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 <i>back</i> to the Store to download a separate app named Thing 2? And how many then felt ripped off that they didn't get a discount after having previously purchased Thing 1?<p>After years of being asked for upgrade pricing, Apple instead introduced and then started pushing developers to embrace the exact subscription model we see today. Unlike paid upgrades, a subscription guarantees recurring revenue not only for the developer, but for Apple themselves.
Some apps that I purchased before in full, later turned into subscription based apps(giving me a year of free subscription). This made me feel bad and I lost my warm and fizzy feelings towards these apps.<p>That said, I understand why they are doing it. It doesn't make sense whatsoever to receive one time payment and provide updates forever. Also, despite that people claim that they want "one time payment apps" that doesn't seem to be the case at all. Very small number of people actually pay in full for the apps.<p>What's worse than subscriptions is ad-ridden apps. I love hyper casual games for example but I can get no joy from these anymore because they are overflown with ads, the experience turns into torture. I don't want the ad based model to be the answer too.<p>Maybe there could be other models like trial purchase where you get an old school trial version and pay to continue using it. I think actually there's nothing stopping you to implement this but it doesn't solve the problem of need for continued payments for continued support. Maybe the AppStores can implement something like version limiting and you can ask for a payment for upgrading to the new version.<p>In the grand scheme of things, the subscription model is the best option at this time. People say that subscriptions are devils act but that's also how viable businesses are created.
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.<p>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.
Few years ago I bought a drive partition manager tool for windows. I only used it a few times over the years. Recently I installed a new primary drive on my gaming machine. Downloaded the latest binary from the vendors site and tried to put in the license key. Nope, wouldn’t activate. So i contacted their support and their response was that I had to pay the new yearly subscription to use the latest version. So I asked if they had the installation binaries for the version I had originally purchased which did not require annual subscription. Their response, “they no longer provide install files for the non-subscription version.” If i can find the original installer somewhere , they will activate the license as a one time courtesy.<p>There is absolutely no way I’m going to pay an annual subscription for software that I do not use often or everyday.
The article says the author has no solution to propose.<p>I <i>do</i> 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 <i>really good</i> apps than a plethora of half-baked ad-ridden garbage.<p>In other words, I don't have "subscription fatigue", I have "app fatigue": I don't want too many apps, but the ones I do want, I'd like to see maintained over the long term.
Subscriptions align developer and user interests and produce better products and less wasted money in the long run.<p>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.<p>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 higher risk.<p>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.<p>Oh, you want apps to be one-time purchases for $20 with a useful lifetime of 10 years? Then subscriptions aren’t the problem, you just want $0.17/mo subscriptions, which are unlikely to be economically viable either.
I build apps with subscriptions (like <a href="https://homechart.app" rel="nofollow">https://homechart.app</a>) 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.<p>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 effectively my TCV, and I'd rather they use my web payment processor vs raising the lifetime subscription to cover the increase hit. I think this creates friction to conversions, but I don't know for sure.<p>I do think subscription-based creates better quality software as you are (in theory) having to prove your software is still valuable everytime a customer renews. But too often this just results in redesign churn without any net new features/benefits.
In-app purchases (free-to-play) are largely a separate issue although they share some of the same ongoing "Is this worth it?" fatigue.<p>But I'm just super-wary of subscriptions. I mostly don't have the discipline to re-evaluate all my subscriptions every month and then have to agonize over those I get <i>some</i> value from but is it worth $10? And usage goes up and down. So my default is mostly to just say no.
A significant problem is that the App Store just says "In App Purchases" on the App page.<p>We don't even get a list of prices and functionality of the IAPs.<p>In EU it is a requirement that: <i>"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."</i> <a href="https://europa.eu/youreurope/citizens/consumers/shopping/pricing-payments/index_en.htm" rel="nofollow">https://europa.eu/youreurope/citizens/consumers/shopping/pri...</a><p>I don't think the App store currently respects this law as the advertised price is not the total price for the advertised functionality when InAppPurchases are required to unlock them.
That's a really "proprietary software " point of view. You pay the developers, the price they decided, and you expect bug fixes and new features. As pointed, this model has many limits. I really prefer the free software one, where I am free to try, use, contribute, so then I can estimate myself how worth is a software, and give an appropriate one time or regular donation. This model is so much better.
