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

71–80 of 123 posts

Re: Subscription fatigue and related musings

#71

Post by Panzer04 »

brookst wrote: post #15

Subscriptions align developer and user interests and produce better products and less wasted money in the long run. One-time up front purchases only reward developers for expanding the target market of their product; whether the product improves over time has no bearing on revenue. From a developer’s perspective, the one-time price should be the CLV of what they’d get with a subscription. For users, that means much h…

I don't agree with your assertion on upfront purchases. If you sell a product people get good value from, you need to meaningfully improve that product to sell it again to the same user after improving it.

Many people are perfectly happy with old versions of software - they don't need the new improvement, so they don't buy it. If anything, subscriptions somewhat disconnect the feedback of improvements, right? Users have to subscribe to use your software, and most of the time they'll do it whether you make your software better or not, unless there is a direct competitor that is easy to switch to (or becomes so superior they overcome inertia).

I agree that in theory, a subscription is not necessarily bad - but most of the time people are happy with some set of features, and do not necessarily need a continuously improved product. In that sense, subscriptions are forcing people to spend more money on software improvements they may not need. I guess this is probably good for software developers, but bad for people in general (This applies more to tools than a continuous service that requires significant maintenance to keep up to date anyway, I suppose). The problem is companies attempting to turn almost everything into a subscription, even those that don't need significant regular updates or maintenance.

Re: Subscription fatigue and related musings

#72

Post by Panzer04 »

s1mplicissimus wrote: post #65
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…

You seem to imply that "the ever-growing total cost of ownership" of subscriptions is not ever-growing for the single-purchase model. Over the years I've noticed that many a software I once 1-off purchased is not supported anymore on my latest (security patched) OS. While technically possible, it's not practical to run that old software on the old OS (corporate security foo, old OS only running on unavailable hardwar…

It's problematic - the ideal business model that best matches the costs would probably be a combination (upfront payment, + ongoing subscription for maintenance patches), but I doubt anyone wants that (looks like the worst of all worlds to a user).

Re: Subscription fatigue and related musings

#73

Post by hgsgm »

wafriedemann wrote: post #40
gnicholas wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

No business CEO is trying to make less money.

Re: Subscription fatigue and related musings

#74

Post by hgsgm »

lapcat wrote: post #59
brookst wrote: post #15

Subscriptions align developer and user interests and produce better products and less wasted money in the long run. One-time up front purchases only reward developers for expanding the target market of their product; whether the product improves over time has no bearing on revenue. From a developer’s perspective, the one-time price should be the CLV of what they’d get with a subscription. For users, that means much h…

> 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.

Re: Subscription fatigue and related musings

#75

Post by hgsgm »

Panzer04 wrote: post #72
s1mplicissimus wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You seem to imply that "the ever-growing total cost of ownership" of subscriptions is not ever-growing for the single-purchase model. Over the years I've noticed that many a software I once 1-off purchased is not supported anymore on my latest (security patched) OS. While technically possible, it's not practical to run that old software on the old OS (corporate security foo, old OS only running on unavailable hardwar…

It's problematic - the ideal business model that best matches the costs would probably be a combination (upfront payment, + ongoing subscription for maintenance patches), but I doubt anyone wants that (looks like the worst of all worlds to a user).

> upfront payment, + ongoing subscription for maintenance patches),

That's how B2B software was priced for decades. It's also how things like PlayStation+online work.

Re: Subscription fatigue and related musings

#76

Post by TeMPOraL »

brookst wrote: post #15

Subscriptions align developer and user interests and produce better products and less wasted money in the long run. One-time up front purchases only reward developers for expanding the target market of their product; whether the product improves over time has no bearing on revenue. From a developer’s perspective, the one-time price should be the CLV of what they’d get with a subscription. For users, that means much h…

> Subscriptions align developer and user interests and produce better products and less wasted money in the long run.

In theory, maybe. In reality, I doubt it. Personally, I don't feel my interests are very much aligned with, or even cared about by, subscription software developers.

> I would much rather have 20 apps that I pay $10/mo/ea for than to buy one new $600 app a quarter and hope the developers I bought from years ago still care about me even though they will never make another dime.

Here's the thing, though: in that latter case, even if the devs no longer care about you, you still have the software, and it still works. Conversely, subscription devs may "care" about you until they get bored, or get acquihired, or run out of money, etc. and then suddenly you no longer have the software. Or they'll start making some silly or abusive changes, and then you'll be wishing the devs no longer cared.

This is to say: there's a risk attached to subscriptions (or, put another way, extra value in one-time purchase model).

Also, too little is being said about the other cost of subscriptions, which does not show up on the sticker price: each subscription is a business relationship. A relationship I need to keep track of, and which regularly reminds itself on my existence (unless the vendor is making money on forgotten subscriptions - then it stays perfectly quiet) - costing me time, effort, and occupying my memory. Importantly, it's also a relationship I don't want to have in the first place.

When I go to a grocery store to buy some bread, I want to... buy some bread. I don't want to enter into a relationship with the bakery, or their supplier. Today, I get the bread, they get the cash, and that's the end of it. Tomorrow, I may come back to the same place, or go somewhere else. It's the same with software: I may pay once, or top it up repeatedly, but all I care about is software - I don't give two damns about the company making it, or other products they have. I never, ever want to think about them. Subscriptions force me into such relationships. I have a limited capacity for them - my phone operator, utility companies, HOA, etc. are already enough.

Going back to the bakery example, theoretically I do enter a relationship with a seller every time I buy something from a physical or on-line store - a relationship I can use to e.g. get my goods fixed or my money back if something is wrong with the purchase. However, this is fully covered by consumer protection regulations, which means I can safely ignore those relationships - they literally reduce to "keep a proof of purchase, read up on relevant procedure when the vendor fucks up". Subscriptions would be nicer if they worked this way too.

Re: Subscription fatigue and related musings

#77

Post by TeMPOraL »

Silverback_VII wrote: post #62
brookst wrote: post #15

Subscriptions align developer and user interests and produce better products and less wasted money in the long run. One-time up front purchases only reward developers for expanding the target market of their product; whether the product improves over time has no bearing on revenue. From a developer’s perspective, the one-time price should be the CLV of what they’d get with a subscription. For users, that means much h…

Nice reasoning but the truth is probably simply that subscriptions generate way more money. Also because not a few ppl forget to cancel their subscriptions.

> Nice reasoning but the truth is probably simply that subscriptions generate way more money.

It seems that they do, but even if they didn't, I think it's enough that they derisk things for the vendor - subscriptions give you a steady stream of money, one that changes continuously and can be scaled up gradually. Nice and predictable. In contract, one-time purchase model means the vendor has to first spend a lot of money developing the product, and then hope it'll be popular enough to at least cover those costs.

I understand the appeal for the vendor, but as a user, I hate it with passion.

Re: Subscription fatigue and related musings

#78

Post by lapcat »

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 submitted article discusses software pricing extensively.

Re: Subscription fatigue and related musings

#79

Post by deergomoo »

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.

Yeah but that’s always been the case. If whatever window of updates I’ve purchased for a bit of software has expired and work is required to support a new OS release, I don’t think it’s unreasonable for that to require a new purchase.

I have the option of running it in a VM or simply not updating the OS if it’s really that important. The issue there is really OS vendors breaking stuff between versions (of which Apple is usually the main culprit).

Re: Subscription fatigue and related musings

#80

Post by candiddevmike »

leipert wrote: post #7
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…

Your “Learn more about self-hosted” link on the home page is broken. Looks cool. Might try it.

Thank you for the report! Should be fixed now, consequence of updating the docs. Let me know what you think of the app.
Post reply on HN