6 ms·

I just looked at two pomodoro apps on the app store, one had a one-time purchase fee, the other had a subscription only model. It's a freaking pomodoro app! I c

by baby 2y ago

I just looked at two pomodoro apps on the app store, one had a one-time purchase fee, the other had a subscription only model. It's a freaking pomodoro app! I can't believe I have to pay for that in the first place (why doesn't the countdown app of Apple not have a widget =.=) but a subscription? People are greedy af.

rahimnathwani 2y ago
If you don't mind a PWA, I like this: https://qoomon.github.io/time-timer-webapp/ https://qoomon.github.io/time-timer-webapp/
runeb 2y ago
iOS and macOS ships with Pomodoro. Open Shortcuts and you should see it.
hyperliner 2y ago
[dead]
yumraj 2y ago
> People are greedy af. Personally, for smaller developers, I attribute this more to ignorance than malice (greed). Pricing is hard so they just look around and pick what they see happening around them without taking a moment even to think, forget about doing actual research.
- hiatus 2y ago
  These smaller developers go through the trouble of building an app and getting verified for distribution on the App Store but don't give even a moment's thought to pricing? Surely the easiest option is free compared to some arbitrary monthly price and having to set up payments, etc.
  - mewpmewp2 2y ago
    But why should people do apps for free?
    - Zambyte 2y ago
      People should be paid to do something, rather than be paid for something they did.
      - mewpmewp2 2y ago
        What? I create something, and I shouldn't be able to sell it? What?
        Zambyte 2y ago
        Software isn't a "thing" so there is nothing to sell. The only way to monetize software is to monetize the labor of writing it directly. When you "sell" "licenses" to software, you're just double, triple, N dipping on monetizing labor that already happened. The alternative is charging to write software, which is actually how most people (employees) make money writing software. Corporations take advantage of the difference between paying people to write software, and charging people over and over again to use the same software that has already been written.
    - hiatus 2y ago
      I never said "they should do apps for free". I was rebutting the idea that small app developers don't give any thought to pricing and just use a monthly subscription, which sounds like more work than just giving it away for free. If they landed on a subscription model they must have given it _some_ thought.
  - yumraj 2y ago
    Obviously they want to be paid.
  - fragmede 2y ago
    "having to set up payments, etc" people (including me) complain about apple taking a 30% cut from developers, but for that money, they do make that part easy.
runako 2y ago
> People are greedy af. Putting on my Older Person hat for a moment, software from indie publishers used to cost in the ballpark of $40 in the late 1980s (that's ~$100 in 2024 dollars after adjusting for inflation). $100 for a single version of a single app. When the next point release comes out, the publisher might give you a discount of 50%, so it might only cost you $50. A major release was often required for compatibility with a new OS version. All the software we used back in the day? We spent significant money on it. Do you think apps like these pomodoro apps would sell in sustainable quantities if it were $100 for major releases and $50 for point releases? What if it were $100 to get the current version every time iOS did a major version upgrade? Or is it more likely that these apps would simply not exist? People say they want one-time purchases, but the small $ subscriptions are more consumer-friendly than is immediately apparent. And they support a vastly more comprehensive software ecosystem.
- cooper_ganglia 2y ago
  You could almost use this argument to convince me for a complex software like the Adobe products that is constantly getting new, major updates, but for a Pomodoro app? Honestly, $1 seems reasonable.
  - runako 2y ago
    I should have been clearer. Apps from big publishers were more expensive than the indies in the 1980s. And indie shops that were charging ~$40 ($100 in 2024 dollars) for their titles. This is a direct comparison to the type of pomodoro app mentioned in the upthread comment. The thing is, all software constantly needs new updates. If not platform-driven, then security, bug fixes, etc. The more niche (like a pomodoro app), the fewer users over which to amortize the dev costs. A lifetime fee of $1, sold to a huge audience of 100k paid users, will pay for ~1 year of a single dev in the US, perhaps 2-3 years of a developer in a low-cost country. And then where does the money come from for updates in year 4 and beyond? Subscription payments recognize the realities that a) development never ends for most apps that are in use and b) developers are not going to be free in the future just because the publisher only charged once.
1123581321 2y ago
That doesn't seem odd to me. Pomodoro/focus apps are a category where people start casual, but end up developing very specific desires that narrow their options. Someone catering to that can charge a bit. Whether it's ethical for developers to cater to that kind of helpless behavior is another question.
gdubs 2y ago
People are so used to the zero interest rate period of tech that everyone expects the pricing model of VC backed startups that can burn money forever and maybe figure out a business model at some point. Software costs time and money. People complain that they don't want the same uninspired corporate created junk – and then they balk at paying indie developers a reasonable amount for apps. So much work goes into this stuff! It's so tempting for indie devs to just take the high paying job, and then congrats – no more unique and interesting apps like this.
- ricardobeat 2y ago
  I’m not sure what your point was. Is this in defense or against IaP? Most people don’t balk at paying fair prices for an app, but the definition has drifted so far that €7/month (€84/year) is described as “fair” for a simple timer, and that is plain absurd. Halide goes for €69 one-time purchase, or €12,50/year. For professional software that is really well designed and is actually kept up to date. This should be the benchmark.
  - Breza 2y ago
    I totally agree with you. I don't mind paying for creative devs to build awesome software. I do mind cash grabs. Mobile gaming is the most frustrating category. It's sad that pay-once-no-ads games like Crashlands and 80 Days are the exception. Enterprise software is a close second, but I'm not paying those bills out of my own pocket.
- sitkack 2y ago
  What to ZIRPs have to do with Pomodoro subscriptions?
spiderice 2y ago
> I can't believe I have to pay for that in the first place > People are greedy af I hope the irony of these two statements isn't lost on you
- patrickcorrigan 2y ago
  I know right! I run a freemium B2C app and I get users telling me this all the time. It's so ridiculous. No one is forcing anyone to use the software. Go write your own version and give it away for free.
ErigmolCt 2y ago
Agree, it's frustrating to see simple apps like this requiring a subscription model.

