I used to made iPhone apps which cost few dollars back in the days. Worked great for me the time being, now I have moved to other stuff. Not everything needs to work indefinitely, software or business can have a lifespan, and I think that's fine.<p>My advice is that don't try to push the subscription model everywhere. For some things it simply doesn't work that well and you might make better buck by just selling packages.
This clearly isn't the case, there are numerous successful developers that don't use the subscription momdel:<p>- In the photography space: Capture One Pro, DxO Optics Pro, ON1.<p>- In the video space: Avid, DaVinci Resolve, Sony Vegas.<p>- In the illustration space: Corel, Clip Studio Paint, Painttool SAI.<p>- In the audio space: ProTools, Ableton, ACID Pro.<p>- Nearly all video games.<p>- JetBrains, which has a novel subscription + purchase model where you can cancel your subscription and keep using the software.<p>I'd argue that the only case where you need a subscription model to stay afloat is when you don't add enough value that your users will be willing to purchase an upgrade.
No. Just no. Charge a subscription if it's an ongoing service. If you're moving bits for me, running code on cloud for me on ongoing basis, charge me a subscription. If you gave me a binary to run, I pay you once. This is exactly why I shifted from Adobe to Affinity.<p>Comparing a pile of binary to Starbucks is less than stellar. Coffee is an ongoing service. You make coffee for me everyday, fresh. The cup does not last me years. There are a lot of things I pay for once in years, and it costs less than a fresh brew. A pen is a good example. A book is another. And frankly, a book is far more comparable to a copy of binary than Starbucks.<p>Unless the author buys a book and pays for it every month until he returns it, I won't take his word on selling binary. This advice will just lead to people reverse engineering your binaries and pirating it. Just ask Adobe.
Not going to happen. At least, not for me. $ per month is a financial and (perhaps more importantly) mental burden, and I'm certainly not going to have it hanging over my head over a text editor (or a text replacement utility, or a password manager). I'm usually not political in my software choices, but subscriptions make me see Stallman-red. If my favorite app goes subscription, I automatically move on to a competitor or (more likely) an open source alternative. Over time, I've realized that the only <i>real</i> way to guarantee longevity for your essential tools is to either use big-name products (Google, Apple, etc.) or to switch to open source alternatives. In the long run -- or even five years! -- subscriptions won't help your indie app survive.<p>I'm also a developer, and I hate subscriptions from that side too. I'm interested in making software, not providing personal support or maintaining servers. Most apps don't need to spend a decade in development; you're just finding new ways of burning valuable programming time. I prefer to release my software and move on while still providing occasional updates, making up for lost repeat business with a polyculture of products.<p>In my opinion, the way forward is to have a system for collectively funding open source projects of all sizes. Let the software be free, but fairly pay developers for their efforts. (Snowdrift[1] wants to do something like this, but I haven't seen much activity there in the past few years.) Most of my essential day-to-day software now is open source. We need the best talent, from code gurus to UI wizards, working on these applications, because I am convinced it will be the <i>only</i> software still standing a century down the line.<p>(In fairness, I think Standardnotes is doing it right. Their code is open source and you can host your own instance if you like. This does not apply to closed source software in the midst of the subscription craze like Ulysses, 1Password, TextExpander, etc.)<p>[1]: <a href="https://snowdrift.coop" rel="nofollow">https://snowdrift.coop</a>
> But when will we finally learn that the digital realm is real, if not realer, than the physical?<p>This is a silly statement since the digital depends on the physical for existence, and digital content only makes sense in the context of culture formed by flesh and blood human beings. A massive EMP pulse or collapse of civilization will show just how "real" the digital is.
> This has all but confirmed a belief that I have long suspected:
> subscription is the only way to survive as a software company.<p>No, no, no -- not at all.<p>The subscription model may be the best way to thrive for <i>certain</i> kinds of software companies, at <i>certain</i> price points. But that doesn't make it a unilateral principle.<p>For software with one-time or fleeting value (e.g. games), a classic perpetual license (pay up front) is often the best.<p>For software with real upgrade value in releases (I'm NOT looking at you, Quicken), a perpetual + upgrade charge model may be the best fit. (Which is kind of like a subscription, but users pay when there's real value, not just elapsed time).<p>And there's the evolving new world of in-app purchases, add-ons and hybrids: for example, you might sell an app up front, but then charge monthly/yearly for a related cloud-based service that has ongoing value (such as backups).
