3 ms·

> 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 -

by 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.

_zzaw 3y ago
> they need to keep earning your money a little at a time So release new products or paid updates, the way everyone did before subs. > A one-time unlock front-loads 100% of revenue Also known as "buying", which is a thing > making all maintenance work have negative ROI unless the app experiences constant, consistent growth forever Unless you release paid updates, which is what a number of developers do. > 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. So don't put all your eggs in one basket. Have different products. Explore different things. You're essentially asking to be rewarded for stagnation here. Subscriptions are about (1) being paid for work you didn't do, since you get paid whether you did anything or not; (2) disrespecting my choice as a consumer, since maybe I don't feel I need any updates and I don't want to pay for them, and (3) encouraging bloat, since there's more pressure to pack in needless features just so you can justify demanding payment every month. You're basically saying "I need regular handouts because I couldn't make money otherwise." That's a problem with your business plan, and it doesn't justify demanding money for work you didn't do, or requiring me to pay for things I don't need. I'll agree with you on one thing: years of free or artificially cheap software have conditioned people to not want to pay a lot for software. I always thought $0.99 per app was ridiculously low. I don't have a problem paying tens or even hundreds of dollars for good, powerful software, but I want to own it. If I'm going back through old files a decade or two from now, as a lot of us do, I want to be able to open them. And I don't want to have every one of my apps draining my bank account bit by bit. If you want to offer a subscription for people who want every update you release, fine. At least they're getting something. But the fairer model is what a number of developers are doing: more money upfront, which includes a lifetime license and one year of updates (which is nice, but I would understand if they didn't include it). There's a reason why so many people despise subscriptions, and why I doubt that model—while it seems to be the fad now—will ever be normalized. Most of us can't afford it, it denies us long-term access to our own content, and we know on a basic level that it's wrong.
- xp84 3y ago
  I am surprised to see your comment about bloat. If anything, the fact that you only ever got paid again for a major update, and an update HAD to have whiz-bang features to sell, that was what contributed to so much bloat. Think of how many home users needed anything that was added to Word from 1990-2000. By contrast, to keep subscribers happy you don’t need new features, you need to continually keep the experience great. That means judicious adding of things people really want, but also NOT adding crap just to add a bullet point on a box. And NOT “ruining” the app by screwing up what people like about it. > Unless you release paid updates, which is what a number of developers do. This just introduces two more user complaints: those paid updates are very likely to either be not consequential enough to justify paying, or to add bloat. Presumably, when you bought the app, you were satisfied with the functionality it already had (and indeed if they make big changes it often gets hate just for the disruptiveness). But my point is software costs money (time) to support, forever. And once a product (especially a specialized one) has already found most of its buyers, that means the developer has every incentive to abandon the app because maintaining or updating it is never going to justify the cost. So yes, a developer doing your preferred model absolutely must have a half dozen apps, which will be at various stages in their life cycles, but only the apps that are new, and have a chance of growing their user base further, are going to get any maintenance, attention, and updates. The mature ones will be left to wither even if they are widely-used and popular, because there aren’t enough new buyers. The other part of this is that besides just maintenance, many modern apps have a server-side component which needs to be paid for forever. It’s basically a pyramid scheme if your only source of revenue is new users and they subsidize the lifetime access of the earlier buyers. It will collapse eventually. As for “files” — that’s really not the primary type of application I am talking about here. If you are making an application that authors proprietary documents, I think it’s perfectly reasonable to expect a free reader to exist whether you have an active subscription or not. However I think that’s maybe 2% of the consumer software market today. I think the only files that I can think of on my computer that aren’t standards-based formats are Pixelmator files and TurboTax files (though I stopped using that and use a web-based replacement). > since maybe I don't feel I need any updates and I don't want to pay for them, The updates I’m talking about, which you “don’t want to pay for,” include “making the app continue to run on a current OS”

by xp84 3y ago

_zzaw 3y ago

> they need to keep earning your money a little at a time So release new products or paid updates, the way everyone did before subs. > A one-time unlock front-loads 100% of revenue Also known as "buying", which is a thing > making all maintenance work have negative ROI unless the app experiences constant, consistent growth forever Unless you release paid updates, which is what a number of developers do. > 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. So don't put all your eggs in one basket. Have different products. Explore different things. You're essentially asking to be rewarded for stagnation here. Subscriptions are about (1) being paid for work you didn't do, since you get paid whether you did anything or not; (2) disrespecting my choice as a consumer, since maybe I don't feel I need any updates and I don't want to pay for them, and (3) encouraging bloat, since there's more pressure to pack in needless features just so you can justify demanding payment every month. You're basically saying "I need regular handouts because I couldn't make money otherwise." That's a problem with your business plan, and it doesn't justify demanding money for work you didn't do, or requiring me to pay for things I don't need. I'll agree with you on one thing: years of free or artificially cheap software have conditioned people to not want to pay a lot for software. I always thought $0.99 per app was ridiculously low. I don't have a problem paying tens or even hundreds of dollars for good, powerful software, but I want to own it. If I'm going back through old files a decade or two from now, as a lot of us do, I want to be able to open them. And I don't want to have every one of my apps draining my bank account bit by bit. If you want to offer a subscription for people who want every update you release, fine. At least they're getting something. But the fairer model is what a number of developers are doing: more money upfront, which includes a lifetime license and one year of updates (which is nice, but I would understand if they didn't include it). There's a reason why so many people despise subscriptions, and why I doubt that model—while it seems to be the fad now—will ever be normalized. Most of us can't afford it, it denies us long-term access to our own content, and we know on a basic level that it's wrong.

xp84 3y ago
I am surprised to see your comment about bloat. If anything, the fact that you only ever got paid again for a major update, and an update HAD to have whiz-bang features to sell, that was what contributed to so much bloat. Think of how many home users needed anything that was added to Word from 1990-2000. By contrast, to keep subscribers happy you don’t need new features, you need to continually keep the experience great. That means judicious adding of things people really want, but also NOT adding crap just to add a bullet point on a box. And NOT “ruining” the app by screwing up what people like about it. > Unless you release paid updates, which is what a number of developers do. This just introduces two more user complaints: those paid updates are very likely to either be not consequential enough to justify paying, or to add bloat. Presumably, when you bought the app, you were satisfied with the functionality it already had (and indeed if they make big changes it often gets hate just for the disruptiveness). But my point is software costs money (time) to support, forever. And once a product (especially a specialized one) has already found most of its buyers, that means the developer has every incentive to abandon the app because maintaining or updating it is never going to justify the cost. So yes, a developer doing your preferred model absolutely must have a half dozen apps, which will be at various stages in their life cycles, but only the apps that are new, and have a chance of growing their user base further, are going to get any maintenance, attention, and updates. The mature ones will be left to wither even if they are widely-used and popular, because there aren’t enough new buyers. The other part of this is that besides just maintenance, many modern apps have a server-side component which needs to be paid for forever. It’s basically a pyramid scheme if your only source of revenue is new users and they subsidize the lifetime access of the earlier buyers. It will collapse eventually. As for “files” — that’s really not the primary type of application I am talking about here. If you are making an application that authors proprietary documents, I think it’s perfectly reasonable to expect a free reader to exist whether you have an active subscription or not. However I think that’s maybe 2% of the consumer software market today. I think the only files that I can think of on my computer that aren’t standards-based formats are Pixelmator files and TurboTax files (though I stopped using that and use a web-based replacement). > since maybe I don't feel I need any updates and I don't want to pay for them, The updates I’m talking about, which you “don’t want to pay for,” include “making the app continue to run on a current OS”