by baby 2y ago

rahimnathwani 2y ago

If you don't mind a PWA, I like this: https://qoomon.github.io/time-timer-webapp/ https://qoomon.github.io/time-timer-webapp/

runeb 2y ago

iOS and macOS ships with Pomodoro. Open Shortcuts and you should see it.

hyperliner 2y ago

[dead]

yumraj 2y ago

> People are greedy af. Personally, for smaller developers, I attribute this more to ignorance than malice (greed). Pricing is hard so they just look around and pick what they see happening around them without taking a moment even to think, forget about doing actual research.

hiatus 2y ago
These smaller developers go through the trouble of building an app and getting verified for distribution on the App Store but don't give even a moment's thought to pricing? Surely the easiest option is free compared to some arbitrary monthly price and having to set up payments, etc.
- mewpmewp2 2y ago
  But why should people do apps for free?
  - Zambyte 2y ago
    People should be paid to do something, rather than be paid for something they did.
    - mewpmewp2 2y ago
      What? I create something, and I shouldn't be able to sell it? What?
      - Zambyte 2y ago
        Software isn't a "thing" so there is nothing to sell. The only way to monetize software is to monetize the labor of writing it directly. When you "sell" "licenses" to software, you're just double, triple, N dipping on monetizing labor that already happened. The alternative is charging to write software, which is actually how most people (employees) make money writing software. Corporations take advantage of the difference between paying people to write software, and charging people over and over again to use the same software that has already been written.
  - hiatus 2y ago
    I never said "they should do apps for free". I was rebutting the idea that small app developers don't give any thought to pricing and just use a monthly subscription, which sounds like more work than just giving it away for free. If they landed on a subscription model they must have given it _some_ thought.
- yumraj 2y ago
  Obviously they want to be paid.
- fragmede 2y ago
  "having to set up payments, etc" people (including me) complain about apple taking a 30% cut from developers, but for that money, they do make that part easy.

