298
Apps that shouldn't be Subscriptions
(discuss.tchncs.de)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 15 Dec 2023
298 points (97.2% liked)
Piracy: ꜱᴀɪʟ ᴛʜᴇ ʜɪɢʜ ꜱᴇᴀꜱ
54609 readers
488 users here now
⚓ Dedicated to the discussion of digital piracy, including ethical problems and legal advancements.
Rules • Full Version
1. Posts must be related to the discussion of digital piracy
2. Don't request invites, trade, sell, or self-promote
3. Don't request or link to specific pirated titles, including DMs
4. Don't submit low-quality posts, be entitled, or harass others
Loot, Pillage, & Plunder
📜 c/Piracy Wiki (Community Edition):
💰 Please help cover server costs.
 |
 |
|---|---|
| Ko-fi | Liberapay |
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
This seems to be the model I've witnessed with many apps over the years. Free at first to get traction and users, then ads, then pay one time fee to get rid of ads, then subscription to keep using the app.
Then there are those that wouldn't even pay a single fee and get upset at the thought as everything should be free.
The part that is upsetting is the contributions the early community made is monetized when they were ~~they~~ there for the benefit of the community.
I do see there are costs to maintaining and updating these apps so I can understand a need to keep revenue flowing for these future costs. The one time payment is a hell of a deal for years with updates to accommodate the revisions needed for each system update let alone functionality improvements.
In the old days we would buy software for our PC and that was it. There wasn't really any updates or further support for newer versions of Windows. The software would become very insecure or just stop functioning altogether with enough changes to windows.
It's hard to find the right balance. I know I only want to pay once, or heck never, but I want these upgrades and updates too.
Enshittification :(
I have a photography program, that is a "buy once" model, but if you bought it, you can get a subscription for updates on-top. Once you unsubscribe the updates stop, but aren't retracted. I find that to be a very reasonable solution.
Personally, I'd love a "buy this version" option, where you can just pay once, and get a version that doesn't recieve updates, and I could then choose to subscribe to the "live" version from there.
Of course, this would just blow back in company's faces when it comes to the "average" user, who would be a total fucking idiot and harass support about not getting updates they didn't pay for
There’s actually quite a lot of software that monetises similarly to what you’re proposing. DxO and Ableton, just off the top of my head. Millions of happy users between those 2.
You get minor version updates for “free” (included in the one-time purchase). Upgrades to the next major version are discounted. Don’t need the features in the next major version? Stick with what you have for however long it works for you.
It’s by far my favourite model because it allows the developers to get paid, whilst not squeezing my neck. Everyone’s happy.
I generally have little need for paid software since I don't (or more accurately, can't) do any work at home, so it figures I wasn't aware of what's out there lol. The closest thing I use is cracked office. Because yeah, that payment type sounds pretty good, so long as releases are priced reasonably.
I figure a big difficulty is deciding on "major releases" vs rolling incremental development. If they're going to sell major releases, they actually need to be able to consistently make pretty sizable upgrades, and not just "streamlined a couple menus, big fixes" type updates.
Precisely! It keeps them honest. Furthermore, it forces closing the feedback loop with users. Developers need to understand what features users want most, and what bugs or usability issues need to be prioritised. Not listening to feedback means no future revenue, simple as that.
The subscription model does none of that. It’s just a greedy money-grab.
I disagree that major version updates equates to keeping them honest. Not everything needs major overhauls every few years. You can have a perfectly closed feedback loop, and still fail to sell people on buying 5.0.0 when 4.7.12 is still good enough, and recieved the little things that matter.
You fail to sell when you fail to timely implement desirable features. And you fail to prioritise properly when you disregard or misinterpret feedback.
None of this is better mitigated by subscription models.
Are you just talking to hear yourself speak?