Isn't app development a recurring cost? It's not like you just work on it for a bit and just forget about it once you got a version out. Especially if it's using a service (lemmy) that is still in development and is constantly changing.
Preach. Not sure why this is so hard for folks to understand.
App development isn't and never has been an one-time done deal. Devs always do the work to fix bugs, add new features / requests, upgrade to new platform / API etc. If they do this for free that is at their will but they are burning their own time / money one way or another. To demand a developer to run their business a certain way and mandate their business model is just mind-blowing to me.
I get the distinct impression that everyone bitching about the fees are people that have never had to develop for end users and maintain the fucking thing.
Yep, and it's even worse for mobile apps because people are so used to the terrible dollar-per-app model, despite the fact that these mobile apps are actually THE software they use everyday.
Apple and Google don't care, they get 30% cut regardless whether the dev makes $100 / sale or $1 / sale at higher volume. But it was a good strategy to shift the power over to the iOS and Android platforms because the perception is, dollar-per-app devs can't be that important, right? And they'll never get too big.
Ongoing development IS an recurring cost.
I have zero problem with people trying to get paid for their work, often it is the only feasible way to dedicate enough time to the project.
I'd prefer open source sure, but I'm not all that opposed to small/individual projects not going that route. Especially when it's not a critical service and there's an abundance of FOSS choices
Personally, I don't need yet another subscription service.
That being said, I've used Sync for years (Pro, so just ad removal, one time fee.), and just paid again for ad removal. I did this because I enjoy the app, and appreciate the effort that goes into creating and maintaining it.
I have no qualms about paying a person for quality work.
If I understand correctly, every sync feature that requires the subscription (and cannot be purchased by a one time fee) requires the sync dev to run a constantly online server. Translation makes calls to translation services that cost money, push notifications require a push server since Lemmy servers don't include support for it, etc. Removing ads doesn't cost sync ongoing cash which is why you can get it for a one time fee.
Seems reasonable to me.
All apps have a recurring cost if the dev is continuing to develop the app. At the scale these apps are working the labor the dev puts in in the most expensive part. Plus Lemmy is continually updating so to keep the app working the dev will need to continually update.
Everyone wants a constant revenue stream, app devs aint unique. And also like everyone else, they charge what people are willing to pay. Price is never about cost.
I don't really get how everyone focuses on the ad-free feature as if it's the only thing that Sync Ultra provides. It also provides text recognition in images, translation in-app, (both requiring constant server work) and will eventually support push notifications (again requiring server work). On top of that, LJ has stated he wants to work on this app full-time, which is only possible if he earns a living from it.
If those features aren't interesting to a user, there's always the one-time ad removal option (I'll admit which is a bit pricey but per OP's post, is a one time fee and not a subscription).
Yeah how dare them try to make a salary out of their labour. OUTRAGEOUS!
The thing I really don't understand, and what is really starting to annoy me, is that you don't have to use it.
I used sync for years. I even bought the pro version to get rid of ads. When I saw the price for the new app I decided that I didn't want to pay that and moved the fuck on.
I understand why the price was what it was. This is how this person makes their living. I don't want to pay what they're charging and that's that. Complaining about it seems childish, and now I realize I'm complaining about people complaining.
All of this is nonsense.
I mean, if you want updates or fixes for bugs that's on work that occurred after you paid? Or are you suggesting we go back to the old model of super expensive software that gets sunsetted in a few years anyway?
Development costs money. When you buy an app, development doesn't stop. What kind of nonsense are you peddling here? How do you have such a rudimentary understanding of work and effort and how they all cost money?
As much as I support the developers’ right to profit off their work, I also cannot afford to have everything in my life turn into a reoccurring payment model.
Then don't. Free version barely has any ads and has 99% of the functionality. Y'all a bunch of babies.
I’m not talking about this one specific application. I’m talking about the trend that everything is taking.
One thing in isolation isn’t bad. “ItS oNlY $xx.99/yr” after all.
But when stepping back and looking at the trend you see a different story.
It’s only $10
It’s only $15
It’s only $30
It’s only $5
It’s only $50
It’s only $100
It’s only $60
It’s only $3
It’s only $1599
It’s only $130
It’s only $45
It’s only $99
It’s only $200
It’s only…
You can use interest rates to convert between stocks and flows of money. If the prevailing interest rate is 5%, a thing will produce 5%, or 1/20th, of its actual value every year. So you can take the annual cost of something and multiply by 20 (and vigorously wave your hands at compounding) to get its actual value.
A $10/month subscription costs $120/year, or $2,400 over 20 years. So it's equivalent to a $2,400 purchase.
You can also think of it as, you need to set aside $2,400 in investments to pay for your subscription, e.g. in retirement. Or, if you ditched your subscription you could afford to borrow $2,400 more to e.g. buy a house. Or, you as a customer are the same value to the business as $2,400 in capital, minus whatever they have to spend to make the thing.
You should think a lot about a $2,400 purchase.
Exactly, and that's why I dropped Amazon Prime and most other subscriptions.
Yeah, packages taking a few days longer is annoying, but I also don't feel obligated to keep shopping at Amazon to "get my value." I miss some shows, but I can buy them for less than the yearly cost of the subscription, and most can be replaced with content at other services.