runako 2y ago

> People are greedy af. Putting on my Older Person hat for a moment, software from indie publishers used to cost in the ballpark of $40 in the late 1980s (that's ~$100 in 2024 dollars after adjusting for inflation). $100 for a single version of a single app. When the next point release comes out, the publisher might give you a discount of 50%, so it might only cost you $50. A major release was often required for compatibility with a new OS version. All the software we used back in the day? We spent significant money on it. Do you think apps like these pomodoro apps would sell in sustainable quantities if it were $100 for major releases and $50 for point releases? What if it were $100 to get the current version every time iOS did a major version upgrade? Or is it more likely that these apps would simply not exist? People say they want one-time purchases, but the small $ subscriptions are more consumer-friendly than is immediately apparent. And they support a vastly more comprehensive software ecosystem.

cooper_ganglia 2y ago
You could almost use this argument to convince me for a complex software like the Adobe products that is constantly getting new, major updates, but for a Pomodoro app? Honestly, $1 seems reasonable.
- runako 2y ago
  I should have been clearer. Apps from big publishers were more expensive than the indies in the 1980s. And indie shops that were charging ~$40 ($100 in 2024 dollars) for their titles. This is a direct comparison to the type of pomodoro app mentioned in the upthread comment. The thing is, all software constantly needs new updates. If not platform-driven, then security, bug fixes, etc. The more niche (like a pomodoro app), the fewer users over which to amortize the dev costs. A lifetime fee of $1, sold to a huge audience of 100k paid users, will pay for ~1 year of a single dev in the US, perhaps 2-3 years of a developer in a low-cost country. And then where does the money come from for updates in year 4 and beyond? Subscription payments recognize the realities that a) development never ends for most apps that are in use and b) developers are not going to be free in the future just because the publisher only charged once.

1123581321 2y ago

That doesn't seem odd to me. Pomodoro/focus apps are a category where people start casual, but end up developing very specific desires that narrow their options. Someone catering to that can charge a bit. Whether it's ethical for developers to cater to that kind of helpless behavior is another question.

gdubs 2y ago

People are so used to the zero interest rate period of tech that everyone expects the pricing model of VC backed startups that can burn money forever and maybe figure out a business model at some point. Software costs time and money. People complain that they don't want the same uninspired corporate created junk – and then they balk at paying indie developers a reasonable amount for apps. So much work goes into this stuff! It's so tempting for indie devs to just take the high paying job, and then congrats – no more unique and interesting apps like this.

ricardobeat 2y ago
I’m not sure what your point was. Is this in defense or against IaP? Most people don’t balk at paying fair prices for an app, but the definition has drifted so far that €7/month (€84/year) is described as “fair” for a simple timer, and that is plain absurd. Halide goes for €69 one-time purchase, or €12,50/year. For professional software that is really well designed and is actually kept up to date. This should be the benchmark.
- Breza 2y ago
  I totally agree with you. I don't mind paying for creative devs to build awesome software. I do mind cash grabs. Mobile gaming is the most frustrating category. It's sad that pay-once-no-ads games like Crashlands and 80 Days are the exception. Enterprise software is a close second, but I'm not paying those bills out of my own pocket.
sitkack 2y ago
What to ZIRPs have to do with Pomodoro subscriptions?

spiderice 2y ago

> I can't believe I have to pay for that in the first place > People are greedy af I hope the irony of these two statements isn't lost on you

patrickcorrigan 2y ago
I know right! I run a freemium B2C app and I get users telling me this all the time. It's so ridiculous. No one is forcing anyone to use the software. Go write your own version and give it away for free.

ErigmolCt 2y ago

Agree, it's frustrating to see simple apps like this requiring a subscription model.