5 ms·

I've had mixed experiences with apps that I technically "own". On one hand there's iA Writer. I don't even remember when I bought the app -- five years ago? s

I've had mixed experiences with apps that I technically "own". On one hand there's iA Writer. I don't even remember when I bought the app -- five years ago? seven? ten? -- and I'm still getting regular updates for it. It has maintained and iterated on its core feature set while keeping up with macOS updates. The dev team even added thoughtful new features -- like Wikilinks, frontmatter support, and authorship tracking -- without turning the app into something it's not. At its core, iA Writer remains a fast, bare-bones, distraction-free Markdown editor with beautiful typography that feels as Mac-native as you can get. This is the sort of experience people are looking for when they say they want to "own" an app. On the other hand there's Scrivener. I bought this app during the pandemic, and almost immediately regretted the purchase. The UI looks dated in a bad way, like an old Mac OS X app from 2010. It's full of a million chunky buttons and colors and gradients, creating a ton of visual noise. It's updated maybe once or twice per year, mostly to fix bugs and maintain compatibility with newer macOS versions. Their aging file format doesn't work properly with any cloud storage service except Dropbox, and they refuse to do anything about it. Even if you use Dropbox, it's very easy to corrupt your projects if you forget to manually sync them before opening them on a different device. The iPad app looks like it was built in the early days of the device, and has bizarre implementations of basic controls (like tree views) that behave differently from how you'd expect. It's clear that the dev team behind Scrivener has given up on the app and are keeping it on life support. I think there are more Scriveners in this world than iA Writers. Or you have apps like Sublime Text, where every new version requires you to pay for a fresh license. At that point, you might as well turn it into subscription software.