I can't help but feel companies take advantage of people not reading credit card statements (and forgetting they signed up for subscriptions). I don't get email payment receipts from Dropbox or Creative Cloud, I have to go digging in their websites to find them. There seems to be less accountability to develop new features...<p>Lightroom for example, it's still the 2015 version. Adobe doesn't seem too interested in modernizing it beyond adding some sync features. If they weren't doing the subscription thing they'd need to focus on it to make it innovative.
All of your complaints about how hard it is to make it as a developer are probably legitimate, but understand that there are 2 sides to every market.<p>It's highly unlikely your app provides enough value to be worth paying for every single month for most people.<p>Be honest, you've seen that the best way to monetize someone is to get them to pay you every month without thinking about it. This is we're bombarded with "first month's free, write to us via registered mail to cancel or you'll automatically be paying $100/month" offers. A subscription model is equivalent to a "I know a good number of people don't read their credit card statement every month and will forget to cancel" model.<p>And that's fine. Attempting to get more money from people who are rich enough to not need to read their credit card statement is probably a more honest way to live than monetizing customers via ads or in app purchases like the rest of the "unicorns".<p>[edit]<p>I would like to tone down one sentence. When I say "your" I'm actually not referring to the author of this article, instead I'm referring to "A developer who currently sells his/her app for a one time fee of 0.99-3.99".
Subscriptions only works with business users.<p>Outside some outliers like Office and anti-virus, the majority of consumers won't buy into subscriptions for software, they would rather pirate it.
"Consider the nonsensical way software is currently done: developers spend endless hours researching, developing, fixing, and providing support for software, the hardest of which is probably the last of that array of responsibilities. "<p>None of which matters. Only capitalism and consumer demand for your service.
<i>consider if Starbucks customers visited the store only once every 10 years to buy a single cup of coffee? How soon do you imagine they’d go out of business?</i><p>Imagine if one cup of coffee "worked" for ten years, how much you'd care if Starbucks went out of business?<p>Consumers aren't there as a substitute welfare state to provide eternal employment for hungry programmers.<p>Nobody pays a subscription to an author instead of buying a book. "Oh they rewrote chapter one?"<p>It's just a case of holding information hostage in the cloud because you can.<p>[Stallmanning intensifies]
I think free vs one-time vs subscription depends heavily on the product/service being offered. I am of the belief that a recurring subscription should provide something meaningful that can't realistically be done on my machine(s) or requires ongoing research, data, etc. For example, I see no justifiable reason for Adobe's decision to go the subscription route. Software like Adobe offers has clear features that are unique to each version. As they build the feature set they also work to ensure compatibility with the modern operating systems and platforms. A customer pays for the version they need at the time. Should their needs grow or they require support for a modern OS that their existing product version doesn't support, then they should pay for the upgrade. If not, why would they continually shell out money on features and support they do not require? On the flip side, data hosting services are the exact opposite. A monthly fee for ongoing storage is the only thing that makes sense. Similarly, a website that maintains a searchable database of retail product information for internet vendors/sellers to use requires constant maintenance and that also justifies a subscription model.<p>One other thought - the whole app game is basically one of trying to hit it big and getting hundreds of thousands of users so you can either reap the rewards from recurring advertising revenues or the one-time purchase fees. Articles like this exist because app stores are overcrowded with choices and they usually don't tend to fan out evenly in terms of users. Usually there are 1-3 that are heavily used with the rest just being noise in the competition for that type of app. Those publishers get the lion's share of the revenue for their specific app type.
Yes and no.<p>I am doing quite well with my app <a href="http://www.ghostnoteapp.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.ghostnoteapp.com</a> which is a one of purchase.<p>However I am exploring various services around. At the end of the day though I want people to be able to buy it as a stand alone and then if they feel like they need it and I need to use some sort of server storage/activity I will charge for it.<p>Already working on one subscription service.
