As a consumer I'm not too fond of subscriptions either, but when you buy a car/house you're spending $20k-100k+. Why would you expect someone to work for you months or years after you bought an app when you pay 5 bucks at best?
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.
Why so many subscription apps
- Thread starter richxps
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
You’re reading waaaaay too much into this, it’s not like I’m keeping them on retainer to be at my side every moment of every day. But, I don’t feel a question or two over the course of five years is an unreasonable request.
[doublepost=1547847790][/doublepost]
These are very bad analogies. For instance, a cable TV subscription is justified because cable tv content changes on a regular basis. Apps don't change on a regular basis. But, being that you are a developer, it stands to reason that you would attempt such a stretch to defend the SaaS model. It also stands to reason that you won't agree with my statement, so let's just agree to disagree.
A rental property or cellular service doesn't change on a regular basis. And SaaS applications are constantly changing, being updated, being protected from new threats, responding to new customer service questions, the data used in them is constantly changing, etc. The point is that regardless of the goods or service, a subscription plan is simply another pricing method, which works well for many and may not work for some. Just because it doesn't work for you doesn't mean it's not a viable and attractive business model for both developers and users.
One of the reasons why I like 1Password, they are constantly adding stuff and making things better. You can see yourself the changes they make.
https://app-updates.agilebits.com/
Last edited:
IMO, it's a shameless money grab. It's an easy way for developers to realize a steady cash flow, regardless of anything they do to enhance and upgrade their wares. Photoshop started whoring out their software, and now everyone and their brother is doing it, as you have learned.
I refuse to participate in this "model", passing on any software that requires it. I say, let me purchase a lifetime license. If you update your software and add features that I am interested, let ME decide if it's worth my investment... and if it is, I will purchase a license for the new version. Sadly many of the software vendors do nothing to improve their product, and simply want to continue "cashing the check". I have seen that some of the vendors actually cause you to lose access to any of YOUR data that is created/housed/accessed via their software once you stop paying.
Perfectly stated! I'm happy to know that I'm not the only one who feels this way.
It may be easier to "swallow", but the $700-$1000 will get you a lifetime license... and $20 is $20/month for life.
Well, let's see:
$1,000.00 for a lifetime license = $1,000.00
or
$20.00/month for 4 years and 2 months = $1,000.00
That changes the perspective a bit. I'd rather the lifetime license.
Not really. Especially with how some developers were already starting to lag behind OS updates, I had more than a few apps that had broken on Mavericks that required me to either upgrade or repurchase the license. Also, new version development of apps would require upgrade or repurchase costs. Stuff like the Adobe apps, which are updated with new functions and features roughly every 12-18 months means that someone paying for Photoshop is spending between $240 and $360 per revision vs what, $500-700 for the previous model's upgrade cost.
I can see both sides of the argument, and both the downsides. The subscription model feels more like "renting" but even buying a flat license doesn't guarantee that you "own" the software either. I mean, it kind of amazes me watching people being held hostage by an old piece of software when OS updates happen. The subscription model tends to allow for the app devs to more easily roll out software updates.
But honestly, at the end of the day you always have to do what's best for you.
I suppose I could understand Photoshop suite, after all it is a professional suite of apps geared toward professional people. A password manager, on the other hand, meh. I used to develop apps that used encryption and hash algorithms and there isn't a lot to them unless you go out of your way to bloat the crap out of them just to justify charging a subscription rate for their use. Adding features to add features is one thing, but adding features so you can use those features as selling points, that's a different matter.
Is it possible to obtain a legal, up-to-date and working copy of just the photoshop app that does what photoshop does without the need to use or communicate with anything outside my own computer? Just a stand-alone version of one app doesn't justify a subscription, but after you bundle it and add server-side cataloging features.. then you've got something that can justify a subscription.
For my needs, Photoshop Elements is more than enough. I can usually get it at Costco for around $45-50... and upgrade every third year or so... so, rather than $20/month for the photo subscription, I can get by for less than $20/year... and I can pass the old version down to my kids... the older versions typically work fine... the reason to upgrade is to get access to new features.
