Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
To a lot of developers : I'm tired of subscribing to your app!
- Thread starter katbel
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Blame online games and their micro-transactions for proving how much you can suck out of weak-willed people. Everyone wants in on that party now.
Not every company is an Adobe. They've got a lock on a huge share of digital creatives. Maybe things are changing, but Photoshop, Lightroom, Illustrator, InDesign, Premier, AfterEffects... these all have been dominating their fields and the Creative Cloud subscription is either paid for directly by an employer or is subsidized by freelance income it brings in for the user.
It doesn't work like that for every clever little calendar app or journalling app or iPhone camera app that wants to dip into your wallet every month until the end of time. My prediction is that as this recession deepens, a lot of people are gonna be taking a closer look at all those little $4.99/month outlays and deciding they can live without them.
I know I sure as hell am. But the last to go, as long as I'm getting some freelance work, would be Creative Cloud because I use it to make money.
You might be talking about smaller amounts of money but the principles still apply.
I've been supporting myself selling software for twenty years, when I talk to my peers we are all in agreement. New products are shifting to the rental model and where we can old products are as well. The days of paying a one off license fee and using that forever are going, largely killed by the low price points in app stores.
Those smaller amounts add up. $5/month here, $25/year there... it's death by a thousand cuts.
I think there's still quite a bit of pushback against the rental model. I don't flinch at a $10 iOS app or a $40 Mac app if it's a purchase and I'm not on the hook for renting it.
With Mac software, I also bypass the App Store anytime I can if the developer offers it for sale directly. That cut Apple takes is exhorbitant and probably helping drive this rental BS.
Bypassing the App Store rarely results in the developer getting more money. You can subscribe to apps and get new features when they are ready or we'll build V2 of the app and hold of all the bug fixes and feature requests until then so you can buy it again. The subscription method is much easier for developers, we get to see how many users we have vs the one-off purchase where there is a spike in sales but we don't know if they are users. This is dependent on the 'size' of the app: no one is going to charge a subscription for a todo app, but aye, it is better for us and better for you if we make the next creative tool a subscription.
I am writing a mac application right now. I am puzzling on how to get paid for my work. Like many other, I (personally) hate subscription models. On the other hand: continuous development and a more regular income stream would be welcome. Also take into perspective that a lot of money goes to taxes ('apple tax': 30%, government tax: 21%). Apple tax on subscriptions is lower after a year. Personally I'd prefer to keep the price low, especially for 'loyal users'. I do not have to get rich from my work, but I certainly do not want to go bankrupt trying to 'dedicate to making something great for free'. PS: I hate advertising/collecting and selling user data even more than subscription models, so that is not an option for me.
I am reading this thread with lots of interest to get ideas and suggestions on how to find a good balance between user satisfaction and developer satisfaction. Thanks for your suggestions!
I am reading this thread with lots of interest to get ideas and suggestions on how to find a good balance between user satisfaction and developer satisfaction. Thanks for your suggestions!
If you hold all the bug fixes from a product that I’ve already purchased for and plan them for a future v2 release, you can be certain that I am not going to buy v2, subscription or not. And no, don’t presume that you know what is better for ME, because I can assure you that a subscription model is not better for me, personally.
Hey, here’s an idea; how about giving it your best in adding amazing new features to your v2 app, price it accordingly and let me purchase a license for it?
If you’re holding bug fixes for ransom then I don’t want to be your customer, period, whether on a subscription or purchase basis. I avoid unethical developers like the plague. Bye.
[automerge]1586965881[/automerge]
Nah. This guy wants you to pay up front so he can noodle with his app on your dime. And it sounds like he might just generously see fit to fix his own bugs if you pay him extra. It’s worse than Kickstarter.
Last edited:
If only your calculation would match the real situation... I have yet to see a one-time-purchase of $12 to simply translate into a $1 monthly subscription.
Nice to hear you're following this thread, Hanske68. It means you care.
IMHO, this may not be about hating a subscription model - but rather hating the way it's being exploited these days.
If "regular income stream" to you means "monthly", then you should prepare to come up with something worthwile... monthly. Some apps will allow that (highly innovative apps, games...), others less so.
As long as you can prove your app to be worthy of your price setting, you should be OK - at least in my book.
Best of luck !
Here's the difference: ownership. If I decide to stop at a certain level of OS (Mojave on my older MacBook Air, for instance) then the software I've bought and paid for keeps working with that OS. Because I own it, and I'm not renting access to it.
