Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Subscription fatigue and related musings

morrick.me

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 123 posts

Re: Subscription fatigue and related musings

#101

Post by lozenge »

hgsgm wrote: post #74
lapcat wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Subscriptions align developer and user interests and produce better products and less wasted money in the long run. This is incorrect, as evidenced by the entire history of software development before the App Store, as well as software now that is sold outside the App Store. When developers can choose their own business model, outside the constraints out the App Store, they overwhelming do not choose subscriptions.…

Software was incredibly expensive before the subscription era.

The revenue of the developer is the cost paid by the users. They are one and the same. We can't say that subscriptions help keep developers in work without also saying they are costing users.

Re: Subscription fatigue and related musings

#102

Post by AlexandrB »

ghaff wrote: post #54
swatcoder wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's interesting that in your thoughtful survey of alternatives, you don't consider simply challenging the assumption "and provide updates forever". Subscriptions do indeed fund perpetual development in a way that one time purchases don't, but the implication that comes along with that is that features are to be added along the way. If you only released maintenance patches, you subscriber satisfaction would dry up re…

That makes a lot of sense for something like a lot of games. Develop it, provide maintenance/patches for a while, and when it pretty much breaks on an OS upgrade after a few years? Most people who cared got their enjoyment out of it. No reason to support ad infinitum.

What's funny is that the people who really care will continue patching your game for free to keep it running on newer operating systems.

Re: Subscription fatigue and related musings

#103

Post by AlexandrB »

mrtksn wrote: post #50
deergomoo wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Maybe the AppStores can implement something like version limiting and you can ask for a payment for upgrading to the new version I can only assume this is a deliberate omission to push people into subscriptions.

IMHO it's not that. I think they don't want to have users with outdated apps. It makes the experience of the device worse and especially Apple is very protective over the user experience since that's how they sell iPhones.

IMHO it's a worse experience to own a device that can't be used for what you want to do without paying monthly fees to app developers.

Re: Subscription fatigue and related musings

#104

Post by AlexandrB »

ghaff wrote: post #43
deergomoo wrote: post #39

My biggest issue with App Store subscriptions is that I'm effectively only renting the software, as opposed to buying into future updates. If I cancel my subscription to a JetBrains IDE or the database client I use, I get to use the most recent version I paid for forever. Those are more like auto-opting into paid upgrades, which I'm totally fine with. For an iOS app, if I cancel my subscription I'm left with nothing.…

>I get to continue to use the most recent version I paid money for forever Or until it stops working with an OS upgrade/update.

I ran Sparrow (last release in 2011) until last year. It's weird how software from older eras seems to work fine across a decade of OS changes, but I'm told that modern software is like a delicate flower that wilts with each patch if I don't pay $1.99/mo.

Has software development regressed that far or is this just an excuse?

Re: Subscription fatigue and related musings

#105

Post by bachmeier »

jwr wrote: post #97

The article says the author has no solution to propose. I do have a solution to propose. Accept subscriptions, but be very selective about the apps that you use. It's what I do — I happily pay the subscription fees, because this is the only way to sustainably maintain an app. And I'd much rather have a few really good apps than a plethora of half-baked ad-ridden garbage. In other words, I don't have "subscription fat…

> I happily pay the subscription fees, because this is the only way to sustainably maintain an app.

No, it's not. Sustainably building an app requires revenue. Whether that revenue comes in the form of a subscription, a one-time payment, or multiple payments in return for updates does not matter to the developer. There's this idea that people are idiots, not knowing that they're paying more if it's a subscription. If that's your business model, you're screwed, because it doesn't work that way.

What makes subscription-only even worse is that it's a big burden to keep track of subscriptions and, if you decide to cancel, putting up with all that BS. I spend far less on software as a result of subscription models. I don't have time to play those games.

> And I'd much rather have a few really good apps than a plethora of half-baked ad-ridden garbage.

That's not the choice that's being made.