Again, the motto that I live by is "Just say 'NO!' to subscription software".
I'm only paying for Apple Music at the moment, and this is partly due to Apple's higher payout to artists. I only watch Netflix from our family's subscription. If I ever get a TV subscription, it would be Apple's. It's the only one I'll consider.
The subscription model makes sense for some software, and it does not for others. The problem is that everyone is trying to push the subscription model just to make a steady cash flow.
I am a subscriber of Microsoft Office 365, and I think it is worth it. For paying USD 100 for an annual subscription, which allows me to have multiple copies installed, use it on the cloud, and have 1 TB available on OneDrive. Just the 1 TB alone on Dropbox would cost me those same USD 100 a year. Google Drive would be cheaper, but it would not include the full set of Microsoft Office software.
Now, the problem is everybody wants to have the same model, without offering anything else. Every obscure software developer wants to rest on the laurels of software they created in the past.
I remember I bought a copy of Austhink Rationale 2 (a lifetime license) back in 2012, and I paid USD 69.00. Now, Austhink is offering Rationale Online, which is basically the same thing, and the yearly subscription costs "only" €45 for a basic plan. This is of course unacceptable.
Another example is Copernic Desktop Search. It used to cost some USD 49.95 for a lifetime license. Now, they want you to pay USD 14.99 per year for a basic subscription. If you want the full version, expect to pay USD 55.49 every year. They can only be joking.
In these cases, the subscription model is a scam, as the cloud does not offer any additional feature other than a regular paycheck to the developers. I am only paying a subscription when there is actually a service that is provided continually to me, thereby justifying monthly payments, such as Microsoft Office, Apple iCloud, Apple Music, Spotify, Netflix, HBO Go, and so on.
I am not paying regularly for software which is static, just to get bug fixes (which the developer should provide anyway, to fix problems of the software he created).
I am a subscriber of Microsoft Office 365, and I think it is worth it. For paying USD 100 for an annual subscription, which allows me to have multiple copies installed, use it on the cloud, and have 1 TB available on OneDrive. Just the 1 TB alone on Dropbox would cost me those same USD 100 a year. Google Drive would be cheaper, but it would not include the full set of Microsoft Office software.
Now, the problem is everybody wants to have the same model, without offering anything else. Every obscure software developer wants to rest on the laurels of software they created in the past.
I remember I bought a copy of Austhink Rationale 2 (a lifetime license) back in 2012, and I paid USD 69.00. Now, Austhink is offering Rationale Online, which is basically the same thing, and the yearly subscription costs "only" €45 for a basic plan. This is of course unacceptable.
Another example is Copernic Desktop Search. It used to cost some USD 49.95 for a lifetime license. Now, they want you to pay USD 14.99 per year for a basic subscription. If you want the full version, expect to pay USD 55.49 every year. They can only be joking.
In these cases, the subscription model is a scam, as the cloud does not offer any additional feature other than a regular paycheck to the developers. I am only paying a subscription when there is actually a service that is provided continually to me, thereby justifying monthly payments, such as Microsoft Office, Apple iCloud, Apple Music, Spotify, Netflix, HBO Go, and so on.
I am not paying regularly for software which is static, just to get bug fixes (which the developer should provide anyway, to fix problems of the software he created).
People want everything for free and not prepared to pay for apps in IOS compared to Mac. This is not sustainable for App developers. Therefore, there are two routes to go down. First is, charge well for single purchase of an app or go down the subscription route. Fantastical and Things charge high premium for their apps on this basis as an example. With the former, I have seen many angry customers surface when the app releases a new version and they have to pay for it all over again. With subscription models you are tied to it as long as you need it. This can be much cheaper. and if you subscribe on a lengthy basis get full regular updates. It also incentives the developer to bring regular updates with the regular income and also innovate. It really at the end is down to the end user on what apps they wish to use and pay for. Free apps such as Googles come at a price and if you are happy with that then that is okay. To however, expect developers to put so much effort into developing and updating an app for free does not make any sense. I therefore, think as consumers we get a good deal on there whole with subscriptions - Take Microsoft Office as an example. Not only do you get all applications but you get 1TB free storage which is a better deal than DropBox offers. It also sees better quality apps than their once only version.
