4 ms·

well said, this makes zero sense to be a subscription service

smt88 2y ago
All web-based software makes sense as a subscription because of ongoing maintenance costs. Servers, security updates, bug fixes, dealing with app stores, testing on new devices... it adds up in an unpredictable way. That's not even considering the many subscriptions a developer has to pay, including to Apple.
- culopatin 2y ago
  Makes sense as a subscription for the developer, not the user. I’d not pay for this, subscription or not. It’s up to the person trying to sell me something to either convince me to pay (not happening in this case) or figure out other ways of making money (deals with restaurants, premium features, idk). I get that there is work behind it, there is work behind everything, and I get they are reoccurring. What you mention is still valid, but in the real world, sob story about costs to run something are not something the customer cares about.
- nighthawk454 2y ago
  That's... not the user's problem. This is a fine and cool project don't get me wrong. But the overall 'subscription everything' model is not really justified by costs. The subscriptions are usually orders of magnitude more than the true operating cost. It's not the customer's job to pay you forever bc Apple wants a developer license. It's the business's job to make sure it's sustainable with the costs that it has / has chosen to bear. That's the backpressure on business models - they're not all viable. Just because you _could_ add in a bunch of servers and cloud costs and whatever, doesn't mean it's inherently justified. The problem is more that it's gotten _so_ cheap to run, that charging each user a seemingly-nominal 5c/day fee doesn't feel bad to an average person for a chance at value. And at scale you get enough people who figure "ah it's not that much", and end up with massive profit margins. Profiting off the disparity between the individual choice and the aggregate.
  - dools 2y ago
    > But the overall 'subscription everything' model is not really justified by costs Probably shouldn't subscribe then ...
    - zdragnar 2y ago
      I think the argument is that you shouldn't choose to price a product as a subscription simply because you have recurring costs. If I subscribe to a magazine or a streaming service, I continually get new content. Apps that aren't doing that are basically price gouging customers.
      - hanifc 2y ago
        It’s nice of you to consider the wellbeing of other users, but I think every adult has the right to make their own decisions about how to spend their money. If it’s not a price you’re willing to pay, that’s fine. But if someone else gets value out of it and thinks it’s a fair trade, that’s between them and the app creator.
        simoncion 2y ago
        > But if someone else gets value out of it and thinks it’s a fair trade, that’s between them and the app creator. Since we're apparently now doing Freshman Civics: There are many sorts of transactions that someone would get value from and think are a fair trade, but are prohibited for one reason or another. Even for those somewhat-antisocial transactions that aren't prohibited, there's no rule that says that you can't complain about how those transactions could be more pro-social.
        oasisaimlessly 2y ago
        > Even for those somewhat-antisocial transactions that aren't prohibited, there's no rule that says that you can't complain about how those transactions could be more pro-social. Yeah, and there's also no rule that says that other people can't tell you to shut up.
- pcthrowaway 2y ago
  Even if the service can't be delivered indefinitely for a one-time payment, subscriptions as the only option are a hard sell at this point, because most people are feeling the effects of subscription fatigue A 1-year pricing option or 30-day trial with the option to pay up front for a year or a month, without it becoming a subscription is way more compelling to the user than signing up for a subscription that one then has to remember to cancel. I personally subscribe to Amazon Prime and that's it. A service has to meet an incredibly high bar for me to consider a subscription, and I wouldn't have considered it with Amazon until after they had set up their global prime delivery infrastructure/network and video streaming service. I'm not going to give my credit card to a company that makes picking out a recipe slightly easier to keep on file, that's a ludicrous proposition.
- spamtarget 2y ago
  From a consumer’s perspective, paying for a product or service is an exchange of money for value. Even with a service, there’s a tangible result—like a fresh haircut or the convenience of not dealing with tax filing. Paying only makes sense when there’s value in return, which isn’t true for many subscription services. Arguments about “maintenance costs” hold little weight for customers who don’t perceive any added value. In some cases, subscriptions are reasonable, such as when software would be a heavy burden on personal devices, like power-intensive language models, or when it needs to stay compliant with evolving legal requirements, like an accounting software or something. A larger issue is Apple’s push for subscription-based software in almost everything, often to bolster its bottom line, while damaging the industry as a whole for the reasons mentioned. Also subscription to a developer is a product for them, it has nothing to do with the product they create for others
- prmoustache 2y ago
  The point of commercial software shouldn't to satisfy the need of their developpers to get paid for it but to reach that intersection where it is useful enough for many users to accept paying a decent price for it and allow dev to make a profit. If that intersection is unreachable in the first place, there is just no sense to mention maintenance costs.
- tourmalinetaco 2y ago
  So don’t be inept and make a web service out of what can and should be local-first.
shadowmnifold 2y ago
Really one of the most ridiculous things I can remember seeing.