Re: Subscription fatigue and related musings

#106

Post by funcDropShadow »

comfypotato wrote: post #19
xoa wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It doesn't make sense whatsoever to receive one time payment and provide updates forever. Duh? This is written in English but I genuinely have trouble making sense of your words. We had this for decades without subscriptions, they're called UPGRADES! You buy 1.x, or 2.x or whatever, and then when 3.x comes out new customers pay full price but existing ones get it at a much reduced price. But they can do so on their…

With phone upgrades, for example, and an iOS app. The cost of maintaining different versions of apps for different tiers of payees seems prohibitive. Especially when libraries change constantly. Maybe I’m wrong and your system would work fine. It doesn’t seem right to me though. Personally, I think subscriptions are the way forward, just lower cost subscriptions. Why is 15 a month such a standard? Most of the 15/mont…

> The cost of maintaining different versions of apps for different tiers of payees seems prohibitive. Especially when libraries change constantly.

Perhaps, developers should look for libraries that don't change constantly. That way the could reduce their workload independent from the pricing model.

Re: Subscription fatigue and related musings

#107

Post by strobe »

more fair alternative to subscriptions probably is 'pay as you go' model which used by mobile carriers and some games developers. Do you need to use calculator app often? -just buy enough 'credits points' and if you won't need using app anymore is no need to pay anything until your credits is gone and would be new need for app usage again.

Re: Subscription fatigue and related musings

#108

Post by brookst »

goosedragons wrote: post #86
hgsgm wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Software was incredibly expensive before the subscription era.

Was it? It's not really cheaper now. If you're lucky the subscription price is similar to the price of the standalone price after X years, usually how often they'd release an update. Except with the subscription you can't NOT update if the current version meets your needs. I think of a few apps I've bought that moved to the subscription model where the subscription is several times the price of the app in a year.

> If you're lucky the subscription price is similar to the price of the standalone price after X years,

Yes! That is how it should work. Think of it as costing the same if you find value for years, but you have the option of bailing early and getting a refund if you don’t find it as valuable as you expected.

> where the subscription is several times the price of the app in a year

Don’t conflate the price and the model. Those developers found that they were not financially viable and changed both price and model. The thinking was probably something like “in order to make a decent living, we have to increase price by 3x” / “wow! Nobody will pay that up front, it’s too risky. But subscriptions will produce the same financial result and not scare off new customers.”

This is a pie-slicing problem. Developers want to make money, users don’t want to pay. Upfront pricing is a lose-lose, with lower sales for developers and higher risks for buyers.

Re: Subscription fatigue and related musings

#109

Post by ghaff »

brookst wrote: post #108
goosedragons wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Was it? It's not really cheaper now. If you're lucky the subscription price is similar to the price of the standalone price after X years, usually how often they'd release an update. Except with the subscription you can't NOT update if the current version meets your needs. I think of a few apps I've bought that moved to the subscription model where the subscription is several times the price of the app in a year.

> If you're lucky the subscription price is similar to the price of the standalone price after X years, Yes! That is how it should work. Think of it as costing the same if you find value for years, but you have the option of bailing early and getting a refund if you don’t find it as valuable as you expected. > where the subscription is several times the price of the app in a year Don’t conflate the price and the mode…

Right. (Also in-app purchases.)

It used to be routine to spend maybe $100 up to even a $1000 in today's dollars for a retail software package--and you probably got some discount on the next upgrade. Good luck selling that today. People have just gotten away from paying for digital content up-front (whether software, music, or movies)

Re: Subscription fatigue and related musings

#110

Post by goosedragons »

brookst wrote: post #108
goosedragons wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Was it? It's not really cheaper now. If you're lucky the subscription price is similar to the price of the standalone price after X years, usually how often they'd release an update. Except with the subscription you can't NOT update if the current version meets your needs. I think of a few apps I've bought that moved to the subscription model where the subscription is several times the price of the app in a year.

> If you're lucky the subscription price is similar to the price of the standalone price after X years, Yes! That is how it should work. Think of it as costing the same if you find value for years, but you have the option of bailing early and getting a refund if you don’t find it as valuable as you expected. > where the subscription is several times the price of the app in a year Don’t conflate the price and the mode…

Okay. But if you're happy with the feature set AS IS the day you subscribe then you're paying more. E.g. if Photoshop 7 still meets your needs then you don't need to upgrade to CS, CS2,... etc. Now with CC you're "upgrading" every version even if you don't touch a single new feature. That's not cheaper. There's no guarantee the user needs or wants the upgrade but with a subscription there's no choice.

Let me bail early with a trial or a return period.

It's also not cheaper if devs reprice things to be more expensive even if that's more sustainable for them.

Post reply on HN