Just as there are two viable options (in your opinion) for sustaining the developer, you also have to consider what @skaertus has said. Yes, you can pay a lot up front or pay a subscription fee... but the developer also has to offer more than just "I want money to keep flowing in". The ONLY subscriptions that I have are for things like Texture and Netflix - things that offer me value month over month. I don't mind paying a reasonably high price for some apps (Fastastical2 is, IMO, well worth it). I also paid the outright price for things like BBEdit, 1Password and TextExpander. But I absolutely refuse to pay a monthly fee for some crap app that the developer wants to cash in on for the next 5 or 10 years. Apps like TweetBot (and Fantastical) charge a higher price, and then charged for the subsequent update. That's fine. The developer still gets paid for his work, and I get the option of buying what I want because I perceive that value of those apps to me. But don't just milk us customers like Mrs O'Leary's cow and expect us to like it. Doing so is nothing more than greed.
Obviously, every user is free to do as they see fit with regard to subscription software, but I simply choose to walk away.
I could not agree more.
There is a limited number of subscriptions which I agree to have. I may subscribe to Microsoft Office, Spotify, Netflix, HBO Go, Apple Music, iCloud, but not more than all that. I will not subscribe to every crap app as it becomes unmanageable.
I gave My Daughter an iPad Pro for her birthday. She is on my family sharing. She downloaded a crummy "free" photo editor (it does less than the one built into IOS.) The App said " use me for 3 days, then pay the low price of $8.99 -- A Week! If she wanted to unlock the features, it was $19.99 / week She immediately deleted the app. It still started a subscription. It took a call to Apple to fix this. $8.99 or $19.99 week? no app is worth that!
That is just crazy and I would be surprised if anyone actually pays for that weekly. I would understand one full price up front for any app but other than that no way. The App Store is going down hill with all this subscribing junk .even the darn weather apps and workout type apps are asking for subs now .
Yeah....This is robbery, tbh. My daughter has an iPhone and iPad on family share. I've told her "You can download ANY app that says GET", if there's a dollar amount, ask me". Come to find out the other day, she's been downloading camera and photo apps that are FREE, but there's a weekly subscription to them. I got an email the other day, so I went to look..There was like seven of them at $8.99 a week. I looked up one of them and the language about being a subscription is buried in the details. "Zomerang".
Kinda pisses me off Apple is allowing this. There needs to be a "Get", "$1.99" and "Sub" button in the appstore.
Kinda pisses me off Apple is allowing this. There needs to be a "Get", "$1.99" and "Sub" button in the appstore.
I went and looked at the details of Zoomerang. They have some really bizarre subscription options.
- Yearly Subscribe$19.99
- Yearly Subscribe$12.99
- Monthly Subscribe$6.99
- Weekly Subscribe$7.99
- Remove Watermark$0.99
- Remove Ads$0.99
- One-time Purchase$39.99
- Yearly Subscribe$39.99
- Yearly Subscribe$25.99
Yeah it sucks! At this point "Get" doesn't mean free and it's a challenge for parents. To solve this I am going to have to create her an account on her own that does not have a credit card attached to it, so sub has nothing to pull from.
Another option is to use ScreenTime (formerly "restrictions" in settings I believe) and disable in-app purchases. If you ever want to really make one you can temporarily disable it and then go turn the restriction back on when you're done.
Hmmm, disabling in-app purchases would be much easier. How would that work for these apps tough? It's my understanding once you open it the 3-day trial begins. She's technically not clicking to buy within the app or is she?
I think that there has to be a user confirmation before a paid subscription can begin. They wouldn't be able to confirm if in-app purchases are disabled. That's my best guess!