We've been selling B2B desktop software on a subscription basis since we started 5 years ago. Previously it was freeware.<p>One of the things that I like most is that entitling all your user base to your latest and greatest version software makes many users install the latest version, which is what also happens with freeware. The lack of need to support older versions greatly simplifies support.<p>Also a good thing of subscriptions is that because the monetary incentive of acquiring a new user is exactly the same as having an existing customer renew, you do not start adding features just for the sake of justifying a major paid upgrade.
There are two different behavioral models for customer and enterprise software:<p>Buyers of consumer software want to <i>own</i> it. They use it for own benefit and it frequently has short lifespan. That's why they don't like subscriptions.<p>Buyers of enterprise software want to create added value from it, so it's not about owning it's about <i>leveraging</i>. Like with any other business expenses, software expenses don't really matter as long as they generate more value than cost. Also, subscription model suits corporate better as it doesn't require pulling large amounts of money out from working capital.
> Businesses can only survive if people have to pay for the same products over and over again, or if they break frequently enough that people have to rebuy them constantly<p>That's basically the thesis.<p>And that's bullshit. If I buy something, I want it to work for eternity. The subscription model costs a massive amount of money for the customer, and is just further rent-seeking, bankrupting customers and transferring wealth.<p>No thanks.<p>If you want me to pay continually money, you should continually provide something in return for that. Just to continue using something I already paid for is not a good enough justification.
I refuse to pay a subscription for software. If you want recurring money from me, sell new versions that have things I want. (I do not buy new versions of Microsoft Office, because repainting the same thing and adding features I don't use anyways isn't worth money to me.)<p>Mandating that my software stops working unless I pay more for it is a surefire way to make me go somewhere else for software.<p>I used to buy Adobe Photoshop, and have since moved to Affinity Photo ($50, one-time, does everything I used Photoshop for) since they moved to subscription-only. I outright will never have "Office 365", and strongly recommend to anyone who asks to buy the full retail editions instead. If Microsoft ever switches to 365-only, no big deal, open source software is more than adequate in this area.
I don't know, this sounds really silly. It's better to raise purchase prices; of course nobody would make living off $0.99 apps. But how many people would be willing to pay you a recurrent tax on your software either? Very few. How many apps would you be willing to keep if you needed to pay subscription? Yes, there was a race to the bottom in mobile apps, as the space was pretty new and trivial apps were feasible; for those it worked very well. The situation is different, ad revenue is falling and one-off prices are too low. Just increase them then!
Yes, please. I was happy to see Ulysses switch to subscription-based pricing and I would be happy to see other apps I use do the same thing (Yep, for example).<p>These are apps that I use every day. I need them to work. I don't need new fancy flashy features that bring in new users. I need reliability, maintenance, minor improvements, constant optimizations. This is not possible without subscriptions.<p>I'd much rather pay regularly for a small number of good, well-maintained apps, than have hundreds of crappy cheap one-shot apps that get released and then slowly fall into disrepair.
Subscription is the best way for companies to do software in capitalism. Take Microsoft Word 2003: perfectly good word processor, still works fine. I've spent 60$ 14 years ago and had no intention to switch.<p>But Microsoft needs money, so they force the upgrade to 2007 by, among other things, inventing the docx format. And then 2010, and then 2013, and then 2017. Logical conclusion is Office 365, where you are forced to pay 100$ every year.<p>Is it a stable source of income for the company, better, than selling box copies? Yes. Is it in customer's best interests? No.
If you believe this, then I'll let you know that there are exactly two ways that I'll pay a subscription fee for your software (generally, not aimed at author):<p>1. It is providing a service (Spotify).<p>2. It is open source.<p>You might not want to try to or know how to monetize the second option, but I'm not paying you a monthly fee for closed source software that you or your company are going to inevitably neglect/abandon/sell to someone who cares even less.<p>I'm happy to pay a monthly fee so you can make your open software better, though.<p><i>Welcome to the way this was always going to play out; the only way it could have played out.</i><p>Indeed.
I've had an idea in the back of my head for a while, that micropayments (and maybe blockchains by extension) might have an answer to this. What if installing software was free, but you paid a fraction of a penny for every minute/hour that you run it? Right now this isn't practical, but what if the friction around payments was able to drop to near zero?