Not every app just magically stops working when a new OS comes out. And not every app needs to keep getting updated with new features. And not every developer sees the need to put out a major new paid version of an app just to maintain OS compatibility. And those who do often offer discount for existing customers. Omni Group does this, and it's kept me coming back for years. They're offering me an upfront deal where I buy a piece of software and get to use it for as long as I see fit. And I've spent a lot on their software over the years.
Again, a lot of people are arguing as if one app = a meal ticket forever. Develop another ****ing app.
Last edited by a moderator:
This is partly the result of the way the app store works. Apple makes it difficult (if not impossible) to charge for updates. So, subscriptions are the best solution. Obviously building an app and taking a 1 time purchase price esp the price that people expect to pay for iOS apps, is not a sustainable business. So, this is the reality of the app store. Most devs would rather find a small group of loyal customers willing to pay rather than a huge number of people not willing to pay. Imagine the support costs of dealing with zillions of users. Why would anyone want to deal with the hassle of building an app, taking a one time fee, and then supporting all these users forever? It makes no sense at all. So, I think your complaint really is one sided. Anyhow, devs don't want the business of people who are cheapskates. It just doesn't pay the bills. That's the reality.
So, don't distribute your app through the Mac App Store, no one is forcing you! And as far as costs are concerned, I don't think that people would object to paying a considerable amount of money for quality software; I have happily purchased (and will continue to do so) every software that covers my personal or professional needs and in the vast majority of cases, I also upgrade to the latest version (even on day one) because I want to have the latest feature set and in addition, to support the developer for bringing value to me.
So, it's not a question of us being cheap, it's a question of you, the developers, being greedy, lazy and arrogant. But guess what; the joke is on those developers! Ultimately, as long as they won't reach critical mass from subscriptions, the model will fail and they will go out of business. Thankfully, for every software that goes subscription only, there are equally as many applications that provide the same functionality that operate on a license model, without leeching me monthly for a subscription fee. I have dropped every piece of software that went subscription only (and didn't offer a license as an alternative) and found an alternative, license based one that was just as good as the one I previously used in less than 1 day of searching per app.
You wanna pay the bills? Make good software and keep releasing new versions. That's the reality. Personally I don't care what you/they decide either way; I'm covered!
More and more apps will go the subscription route sure but there will always be other developers who will cater to those of us who can't afford (or don't want) yet another monthly/yearly expense and so the Scriveners, BusyCals, Panics, Omnis and Pixelmators of the app world will get our money instead.
There's room for more than one business model.
There's room for more than one business model.
I strongly disagree with you here and am very much against big splash releases. Resources are always finite and the same guy that is fixing a bug will always get reassigned to work on the next version because "v2 doesn't have that bug". It is better from the business end and customer end to have a relationship where features are released when they are ready and the customer's investment in the product can start and stop when they please. No longer do we spend £800 on Adobe Illustrator for that one project and then shove the box in the dump after a month.
I do however see no reason to offer subscriptions and lifetime licences. CaptureOne are good with this and let you pay £300 for a licence with 12 months support or you can pay £20/month(£180/year) for a subscription and always be on the latest version and have full support.
[automerge]1586986686[/automerge]
Bug fixes are never held for ransom. They are held because they where already solved on v2 and can't be back ported so the developer moves onto something more pressing. There are always finite resources in a company, even large ones. Subscriptions mean there is no v2, which is why you've got more chances of the bug being fixed sooner and new features come out when they are ready rather than being held back as selling points for new versions.
Last edited:
The e-commerce platform I use takes a 4% cut, that is a lot better than 30%.
[automerge]1587033713[/automerge]
It's not greed to want to come up with a sustainable business model.
No, you do not own the app. You have a non transferable license to use that app. And, unless superceded by the developers own EULA, that license can be terminated at either time by either party. You have limited rights granted to you under the EULA to use the app.
I'm not against subscription, over any other paid model, per say. I do however look at the total cost of "ownership" (per TiggrToo's post above) for the apps, and I've found very few apps I want to subscribe to:
The only digital subscription on apps I have (not counting Apple's ecosystem to witch I pay a fortune) are Newsblur (for RSS news) at $12/year, and 1Password (for cross browser compatibility) at $2.99/month.