I still have two streaming subscriptions: Netflix (kids love it, I watch it while folding laundry) and Disney+ (wife and one kid loves it). I spend $20/month total for both (have discount for D+ through credit card for the legacy plan, so it's like $7-8 net), and neither have ads.
And that's pretty much it for subscriptions. Sure, I have my city utilities and whatnot, but those aren't really optional unless I'm willing to go off-grid, and from my math it would take many years to pay off (not sure it will depending on how markets go), and I'd likely have a worse experience.
Other services:
We just got two cats, so maybe I'll end up getting a Chewy membership or something, but we'll try to avoid that.
Microtransactions started with horse armor in oblivion. The fact that people can't see the clear trend with things like this is directly one of the causes of constant enshitification
There's one thing you're forgetting; most applications aren't just code-and-forget anymore. Updates need to be made to fix security issues, adapt to newer versions of the API, etc.
Much as I liked Sync for Reddit I'm not willing to participate in subscription pricing for something like this, nor am I willing to pay a breathtaking $100 for a lifetime license or a still high $20 for ad removal. Keeping it in perspective, Sync is an Android app that provides nothing more than a nice UI for lemmy.
It will take some time for the number of Lemmy users and Sync customers to ramp up. IMO the dev is trying to quickly replace his lost Sync for Reddit revenue by charging excessively high prices for Sync for Lemmy. He's lucky so many of you want to pay him but I, for one, will pass on Sync and use other apps with more reasonable pricing.
This comment was written on Infinity for Lemmy which is working just fine.
$16/year for ultra seems pretty reasonable to me.
It's no win scenario for developers. While you're ok with "one up front payment and then maybe in app purchases to pay for new features going forward" there's a whole other slew of voices who are going to complain about being nickled and dimed.
Given those choices (and other factors), as a consumer I prefer the subscription model. If nothing else, it lets me forecast my expenditure and continually re-assess the cost/value proposition of the application in question.
Well, there are recurring costs, such as:
But those costs are pretty fixed.
Hosting an instance, however, is an order of magnitude or two more expensive. Instead of costing up to hundreds per year (not counting dev time), hosting tends to cost hundreds per month for larger instances.
So if people are continually coming to an app, I could see a fixed purchase price being different, and ads are probably enough to support it entirely on a free tier. An instance requires ongoing donations instead.
unless they changed it, play dev is a one time purchase, only apple takes a yearly fee.
Something has gone wrong in software development where software can never be finished.
If you release an app on Google Play and never touch it again, eventually Google will pull it from the store and customers will complain that it no longer runs on new devices. Android 16 will require that all applications now do something, and refuse to run any that do not.
This is the real structural source of the constant subscription demands. Nobody is willing to commit to supporting a stable API for 10 or 20 years, and nobody will keep coming in to bump dependency versions and rewrite systems to Google or Apple's new whims every year unless they get paid for this apparently useless work.
of course nobody is going to commit to supporting a stable API for 10 to 20 years… that’s expensive as heck and not even remotely worth it!
there’s nothing “wrong” with software development, it’s just that consumers demand new features rather than stagnation… i sure don’t want to be using a 20 year old app because we’ve come a long way in 20 years in so many regards
in 2003, windows xp was still microsoft’s dominant OS with vista still being several years off, half life 2 was about to be released, gmail was allllmost ready to release, msn messenger was still in its prime
yeah no, ill stick with rapidly changing technologies rather than sticking to that for some misplaced sense of “stability”
Did you just say progress is what's wrong with software development? Really. Do you even know how software development works before criticizing how it works?
I think it started when software stopped being distributed physically. It's hard to push a bunch of updates to your users when they've need to physically have floppies sent to them versus doing it over the network.
I remember a time when software being "Gold Master" meant it was literally written to a gold master disk, from which copies were made. With that kind of release you had to make damn sure things were finished.
The difference is that software nowadays is interconnected. Sync doesn't exist on its own, nor does Lemmy. And if one of these links changes, chances are, that something else needs to change to keep up. You're talking about standalone software that that exists entirely on its own. But that's not what this post is about.
Technology moves fast. Why would you want to have an app that old, and what app is actually worth running that is that old and unsupported?
Of course they want a constant revenue stream. I want a constant revenue stream as well, isn't it normal?
Whether the price is worth paying for you is a different matter but wanting to profit off your hard and good work is completely natural to me.
Not the best take. The apps still need to continue to be developed, adding new features and improvements along the way. That's the cost of development. Not everything is just the cost of infrastructure. By that logic, McDonald's workers shouldn't be paid because it's not their buns and patties, etc.
I generally agree, though I could be convinced of recurring payment in the case of high speed APIs that need a lot of updates to keep working. Chasing an API can be a lot of work.
Of course, a solution to that is having an up-front payment and letting people update as they wish--if there's new value in the new releases presumably they will.
What does this have to do with Lemmy as a platform?
This just seems like a Patreon with extra steps. If you like what he does, chip in a bit for it. If not, find something else.
I assume you’re talking about Sync? You’re in luck because you could do a one time payment if you wanted to.
Having settings, viewed posts etc sync between devices requires expenses through a server or service
Yes, and?
Everything about Lemmy; bugs, gripes, praises, and advocacy.
For discussion about the lemmy.ml instance, go to !meta@lemmy.ml.