All web-based software makes sense as a subscription because of ongoing maintenance costs. Servers, security updates, bug fixes, dealing with app stores, testing on new devices... it adds up in an unpredictable way. That's not even considering the many subscriptions a developer has to pay, including to Apple.

culopatin 2y ago
Makes sense as a subscription for the developer, not the user. I’d not pay for this, subscription or not. It’s up to the person trying to sell me something to either convince me to pay (not happening in this case) or figure out other ways of making money (deals with restaurants, premium features, idk). I get that there is work behind it, there is work behind everything, and I get they are reoccurring. What you mention is still valid, but in the real world, sob story about costs to run something are not something the customer cares about.
nighthawk454 2y ago
That's... not the user's problem. This is a fine and cool project don't get me wrong. But the overall 'subscription everything' model is not really justified by costs. The subscriptions are usually orders of magnitude more than the true operating cost. It's not the customer's job to pay you forever bc Apple wants a developer license. It's the business's job to make sure it's sustainable with the costs that it has / has chosen to bear. That's the backpressure on business models - they're not all viable. Just because you _could_ add in a bunch of servers and cloud costs and whatever, doesn't mean it's inherently justified. The problem is more that it's gotten _so_ cheap to run, that charging each user a seemingly-nominal 5c/day fee doesn't feel bad to an average person for a chance at value. And at scale you get enough people who figure "ah it's not that much", and end up with massive profit margins. Profiting off the disparity between the individual choice and the aggregate.
- dools 2y ago
  > But the overall 'subscription everything' model is not really justified by costs Probably shouldn't subscribe then ...
  - zdragnar 2y ago
    I think the argument is that you shouldn't choose to price a product as a subscription simply because you have recurring costs. If I subscribe to a magazine or a streaming service, I continually get new content. Apps that aren't doing that are basically price gouging customers.
    - hanifc 2y ago
      It’s nice of you to consider the wellbeing of other users, but I think every adult has the right to make their own decisions about how to spend their money. If it’s not a price you’re willing to pay, that’s fine. But if someone else gets value out of it and thinks it’s a fair trade, that’s between them and the app creator.
      - simoncion 2y ago
        > But if someone else gets value out of it and thinks it’s a fair trade, that’s between them and the app creator. Since we're apparently now doing Freshman Civics: There are many sorts of transactions that someone would get value from and think are a fair trade, but are prohibited for one reason or another. Even for those somewhat-antisocial transactions that aren't prohibited, there's no rule that says that you can't complain about how those transactions could be more pro-social.
        oasisaimlessly 2y ago
        > Even for those somewhat-antisocial transactions that aren't prohibited, there's no rule that says that you can't complain about how those transactions could be more pro-social. Yeah, and there's also no rule that says that other people can't tell you to shut up.
pcthrowaway 2y ago
Even if the service can't be delivered indefinitely for a one-time payment, subscriptions as the only option are a hard sell at this point, because most people are feeling the effects of subscription fatigue A 1-year pricing option or 30-day trial with the option to pay up front for a year or a month, without it becoming a subscription is way more compelling to the user than signing up for a subscription that one then has to remember to cancel. I personally subscribe to Amazon Prime and that's it. A service has to meet an incredibly high bar for me to consider a subscription, and I wouldn't have considered it with Amazon until after they had set up their global prime delivery infrastructure/network and video streaming service. I'm not going to give my credit card to a company that makes picking out a recipe slightly easier to keep on file, that's a ludicrous proposition.
spamtarget 2y ago
From a consumer’s perspective, paying for a product or service is an exchange of money for value. Even with a service, there’s a tangible result—like a fresh haircut or the convenience of not dealing with tax filing. Paying only makes sense when there’s value in return, which isn’t true for many subscription services. Arguments about “maintenance costs” hold little weight for customers who don’t perceive any added value. In some cases, subscriptions are reasonable, such as when software would be a heavy burden on personal devices, like power-intensive language models, or when it needs to stay compliant with evolving legal requirements, like an accounting software or something. A larger issue is Apple’s push for subscription-based software in almost everything, often to bolster its bottom line, while damaging the industry as a whole for the reasons mentioned. Also subscription to a developer is a product for them, it has nothing to do with the product they create for others
prmoustache 2y ago
The point of commercial software shouldn't to satisfy the need of their developpers to get paid for it but to reach that intersection where it is useful enough for many users to accept paying a decent price for it and allow dev to make a profit. If that intersection is unreachable in the first place, there is just no sense to mention maintenance costs.
tourmalinetaco 2y ago
So don’t be inept and make a web service out of what can and should be local-first.

shadowmnifold 2y ago

Really one of the most ridiculous things I can remember seeing.