One app suite that just has priced itself out of my interest is Adobe, which we have always had (either through work or a paid version). I mostly used Photoshop, while my girlfriend used Photoshop, Indesign, Illustrator and (shudder) Dreamweaver. The cheapest option for Adobe CC here in Norway is NOK 192/month ≈ NOK 2300/year for the EDU version (and the price increases after the first year).
So, early on I replaced Photoshop with Pixelmator - and later I also got Pixelmator Pro - at about NOK 300 per app.
That was good enough for me, but not my girlfriend, so we've both switched to the Affinity suite, and by buying it on sale, through Mac app store, we got the whole suite for under NOK 1000 (and through family sharing both of us can use the whole suite), less than 6 months worth of Adobe CC. (Now I know that the CC offer a lot more apps, but we don't really want or need those.)
PS! I get Office 365 through my employer, but would never consider getting Word, Excel and Powerpoint over Pages, Numbers and Keynote, if it was my own money.
PPS! I think maybe I could get the whole Adobe CC suite through my employer, too, but I just don't see the point of keeping up with them anymore...even when it's free.
The only digital subscription on apps I have (not counting Apple's ecosystem to witch I pay a fortune) are Newsblur (for RSS news) at $12/year, and 1Password (for cross browser compatibility) at $2.99/month.
One app suite that just has priced itself out of my interest is Adobe, which we have always had (either through work or a paid version). I mostly used Photoshop, while my girlfriend used Photoshop, Indesign, Illustrator and (shudder) Dreamweaver. The cheapest option for Adobe CC here in Norway is NOK 192/month ≈ NOK 2300/year for the EDU version (and the price increases after the first year).
So, early on I replaced Photoshop with Pixelmator - and later I also got Pixelmator Pro - at about NOK 300 per app.
That was good enough for me, but not my girlfriend, so we've both switched to the Affinity suite, and by buying it on sale, through Mac app store, we got the whole suite for under NOK 1000 (and through family sharing both of us can use the whole suite), less than 6 months worth of Adobe CC. (Now I know that the CC offer a lot more apps, but we don't really want or need those.)
PS! I get Office 365 through my employer, but would never consider getting Word, Excel and Powerpoint over Pages, Numbers and Keynote, if it was my own money.
PPS! I think maybe I could get the whole Adobe CC suite through my employer, too, but I just don't see the point of keeping up with them anymore...even when it's free.
Last edited:
Fair point. True ownership of digital stuff is quite slippery.
But buying a license for piece of software that doesn't stop working the moment you stop making payments seems a lot closer to true ownership to me.
[automerge]1587050899[/automerge]
I'd be so interested in doing this too, but that becomes difficult, unfortunately, when one needs to be able to access and re-edit old Illustrator files, etc.
I see Red Hat has gone subscription: https://duckduckgo.com/?q=linux+subscription&t=ftas&ia=web
I've yet to find something to subscribe to on my Raspberry pi.
I've yet to find something to subscribe to on my Raspberry pi.
They may not have called it that way back then when I bought those disks for 5.2 that I installed, in 1999 I think it was for my first linux install and the last time I used windows daily. But they have always offered a support option on a limited time basis per contract purchased, a subscription model.
Admittedly, I am late to this party... but I don't do subscription apps. Totally agree with the sentiment expressed here... want me to upgrade and pay you again, Mr App Developer? Then give me a reason. Add new features to your app that are worth me re-upping. Otherwise, go pound sand.
I only pay for the food that I eat one time. I only pay for my house once, albeit in 360 monthly payments. So, yeah, to answer your question, yes, I do. When I need/want more food, I buy more. But only pay for it one time.
Last edited:
Do you have anything like Netflix? What about cable? Internet? Wireless phone service? Gym memberships?
These are all examples of subscriptions in real life. Many are far worse then app subscriptions because you are required to maintain then for a fixed period of time before you can cancel.
I do. But Netflix, cable and wireless phone service all continue to provide something additional - new content - television, movies, and bandwidth to move content from device to device.
But I refuse to participate in the "money grab" that is the subscription model for software. The ONLY software subscriptions that I have is CARROT weather, which charges the subscription to pay for access to weather data - not for the software, support or updates. I also used the Adobe Photoshop suite for a season, which was required and provided by my employer.
Again, if developers want me to re-up, then give me a reason other than "you have to pay every month to use the product that I have already create". Create an update with compelling features and then I can decide if I want to pay again. I refuse to be held ransom by the notion that the developer "may go out of business" unless I let them bleed me dry every month.