Kind of orthogonal to the article, but I feel the iOS App Store's subscription mechanism is how online subscriptions as a whole should work. There's a unified predictable way to start subscriptions, and more importantly, a unified predictable way to stop them. I don't have to jump through hoops to stop a subscription, and the UI is clear on when recurring charges will occur next and for how much. I would love it if banks let me unilaterally cancel subscriptions just as easily on my online banking page.<p>It almost makes the Apple tax worth it. Almost.
The problem with "subscription models" isn't "subscription models" per se, it's greed.<p>People aren't showing aversion to "subscription vs non-subscription models", they're showing an aversion to greed, and businesses not treating them as a valued customer, but as a resource to be milked until either the resource dries out or the business goes bust.<p>In the original definition it used to be that a "subscription model" meant a win-win situation for both the user and the business: the business gets some sort of pledge that the customer will continue purchasing the recurring product or service in question because they are a loyal customer, in exchange for extra benefits (typically a discount, or some sort of extra goodies or support).<p>Now we have the reverse situation: greedy companies treat subscription as their "main" business plan, hoping to milk as much money as ephemerally possible without necessarily valuing their loyal customers, offerring either no non-subscription alternative, or a highly crippled or ridiculous alternative to coerce you into subscribing just to get the "base" product "at least once".<p>It's become the software equivalent of hardware companies coming up with "bullshit consumables" that serve no real purpose in a device except forcing users to keep paying after a purchase (this is super common in biomed devices!).<p>People know a greedy model / bullshit service when they see one. As a result, they put off using it as much as they can, and when they finally succumb with a heavy heart and subscribe because they need the "base" product that should have been available without a subscription, they retaliate in other ways that harm the business (e.g. single star reviews, password sharing networks, etc).
There are several pieces of software I would gladly buy if only I could, but I've gotten to the point where when it gets to the subscription fee page I go find something else. Especially in the case of rarely used and nice to have software I am not interested in paying in perpetuity for something I may only use a few times a year.
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.<p>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.<p>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.
Agree with the author regarding subscription abuse.<p>I am still furious about Readdle's decision to make removing their built-in "Sent with Spark" call-to-action signature in Spark locked behind a subscription. Sure, I could afford the subscription, but no, I won't support subscription abuse like this.<p>Apple's gotta rein it in at some point. Will they? Probably not unless the EU forces them. But it'd be cool if they did.<p>Generally, I am okay with subscriptions, as they are clearly more economically viable for developers than shrink-wrapped software was.
Large corps love subscriptions. The platforms they create impose this upon developers too. I get very exhausted with the never ending stream of payments and T&C updates. Moving to the desktop has been a way out, the other has been clubbing subscriptions and outright cancelling even those that seem useful but have lower functionality alternatives in favor of having better control over my finances.
If you want to know how to catch a cheating spouse you are in luck because the options are endless. There are may different ways to going about catching a cheating partner, such as hiring a private investigator going through their social media account, or planting a recording device or GSP tracker on their device.<p>However, instead of wasting money on buying an expensive recording device or GSP tracker, you can simply go through your partner phone with the help of digitaltechacker @ gmail com, He can grant you access to your spouse phone, records track their location and analyze social media account at all once, you can conveniently access all the details from one single place a web-based dashboard. So if you want to end your cheating husband’s infidelity, you can choose digitaltechacker @ gmail com to find all the evidence needed to catch a cheater.
Subscriptions also come with much increased mental overhead: I have to decide if it is worth the commitment every time the app comes up for renewal.<p>In addition, as the article points out, your price point has to compete with the 10ish dollars I give Spotify every month and for which I get hours of use every day. Can you compete with that?
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.
Yeah, this is sad. I even see apps which ask you 20€ per year OR 100€ for Lifetime. This is nonsense. I don't mind paying for a subscription if: there are major updates being delivered with a concrete roadmap and a service which i need to use everyday. Otherwise I'm not interested and i dont see the point of offering subs.<p>Apple plays a major role on this by motivating Developers to use subscriptions, now there are subscriptions for everything!
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.