was "one-time" because both the need and the ability to distribute updates regularly was so much less. I assume companies like Microsoft and Adobe who did need to maintain their software could count on the massive ongoing computer adoption in that era to make them profitable even when many end-users would decline paid updates once the apps reached a certain level of maturity -- which I think was the predominant practice among anyone except certain classes of "professional" users. While I agree some apps are out there that charge say, a $19 monthly subscription to crop images, just exploiting ignorance of customers or preying on children, I think we should normalize apps that receive maintenance having a subscription model.