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 must log in or register to comment.
A watch face for a smart watch.
This one guy made a really popular Android Wear watch face that mimicked the Pixel lockscreen. It only cost a few bucks, and people loved it. Due to some personal things in his life, he had to sell the app to a new developer to make ends meet. The new developer then started charging something like $7/WEEK subscription for a watchface that he didn’t even develop in the first place, and runs entirely locally on the device so it’s not like he’s maintaining any servers or anything.
Absolutely absurd.
What. If that business model actually works for him, something is wrong with this world.
It’s the business model of build or buy trust and then exploit it until you’re loaded and your former customers all hate you. But you’re loaded.
And yeah, there’s something wrong with this world.
This has to be one of the lamest attempts at getting folks to subscribe. I couldn’t have imagined that watch faces could also be subscription based in the first place.
I too ran into an Android Wear watch face that mimicked the Pixel lockscreen. However, it was priced X INR(Indian Rupee) per year in my country and was decently cheap. However, I soon ran into another app, which was a one time purchase, that did what it did mainly(sync and show phone and watch battery on each other) and worked on most lock screens. So the latter was a proper kind of app design amd atleast not subscription hell.
All of them. You should be able to buy a program and its yours.
Disagreed. If it requires a server side element, it incurs an ongoing cost and a subscription can be justified. And to clarify, by “requires”, I’m referring to the functionality, not having it shoveled in. And the price should be realistic.
Some apps do this well, Sleep for Android is an example that comes to mind. Free with ads, ad-free is an inexpensive one time purchase. You can also purchase additional plugin apps that add functionality that isn’t required or even useful for most people. And finally, they have a cloud plugin app to let you backup your data, you can pay for their cloud subscription which is $2.99 a year, but you can also just use other cloud for storage like Google drive.
But if the server side element is just cloud storage, you should be able to supply your own server.
Then the dev needs to build out a range of protocols and API’s to enable users to “supply their own server”, which can bring a range of additional headaches, like having to provide support for external dependencies outside their control, etc.
What if the users “server” fails? Should the dev waste hours of their life assisting a user with a highly specific Google Drive issue when they spent $5, 3 years ago?
I mean, there are pretty standard protocols for most of the cloud services, like S3 API - the defacto.
Hell, sftp is fine for most stuff. They just want your data.
But the developer doesn’t need to provide support if you opt to use your own data storage and the storage itself fails. And
Google would be the one to contact if Google drive has an issue.
But the developer doesn’t need to provide support if you opt to use your own data storage and the storage itself fails. Google would be the one to contact if Google drive has an issue.
Well yes, but that’s not how your average user thinks and acts. They will either a) contact you as the developer of the app that doesn’t seem to work and when your say it’s not your fault give you bad reviews or b) directly give you bad reviews.
I’m not putting my data up some random server run by some dev
Your commenting here is evidence to the contrary
If it requires a server side element, it incurs an ongoing cost and a subscription can be justified.
But why do that?
Downvote instead of answer, nice.
deleted by creator
JetBrains ran aground of this years ago when they introduced a subscription model for their (excellent) software. People (rightly) lost their fricking minds when they heard that if they cancelled their subscription, they’d lose the ability to continue using the software they’d already paid for.
So JetBrains went back and reworked their system so that a cancelled subscription would continue to have the rights to install all the software that existed up to the day of cancellation. Effectively meaning that if v3 came out the day before you cancelled, you can still install and use v3 10 years later.
JetBrains comes to mind as one of the fairest subscription services I know. It also get cheaper the longer you’re subscribed, incentivizing you to to stay subscribed. It’s both smart and user friendly.
The worst one is probably Adobe.
Adobe is the one company i’d never, ever, ever want to support, especially with a subscription. 🏴☠️ all day every day
I love JetBrains.
I do use JetBrains software. If subscriptions all agreed that when you cancel the subscription you can continue to use the latest version before you cancelled, I’d be prepared to consider them. Any software ought to be able to do this except software that uses significant server resources. I’d even consider rent-to-own where you get to keep the software after a certain number of payments. (Splice offers some music software like this.)
Roland have a ton of good software synthesizers but I will never subscribe to them because the moment you stop they take the whole lot away. Even their “lifetime license” requires an active Roland account and the software disappears if you ever close the account or they change their minds. Similarly I haven’t used any Adobe software since they went subscription only.
There’s only two reasons an app should be a subscription.
-
The app requires constant server connection that is an active cost to the developer.
-
The app requires constant updates for maintaining functionality/ relevancy.
There are a few subscriptions I pay for (Nabu casa for one). There’s real merit in the subscription model, but it should only be about 1% of things not 80%.
You could also argue apps that uses some kind of licensed content the app pays for.
I’m not saying I’m a fan of Netflix and Spotify, but they do use alot of money to keep their content available, and not only for server costs.
They still overcharge tho.
Yeah, paying for content streaming is different than simply paying for an app that runs locally. Spotify proved that people will be willing to pay for music, as long as it is easier than piracy. Netflix’s early days (when it was actually a one stop shop for all of the available content) proved the same with TV/movie streaming. They proved that piracy largely isn’t an issue with cost, but rather convenience and accessibility.
But with a local app, that all goes right out the window. There’s no reason you’d need to pay a subscription for an app that runs everything locally and only gets sporadic updates. There isn’t any licensing to worry about, or third party systems to pay off. The only reason to have the subscription in this instance is pure greed.
-
Mobile games for kids are the worst. Those and any self-help mental health apps.
It’s $10 a month to access the features of a basic game that runs on the local device, or the subscription renews weekly, or you can get a 7-day free trial after which it charges you for the entire year. And in the latter case, you usually have to sign up for the free trial before you are allowed to see ANY content.
