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

31–40 of 123 posts

Re: Subscription fatigue and related musings

#31

Post by thenipper »

candiddevmike wrote: post #3

I build apps with subscriptions (like https://homechart.app ) and this is why I offer a lifetime subscription/one time payment. To me, the monthly/yearly option gives users more of an "extended trial" option, and they'll hopefully see that it makes sense to just go lifetime. One problem I have (perhaps self inflicted) is that I do not offer my lifetime subscription on app stores. 30% is a huge cut of what is effectiv…

Looking at this your pricing strategy is totally reasonable. Like I’ll try something like that out and if it’s worth it pay just the lifetime cost.

Question: I couldn’t find this with a quick skim of the site on my phone. Do you have an API?

Re: Subscription fatigue and related musings

#32

Post by caseyross »

The big underlying factor is that so many software prices are artificially low because they're subsidized by collecting and making money off of users' personal data.

Unlike with physical goods, users don't know any "objective" ways to judge the fairness of software pricing. So they see (monetarily) free software everywhere and think that good software is cheap to make.

You can view the subscription/purchase debate as a second-order effect of people just not wanting to pay much for software, because they think that's what it's worth.

Re: Subscription fatigue and related musings

#33

Post by gnicholas »

cglong wrote: post #17

This article misses the elephant in the room: Apple. For years after the App Store launched, developers asked for an integrated way to provide upgrade pricing to help support major upgrades. Instead, they usually had to resort to creating an entirely new entry in the App Store. How many customers were lost because they didn't know they had to go back to the Store to download a separate app named Thing 2? And how many…

> Unlike paid upgrades, a subscription guarantees recurring revenue not only for the developer, but for Apple themselves.

Actually, Apple would get more revenue the other way. They only take 15% on subscription revenue after the first year.

Re: Subscription fatigue and related musings

#34

Post by jsmith99 »

wongarsu wrote: post #11
candiddevmike wrote: post #3

I build apps with subscriptions (like https://homechart.app ) and this is why I offer a lifetime subscription/one time payment. To me, the monthly/yearly option gives users more of an "extended trial" option, and they'll hopefully see that it makes sense to just go lifetime. One problem I have (perhaps self inflicted) is that I do not offer my lifetime subscription on app stores. 30% is a huge cut of what is effectiv…

> I do think subscription-based creates better quality software Maybe compared to pay-once. But the pay-for-every-major-version model that used to be common also provides an incentive to improve, while avoiding redesign churn: the amount of sales you get is directly correlated to how much better your new version is. Meanwhile with subscriptions you mainly have to update the design to attract new customers, your old c…

The app store is full of programs that haven't been updated in several years but still attract subscriptions until they get too buggy. Eg most popular ebook readers (eg kybook 3 still costs £15/year).

Re: Subscription fatigue and related musings

#36

Post by reaperducer »

radicalriddler wrote: post #21

I'm building an app at the moment, and I'm thinking to myself, "do people really want another subscription, or would they be happier buying credits or something". It's a really tough question to answer, but I'm so pulled to the subscription because it's been so successful for others.

Last year I tried to buy a mahjongg game for my iPad. My requirements:

  No subscription
  No hoarding my personal data
  Updated in the last year or so
I couldn't find a single one. They're all subscriptions, slurping up personal information, or not updated in a very long time so they can continue to fly under the radar and not report what data they're selling about me.

I'd pay $20, maybe $25 for an app the just let me play a simple tile game. But greed rules the app world.

Re: Subscription fatigue and related musings

#37

Post by kruuuder »

silvestrov wrote: post #6

A significant problem is that the App Store just says "In App Purchases" on the App page. We don't even get a list of prices and functionality of the IAPs. In EU it is a requirement that: "When you buy goods or services in the EU, you have to be clearly informed about the total price, including all taxes and additional charges." https://europa.eu/youreurope/citizens/consumers/shopping/pri... I don't think the App sto…

I think the requirement means something else: If a consumer purchases a product, they cannot be charged more than the declared price, e.g. by adding VAT or "handling fees" during checkout. The price must be transparent up-front.

If you download a free app from the App Store that has some obscure in-app purchases or subscription, that's not a problem either, because you didn't purchase anything yet.

Re: Subscription fatigue and related musings

#38

Post by wafriedemann »

cglong wrote: post #17

This article misses the elephant in the room: Apple. For years after the App Store launched, developers asked for an integrated way to provide upgrade pricing to help support major upgrades. Instead, they usually had to resort to creating an entirely new entry in the App Store. How many customers were lost because they didn't know they had to go back to the Store to download a separate app named Thing 2? And how many…

Typical Tim Cook strategy. I mean, who am I to judge Tim Cook. I assume in-app purchases work similarly to in-game purchases, meaning a very small amount of customers contribute the vast amount to revenue. One reason I believe this is that these apps cost ridiculous amounts of money for what they are. Notes app monthlies, Bunch of face filters for a yearly subscription, and so on. In the short term this increases revenue for devs and Apple. However, I do think that this strategy could backlash for Apple if the app ecosystem (a differentiating factor at some point) becomes less and less attractive. All of my paid apps are Mac exclusive. If they change to subscription then I am out. This also means my lock-in to Mac diminishes.

Re: Subscription fatigue and related musings

#39

Post by deergomoo »

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. It really sucks, because a lot of the software I use is not a service in any sense, but the App Store model forces it to be so.

Re: Subscription fatigue and related musings

#40

Post by wafriedemann »

gnicholas wrote: post #33
cglong wrote: post #17

This article misses the elephant in the room: Apple. For years after the App Store launched, developers asked for an integrated way to provide upgrade pricing to help support major upgrades. Instead, they usually had to resort to creating an entirely new entry in the App Store. How many customers were lost because they didn't know they had to go back to the Store to download a separate app named Thing 2? And how many…

> Unlike paid upgrades, a subscription guarantees recurring revenue not only for the developer, but for Apple themselves. Actually, Apple would get more revenue the other way. They only take 15% on subscription revenue after the first year.

The bean counter is not enforcing strategies that make him less money overall, that's certain.
Post reply on HN