Apps that shouldn't be Subscriptions
Apps that shouldn't be Subscriptions
What is the most useless app that you have seen being given as a subscription?
For me, I tried a 'minimalist' launcher app for Android that had a 7 day trial or something and they had a yearly subscription based model for it. I was aghast. I would literally expect the app to blow my mind and do everything one can assume to go that way. In a world, where Nova Launcher (Yes, I know it has been acquired by Branch folks but it still is a sturdy one) or Niagara exist plus many alternatives including minimalist ones on F Droid, the dev must be releasing revolutionary stuff to factor in a subscription service.
Second, is a controversial choice, since it's free tier is quite good and people like it so much. But, Pocketcasts. I checked it's yearly price the other day, and boy, in my country, I can subscribe to Google Play Pass, YouTube Premium and Spotify and still have money left before I hit the ceiling what Pocketcasts is asking for paid upgrade.
Also, what are your views on one time purchase vs subscriptions? Personally, I find it much easier to purchase, if it's good enough even if it was piratable, something if it is a one time purchase rather than repetitive.
You're viewing a single thread.
Software as a Service is only a value when the service offers you something that the software on its own cannot do; otherwise it's just rent seeking.
Paying for cloud storage, for continuous content updates (especially news), or a server to process or generate content that can't be done on my device, all fine. Paying for a messaging service to pass my messages to others, or for a game to maintain servers for multiplayer play? No problem.
But a subscription to remove ads? Your app doesn't need an external server to do that. That's rent-seeking. Same with a subscription to unlock widgets or some third-party connection.
A subscription for regular software updates are right on the line for me. In a sane world, the software package you purchase would be provided with some amount of security updates, but you wouldn't have to pay any extra until you decided to purchase the next version for new features. You know, like it was until Adobe decided to upend the industry. (Incidentally, it's weird that Adobe has gone from being the poster child for rent seeking in software to one of the more reasonable companies that's doing software as a service. I still hate that there's no way to get their software without a subscription, but at least they are providing some form of continuous value in the form of continuous updates, as well as fonts and stock images and such.)
On the other end of the spectrum you have something like Minecraft, where my ($20? I don't remember) purchase from over a decade ago is still receiving regular content updates for free, multiple times a year, with no subscription needed. I can pay a subscription fee to get an online realm for myself and my family, but I don't have to because I can also just set up and operate a server myself. More than reasonable.
But a subscription to remove ads? Your app doesn't need an external server to do that.
This is kind of a bad example because the value proposition is different but still very clear - the default version of the app provides a regular income stream to the developers. If you don't like that, you can choose to provide an alternative income stream instead.
It is still unfair because the subscription cost is usually many times more than what the ads will earn for a single user - but it's a matter of quantity at that point, not quality.
The Adobe case is still a much better example, IMO. Yes, they may offer regular content updates worth subscribing for, but their products could still work perfectly well as one-time purchases without access to the content stream. The only reason they didn't is that they don't have enough competition to be worried about customers moving away.
This is kind of a bad example because the value proposition is different but still very clear - the default version of the app provides a regular income stream to the developers.
No, I was quite intentional about that example. My assertion remains: if they're not providing regular value, then I don't feel obliged to provide them with regular income.
I don't hope that they go hungry or anything. I just don't think it's my responsibility to subsidize them forever just because they made an app for me once. I've got bills to pay too.
Ok, yeah, upon reflection I think I agree with you.