A cheap subscription makes sense for some things, especially those using cloud based resources. But so much of that business model seems to rely on making money by screwing people that forgot they were paying you.
Subscription only makes sense if there’s an ongoing service, e.g. processing in the cloud, cloud data storage, etc.
Apps that don’t need to be subscription:
- Camera apps like Halide or Filmic Pro, wtf
- Any todo / habit apps, the ‘cloud’ part is usually iCloud / Google Drive
- Notetaking apps, e.g. GoodNotes, wtf
- Duolingo, mainly because the contents of some lessons are outdated (missing audio, etc).
I would say if you accept subscription services as justifiable, Duolingo is justified. What you’re raising is poor performance, not a reason for it to be purchase only.
Of course, I would be in favor of “the app is free, pay a set price for a language pack” rather than a subscription for premium.
Microsoft Office.
The subscription service is actually alright for businesses, but for retail users there is no compelling reason for it to be a subscription.
the pricing of ‘365’ is essentially a subscription to cloud storage, whether you use it or not, and getting office ‘free’ with that sub.
Any app that doesn’t require any backend to function.
If you ask for a subscription for an app without the need to support a backend… I won’t subscribe. I’ll find something else.
Mostly anything else is fine.
Though, if it’s something like a Note-Taking app where the cloud infrastructure for backups and sharing would cost pennies and you’re asking more than $1 a month, I’m out. Looking at you, Evernote. $64 a year to replace the built-in Notes app? No thanks.
Ok so I don’t completely agree… The thing is: mobile apps today have this approach where they don’t have “releases”, there’s one entry on the app store, and if you buy that you usually get updates for as long as it exists.
In the past, computer software always had periodic (usually yearly) releases, which meant that if you bought one version, afterwards you’d have maybe updates for bugfixes and such, but no new features. The result was that the development of new features was paid by people replacing the old version with the new one, because they wanted the improved version.
Nowadays you buy the app and you keep getting new features, sometimes for years, and that development is paid solely thanks to new buyers. Which is cool if you are the customer but it’s not great long term for the developer.
Yeah I think this presents a genuine problem for the active development of apps for smaller developers, for sure.
Payroll pretty much always costs more than hosting. Update frequency and quality is a far more useful consideration
x
In all fairness to Pocket Casts, the yearly cost in the US is $40, which is about the monthly cost of the three things you mentioned together. If your country gives you yearly Google Play Pass, YouTube Premium, and Spotify Premium for less than $40 US, that’s a fucking steal.
In all fuck you to Pocket Casts, Basic App functionality like folders shouldn’t be behind a subscription. I can understand a one-time unlock fee for app functionality or ongoing subscription costs to cover cloud storage and sync capabilities. I cannot fucking understand why folders would cost me $40 US a year.
Apparently it used to be one time payment for Pocketcasts back in the day. They then switched to subscription model. The old users were grandfathered in into the new version, so from today’s point of view, they got a steal deal.
I was one of those old purchasers. There was a huge uproar on the subreddit back in the day cause they said everyone who purchased the app before the subscription model would only get like 1 or 2 years of subscription access instead of lifetime. People got so pissed they changed it to lifetime.
And yet it still has a bunch of ads for PC+ littered throughout it. Despite being grandfathered in, I abandoned it earlier this year for Podcast Republic, which hasn’t spammed me or locked me out of any features I’ve tried to play with despite not having paid them anything.
I myself switched to Audiobookshelf. I initially set it up for my wife to have her audio books while traveling but I found it does podcasts and normal epub books really well also.
It used to be entirely free and the vast majority of its tablature was uploaded by community members for free.
The app used to be a one-time purchase. Thankfully I did purchase it back then and they grandfathered me in with a lifetime pro membership, but I can’t blame the people who would never want to use the site/app when they’ve effectively paywalled a ton of community content.
Fuck that site. Going there now is like looking at the desecrated corpse of an old friend.
Agreed. I bought the lifetime membership back then and I still have to deal with ads and upsells. Unfortunately they are still the most comprehensive tab source.
Its crazy to think of a subscription for something like community sourced tabs. They’re often literal text files. You could host thousands of them off a thumbdrive. :)
What the fuck. I used to go there for tabs all the time when I picked up guitar. Sadly I stopped playing but to hear that that website is all pay walled now is disgusting.
deleted by creator
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.
I try to use as much FOSS as is reasonable for my daily usage. For things I use a lot I’ll donate to the developers if they allow it, with the exception of Mesa and Proton since Valve fund their development and I buy games on Steam a good portion of the time.
In general I try to support projects that are made in that open and sharing spirit of the early internet rather than getting baited into more disingenuous traps like what happened with UltimateGuitar.
deleted by creator
I generally hate them in consumer-targeted apps. Theoretically, there’s nothing wrong with the model. Devs have to keep the lights on, especially if there is a cloud service behind the app. It’s all about what pricing model they set. However, pricing is hard. A lot of companies really screw this up right at the start. I also think a lot of businesses cannot resist the temptation to boil the frog and ask for more and more over time, until their pricing is way out of alignment with value delivery.
One-time purchase. If I’m buying something, I want to own it. No compromises. Luckily basically every software that I use is free and open-source so I don’t have to worry about that. If I can’t find a particular software for a niche usage, I make it.
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
theythere 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 :(
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.
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.
All of them
Apps that provide server time either synchronizing data and storing information or providing an api to bring info to the device.
Data intensive apps like windy can charge whatever they need, now MF like Strava pushing an $79/yr for routes is about BS.deleted by creator