eviks 3y ago
> where every new version requires you to pay for a fresh license. At that point, you might as well turn it into subscription software. The huge difference being: if you stop subscribing, you lose the current version even if you don't need the features in the new version
- BlueTemplar 3y ago
  Worst case scenario is perhaps being forced on the new version and not being able to keep using the old one even though the new version breaks your workflow.
reidrac 3y ago
I don't see how "owning" has to include updates for life. I use mostly open source, so I'm not used to buy software, but when I did it in the late 90s there was expectation of it including some support (eg. updates until the next major version); but not always (it often required physical media). After that, the software was "final". What is the standard these days?
- kevindamm 3y ago
  EOL announcement anywhere between 1 month to 1 year of notice.
- nusl 3y ago
  Often I see something like "Buy version X and receive updates for the next year/major version"
- GeneralMaximus 3y ago
  > I don't see how "owning" has to include updates for life. Oh, I never meant to imply that. Apologies if it came off that way. I just meant to say that if UpfrontPayment.app wants you pay $60 to upgrade to a new major version every year and SubscriptionPayment.app costs $5/month, you end up paying the same amount every year regardless of which one you use. Sure, you can always refuse to upgrade to new versions of UpfrontPayment.app and keep using the version you already own, but that's not always possible in 2024. Changes in OS APIs, file formats, processor architectures, etc. can make it difficult. Outside of Windows, most platforms aren't shy about breaking existing software.
- Roark66 3y ago
  Exactly. I don't think I ever bought any software expecting to get updates for free. Bug fixes, if they break original functionality, yes, but not new versions that contain new features. Getting updates and new features has traditionally been a perk of renting, and being able to continually use that software anyway you see fit 50 years down the road, on an ancient computer or in a VM is a perk of buying. Both have their merits. I often see "free upgrades" thrown on top as bonus for buyers, especially by new software developers that really want to sell their software. I'd argue the customer's decision is not swayed by much either way free upgrades, but devs are putting a huge burden on themselves. What if sales go down for a year? You may prefer to explore making some other software instead, but now you have an obligation to offer free support to customers that bought your software 5+ years ago. That wouldn't work in any other industry. Try calling a plumber or an electrician that worked on your house 5 years later and ask them to fix problems for free... see how happy they will be to oblige :-)
sbuk 3y ago
> Or you have apps like Sublime Text, where every new version requires you to pay for a fresh license. Major version updates were always payed in the past. BBEdit has been working this way for 30 year, and “it still doesn’t suck”. The notion that you pay once for software really came into being with the advent of app stores. I don’t have a problem with it, developers have got to eat too!
- TheOtherHobbes 3y ago
  The problem with rent-to-use is that you pay a lot and you also get bugs that are never fixed, and all the usual issues. If updates were rock solid, or near enough, there would be less hostility. And there should always be a read-only option that can get a project into a transferrable output format, so your work isn't perpetually locked inside a subscription. That's really the only difference between paid annual updates and rent-to-use. One allows you to keep using the software until the OS around it stops being current. The other isn't just a subscription to the software, it's a lock around your work.
  - sbuk 3y ago
    > The problem with rent-to-use is that you pay a lot and you also get bugs that are never fixed, and all the usual issues. If updates were rock solid, or near enough, there would be less hostility. In fairness, that laregly depends on the vendor. BBEdit is a great example. It's been around for 30 years, it's reasonably priced and gets regular updates. Big ticket upgrades have been worth the lower upgrade price. Maybe it's the exception that proves the rule, but I've had a similar experience with the significant majority of indy devs I've bought software from. Big Corps are a different proposition entirely...
TheOtherHobbes 3y ago
I use Scrivener with iCloud, and it Just Works. Any sync issues - I've had a few, but they're not common - are down to iCloud. And Scrivener stores a very complete list of version backups, so you can always go back if something goes horribly wrong. Having said that - it is an infuriating piece of software. It feels like it was designed by someone who has some talent for solving small problems, but no clue at all how to combine them into a unified, elegant, intuitive app. The compile-to-output format feature should be studied in schools as a perfect example of how not to implement something. But... I still find it very useful for organising thoughts and for combining them while writing. On the hand a lot of it is a mess, on the other the core features have really helped to improve my workflow.
seec 3y ago
The fact that you compare iA Writer with Scrivener is pretty funny. The first is an overpriced minimalist lifestyle app. It has some value, but definitely not what they sell it for. The app is a rather simple development with a low number of features, most of it can be found in many equivalent apps, for free or close to that. The second is an actual tool that handles a lot of complexity inherent in writing large bodies of work with a lot of features. They sell it for barely more money than iA even though the development and support cost must be much higher. You complaining about old looks and the niche features of Scrivener illustrate exactly what is wrong and rotten about the Apple platforms in general: the cult of minimalist bullshit that results in basically useless software that only achieve one thing, looking good. Even macOS has largely suffered from the trend it is extremely appalling but since this is a trend that shows up in Apple owns software, I don't think there is much hope to be had. The point is that Scrivener is a mostly done work and there is not much left to do, change for the sake of change doesn't make any sense even if it might please your sense for new looks or whatever. The design trends are irrelevant for what is a tool, and just like a good screwdriver that looks old is still good 20 years later, a good software that looks old is still good 20 years later provided you are able to run it. And this is exactly the point of owning software. The developers won't be responsible for it running well on the latest system, but it will run with the original setup as long as you can keep it or recreate it one way or another. That is the only thing asked and it is fair. While sometimes there are meaningful improvements to some software, it is mostly a sales tactic, especially used by Apple to market questionnable changes and features that end up costing more than they are worth very often (time and money). In fact, I would argue that Apple has created this whole update argument nonsense in order to force people to buy new hardware and make it easier and cheaper for them to maintain their systems. I think it is not right that macOS system have such low support time, especially with the embedded browser when you paid so much for it. Being able to update is not a good argument since not only do they change the performance profile of what you bought in many ways but sometimes they even remove features or break compatibility on purpose. At least back then you could downgrade easily but now with Apple Silicon it's almost the same bullshit as iOS devices. Subscription only makes sense if you have running cost (server software, or infrastructure bits) but is mostly nonsense for most consumers' use cases. You need to purposefully introduce breaking changes or shallow superficial reason for it to exist. Which is exactly what Apple is doing, because money...

eviks 3y ago

> where every new version requires you to pay for a fresh license. At that point, you might as well turn it into subscription software. The huge difference being: if you stop subscribing, you lose the current version even if you don't need the features in the new version

BlueTemplar 3y ago
Worst case scenario is perhaps being forced on the new version and not being able to keep using the old one even though the new version breaks your workflow.

reidrac 3y ago

I don't see how "owning" has to include updates for life. I use mostly open source, so I'm not used to buy software, but when I did it in the late 90s there was expectation of it including some support (eg. updates until the next major version); but not always (it often required physical media). After that, the software was "final". What is the standard these days?

kevindamm 3y ago
EOL announcement anywhere between 1 month to 1 year of notice.
nusl 3y ago
Often I see something like "Buy version X and receive updates for the next year/major version"
GeneralMaximus 3y ago
> I don't see how "owning" has to include updates for life. Oh, I never meant to imply that. Apologies if it came off that way. I just meant to say that if UpfrontPayment.app wants you pay $60 to upgrade to a new major version every year and SubscriptionPayment.app costs $5/month, you end up paying the same amount every year regardless of which one you use. Sure, you can always refuse to upgrade to new versions of UpfrontPayment.app and keep using the version you already own, but that's not always possible in 2024. Changes in OS APIs, file formats, processor architectures, etc. can make it difficult. Outside of Windows, most platforms aren't shy about breaking existing software.
Roark66 3y ago
Exactly. I don't think I ever bought any software expecting to get updates for free. Bug fixes, if they break original functionality, yes, but not new versions that contain new features. Getting updates and new features has traditionally been a perk of renting, and being able to continually use that software anyway you see fit 50 years down the road, on an ancient computer or in a VM is a perk of buying. Both have their merits. I often see "free upgrades" thrown on top as bonus for buyers, especially by new software developers that really want to sell their software. I'd argue the customer's decision is not swayed by much either way free upgrades, but devs are putting a huge burden on themselves. What if sales go down for a year? You may prefer to explore making some other software instead, but now you have an obligation to offer free support to customers that bought your software 5+ years ago. That wouldn't work in any other industry. Try calling a plumber or an electrician that worked on your house 5 years later and ask them to fix problems for free... see how happy they will be to oblige :-)

