4 ms·

> 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

by 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.
  - FireBeyond 2y ago
    > 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? I challenge you to demonstrate the Pomodoro app that has a full time dev effort for a year, and then requires anything more than piecemeal bug fixes or maybe a recompile in that four years of support...
    - eropple 2y ago
      That application is also probably not selling 100,000 units, so adjust your expectations downward accordingly.
    - rexf 2y ago
      Apple Watch app, widgets, Live Activities, new phone sizes... there are always things Apple wants you to add over time. Do you want meaningful updates or abandoned software? It doesn't take a full time job, but it's significantly more than $1 per install
    - runako 2y ago
      Let me put it a different way. You have already been paid everything you will ever get paid for work you did in 2021. Next year, I want you to do an unpredictable amount of work to support the 2025 iOS. How much will you charge me? Where will I get the money to pay you? Why would I spend it on this instead of something else where I might see a return?
  - IIsi50MHz 2y ago
    > 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. Similarly, in the 1990s, things like Myst and Sim City 2000 were $40 each. Shareware at the time (mostly indie) were usually $20 or less; often $5, and sometimes fun/silly things like postcardware or beerware.
- CodeWriter23 2y ago
  Adobe was $600 per update. Per app.
rchaud 2y ago
> software from indie publishers used to cost in the ballpark of $40 in the late 1980s Why go that far back? The average computer back then cost thousands of dollars, much more than what an iPhone costs now in inflation-adjusted terms. The App Store is not a new invention, it's been around since 2008, and for year apps were sold for a flat one-time fee. The reason everything is a subscription now is because accountants decided that recurring revenue was how every startup should be valued, and every vendor adjusted their pricing structure accordingly.
- chipotle_coyote 2y ago
  This is happening with a lot of companies that don't really have to care about "startup value"; they're tiny (sometimes even one-person) shops that aren't likely to ever go public, be bought for millions, or so on. I think you've got the cause and effect reversed for a lot of these -- the App Store pricing model has driven the price people expect to pay for apps down substantially, which made the "buy outright and then buy a new version in a couple years, at a discount, if it appeals to you" model much harder to sustain. I don't love subscriptions for apps that don't have a server-side component, but I get it. (The example of the Pomodoro app with the subscription is pretty dubious, though.)
- runako 2y ago
  > Why go that far back? Because this is the era before really any major software was sold by subscription. Even 2008 was a hybrid era where some Web software was already subscription-based. Consumer behavior had already started to shift by 2008. > for year apps were sold for a flat one-time fee. This model also makes a lot of assumptions about where user data is stored and who is paying for that storage. Many apps have non-trivial backend requirements to support very normal use cases like "I also would like to access this from a Web browser sometimes." Those requirements cost money on an ongoing basis. One-time purchases are not a good fit for this either. We do not see many one-time purchases of Web software; many mobile apps are essentially parts of a larger whole that includes other modes of access to underlying services.
Breza 2y ago
Apps at the scale of what GP describes were often freeware with no ads or tracking back in the day. I remember when PC Magazine would send a CD-ROM full of utilities like that with the latest issue (not strictly free but I was already subscribing). Or when I would search download.com for the specific tool I needed. I even made a free tool for timing debate tournaments in high school, which was similarly complex to the timer you need to subscribe to in the app store.

by runako 2y ago

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.
- FireBeyond 2y ago
  > 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? I challenge you to demonstrate the Pomodoro app that has a full time dev effort for a year, and then requires anything more than piecemeal bug fixes or maybe a recompile in that four years of support...
  - eropple 2y ago
    That application is also probably not selling 100,000 units, so adjust your expectations downward accordingly.
  - rexf 2y ago
    Apple Watch app, widgets, Live Activities, new phone sizes... there are always things Apple wants you to add over time. Do you want meaningful updates or abandoned software? It doesn't take a full time job, but it's significantly more than $1 per install
  - runako 2y ago
    Let me put it a different way. You have already been paid everything you will ever get paid for work you did in 2021. Next year, I want you to do an unpredictable amount of work to support the 2025 iOS. How much will you charge me? Where will I get the money to pay you? Why would I spend it on this instead of something else where I might see a return?
- IIsi50MHz 2y ago
  > 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. Similarly, in the 1990s, things like Myst and Sim City 2000 were $40 each. Shareware at the time (mostly indie) were usually $20 or less; often $5, and sometimes fun/silly things like postcardware or beerware.
CodeWriter23 2y ago
Adobe was $600 per update. Per app.

rchaud 2y ago

> software from indie publishers used to cost in the ballpark of $40 in the late 1980s Why go that far back? The average computer back then cost thousands of dollars, much more than what an iPhone costs now in inflation-adjusted terms. The App Store is not a new invention, it's been around since 2008, and for year apps were sold for a flat one-time fee. The reason everything is a subscription now is because accountants decided that recurring revenue was how every startup should be valued, and every vendor adjusted their pricing structure accordingly.

chipotle_coyote 2y ago
This is happening with a lot of companies that don't really have to care about "startup value"; they're tiny (sometimes even one-person) shops that aren't likely to ever go public, be bought for millions, or so on. I think you've got the cause and effect reversed for a lot of these -- the App Store pricing model has driven the price people expect to pay for apps down substantially, which made the "buy outright and then buy a new version in a couple years, at a discount, if it appeals to you" model much harder to sustain. I don't love subscriptions for apps that don't have a server-side component, but I get it. (The example of the Pomodoro app with the subscription is pretty dubious, though.)
runako 2y ago
> Why go that far back? Because this is the era before really any major software was sold by subscription. Even 2008 was a hybrid era where some Web software was already subscription-based. Consumer behavior had already started to shift by 2008. > for year apps were sold for a flat one-time fee. This model also makes a lot of assumptions about where user data is stored and who is paying for that storage. Many apps have non-trivial backend requirements to support very normal use cases like "I also would like to access this from a Web browser sometimes." Those requirements cost money on an ongoing basis. One-time purchases are not a good fit for this either. We do not see many one-time purchases of Web software; many mobile apps are essentially parts of a larger whole that includes other modes of access to underlying services.

Breza 2y ago

Apps at the scale of what GP describes were often freeware with no ads or tracking back in the day. I remember when PC Magazine would send a CD-ROM full of utilities like that with the latest issue (not strictly free but I was already subscribing). Or when I would search download.com for the specific tool I needed. I even made a free tool for timing debate tournaments in high school, which was similarly complex to the timer you need to subscribe to in the app store.