sbuk 3y ago

> Or you have apps like Sublime Text, where every new version requires you to pay for a fresh license. Major version updates were always payed in the past. BBEdit has been working this way for 30 year, and “it still doesn’t suck”. The notion that you pay once for software really came into being with the advent of app stores. I don’t have a problem with it, developers have got to eat too!

TheOtherHobbes 3y ago
The problem with rent-to-use is that you pay a lot and you also get bugs that are never fixed, and all the usual issues. If updates were rock solid, or near enough, there would be less hostility. And there should always be a read-only option that can get a project into a transferrable output format, so your work isn't perpetually locked inside a subscription. That's really the only difference between paid annual updates and rent-to-use. One allows you to keep using the software until the OS around it stops being current. The other isn't just a subscription to the software, it's a lock around your work.
- sbuk 3y ago
  > The problem with rent-to-use is that you pay a lot and you also get bugs that are never fixed, and all the usual issues. If updates were rock solid, or near enough, there would be less hostility. In fairness, that laregly depends on the vendor. BBEdit is a great example. It's been around for 30 years, it's reasonably priced and gets regular updates. Big ticket upgrades have been worth the lower upgrade price. Maybe it's the exception that proves the rule, but I've had a similar experience with the significant majority of indy devs I've bought software from. Big Corps are a different proposition entirely...

TheOtherHobbes 3y ago

I use Scrivener with iCloud, and it Just Works. Any sync issues - I've had a few, but they're not common - are down to iCloud. And Scrivener stores a very complete list of version backups, so you can always go back if something goes horribly wrong. Having said that - it is an infuriating piece of software. It feels like it was designed by someone who has some talent for solving small problems, but no clue at all how to combine them into a unified, elegant, intuitive app. The compile-to-output format feature should be studied in schools as a perfect example of how not to implement something. But... I still find it very useful for organising thoughts and for combining them while writing. On the hand a lot of it is a mess, on the other the core features have really helped to improve my workflow.

seec 3y ago

The fact that you compare iA Writer with Scrivener is pretty funny. The first is an overpriced minimalist lifestyle app. It has some value, but definitely not what they sell it for. The app is a rather simple development with a low number of features, most of it can be found in many equivalent apps, for free or close to that. The second is an actual tool that handles a lot of complexity inherent in writing large bodies of work with a lot of features. They sell it for barely more money than iA even though the development and support cost must be much higher. You complaining about old looks and the niche features of Scrivener illustrate exactly what is wrong and rotten about the Apple platforms in general: the cult of minimalist bullshit that results in basically useless software that only achieve one thing, looking good. Even macOS has largely suffered from the trend it is extremely appalling but since this is a trend that shows up in Apple owns software, I don't think there is much hope to be had. The point is that Scrivener is a mostly done work and there is not much left to do, change for the sake of change doesn't make any sense even if it might please your sense for new looks or whatever. The design trends are irrelevant for what is a tool, and just like a good screwdriver that looks old is still good 20 years later, a good software that looks old is still good 20 years later provided you are able to run it. And this is exactly the point of owning software. The developers won't be responsible for it running well on the latest system, but it will run with the original setup as long as you can keep it or recreate it one way or another. That is the only thing asked and it is fair. While sometimes there are meaningful improvements to some software, it is mostly a sales tactic, especially used by Apple to market questionnable changes and features that end up costing more than they are worth very often (time and money). In fact, I would argue that Apple has created this whole update argument nonsense in order to force people to buy new hardware and make it easier and cheaper for them to maintain their systems. I think it is not right that macOS system have such low support time, especially with the embedded browser when you paid so much for it. Being able to update is not a good argument since not only do they change the performance profile of what you bought in many ways but sometimes they even remove features or break compatibility on purpose. At least back then you could downgrade easily but now with Apple Silicon it's almost the same bullshit as iOS devices. Subscription only makes sense if you have running cost (server software, or infrastructure bits) but is mostly nonsense for most consumers' use cases. You need to purposefully introduce breaking changes or shallow superficial reason for it to exist. Which is exactly what Apple is doing, because money...