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.

Kolanaki,
@Kolanaki@yiffit.net avatar

YouTube is a weird one, personally. Why shouldn’t it have a subscription based service like any other streaming network? Because the content is not created by, funded by, or even necessarily supported by YouTube.

It would make more sense for the subscription to be put upon uploaders to host the content, since their business is hosting the files, not really the content itself.

Now, if they had a better or at least more transparent way of giving the creators a truly fair cut of the monetary gains earned through their videos I would have nothing against YouTube Premium aside from hating that a completely free service has to move to a paid service.

timbuck2themoon,

Except Google is established. Paying a company that has shown complete disregard for users and privacy and ethics doesn’t work.

An upstart? Sure. They don’t have a proven track record of being assholes.

pathief,
@pathief@lemmy.world avatar

I don’t agree with this. It creates a monetary barrier to starting a new channel. If uploading costs money the number of uploads is going to reduce considerably, no one likes to throw money away.

Agent641,

100% onboard with this. Just like imgur before it went shit in like 2014. Free uploaders get basic hosting, limited to 1080p, 5 min videos, max of ~5gb uploads, low-priority authentication/verification/approval, monetization/in-video advertising not allowed.

Subscription for 1hr videos, 50gb storage, streaming (50hrs/mth) monetization allowed.

Premium subscription for 4k, arbitrary length, 500gb (can be increased as required for additional cost)

r_se_random,

Nope, that would be horrible.

One of the biggest draws of YouTube is that anyone can go and upload their stuff. We literally have youtubers who started out in their rooms with a webcam, and became big because of the quality of their stuff. This would put a barrier of entry for new youtubers to enter.

thesmokingman,

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.

kirk782,
@kirk782@discuss.tchncs.de avatar

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.

Rizoid,

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.

jpeps,

Me too! Thanks for the info. I was never a part of that community and I have to admit I’ve been wondering when someone was going to realise my 3 year membership should’ve finished

Kichae, (edited )

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.

Rizoid,

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.

ilinamorato,

Pocket Casts has a server component that makes sense you have to pay for, and for the most part the only things you don’t get with the free version are the server stuff and a little bit of cosmetic stuff. $40/year for 20GB is a little steep, but the fact that they charge for it doesn’t bother me.

With the exception of the folders; that doesn’t make sense to me being a Plus-only thing.

All that being said, I bought the app before it went free, so I am grandfathered in to a lifetime Plus plan; but if that hadn’t been the case I would not be paying for a subscription today.

archomrade,

I bought the app before it went free, so I am grandfathered in to a lifetime Plus plan; but if that hadn’t been the case I would not be paying for a subscription today.

Same, I don’t think I’d be paying for it otherwise

dgmib,

Wow… lots of people in here bashing the subscription model, but let me point out it’s maybe not as bad as you think…

If you sell a product under a perpetual license model (I.e the one-time purchase model). Once you’ve sold the product, the manufacturer has almost no incentive to offering any support or updates to the product. At best it’s a marketing ploy, you offer support only to get word of mouth advertising of your product which is generally a losing proposition.

Since there’s little incentive to improve the experience for existing customers. Your main income comes from if you can increase your market share which generally means making products bloated often leading to a worse experience for everyone.

If the customer wants support, you need to sell them a support contract. If they want updates you have to make a new version and hope the customer sees enough additional value to be worth upgrading. Either way we’re back to a subscription model with more steps, more risk, and less upside than market expansion so it takes a backseat.

If you want to make a great product without some variation on a subscription. You need to invest heavily upfront in development (which most companies don’t have the capital to do, and investors generally won’t invest in unproven software)

From a product perspective, you don’t know if you’ve hit the mark until people start using your product. The first versions of anything but the most trivial of products is usually terrible, because no matter how good you are, half to three quarters of the ideas you build are going to be crap and not going to be what the customers need.

Perpetual licensing works for a small single purpose application with no expectation of support or updates.

It works for applications with broad market needs like office software.

For most niche applications, subscription models offer a better experience for both the customer and the manufacturer.

The customer isn’t facing a large transition cost to switch to a competitor’s product like they would if they had to buy a perpetual license of it, so you have a lot more incentive to support and improve your product. You also don’t see significant revenue if the customer that drops your service a couple months in… even more reason to focus on improving the product for existing customers.

People ought hate the idea of paying small reoccurring fees for software instead of a few big upfront costs. But from a business model perspective, businesses are way more incentivized to focus on making their products better for you under that model.

Kir,

Lots of words and lots of assumptions. You can improve a product and release another version with a paid upgrade, while the old version remains completely functional. If your works have made the software substantially better, people will be happy to pay for a new version. If you aren’t adding real value, having the last version should not be necessary.

MomoTimeToDie,

Updates can both add real value, but not be worth piecemealing out as separate purchases.

dgmib,

Totally fair if you don’t like the subscription model.

But I am genuinely curious what you think I’m making assumptions about.

Kir,

Your biggest assumption is that you don’t have the drive to better a product if you don’t have a subscription model. It’s simply not true. You can and in fact must work to better your product if you want to stay relevant in the market and drive your customer to pay for a new version of your software.

Then, you proceed by describing the positives of a subscription model. While you’re not wrong about those points, you are leaving out the negatives and forgetting that every business model would have symmetrical points to be made.

There are some context in which subscription model are suited for or in fact even necessary, but the harsh reality is that now every software is turning into a subscription model only for two reason: you can extract 10x 100x more money for your customer, and you can lock-in them in order to keep them paying. This has proven to be detrimental for the quality of the softwares too: software loose interoperability and compatibility, updates are so frequent and gimmicky that they can be a problem, etc etc.

tartan,

This sounds almost identical to the script our former VP of PM parroted. Everyone in engineering was vehemently opposed. But the C suite loved it, so we switched to a subscription model. Guess what, NEMs and govt clients don’t like paying subscriptions. No one does, but these are huge, powerful business entities we’re talking about here. You can’t force their hand. We lost 3 of our 4 biggest clients within 6 months. It took a massive amount of work to reverse course.

Just admit it. Subscriptions are nothing more than a blatant money grab. We (the SW industry) have been successfully releasing software and making fucktonnes of money for decades before some bean counter decided to get too greedy and come up with this bullshit.

dgmib,

I will absolutely give you that transitioning an established mature product to the subscription model is usually a terrible idea. Plenty of examples of that going horribly wrong.

As for subscriptions being a “blatant money grab” that definitely happens sometimes… notably when there’s a mature product with a dominating market share. The company already captured most of the market share, so they can’t get much more revenue from new customers, existing customers are satisfied with the version they have so they’re not buying any updates. Sales go down and someone comes along say just make it a subscription and keep milking the cash cow forever…. Yep, I admit it, that totally happens. The enshitification ensues.

But none of that’s the fault of the subscription model per se.

The same subscription model that becomes the incumbent’s downfall, is what creates a market opportunity for a new competitor.

A new competitor can coming in with a new product that was built with a subscription model from the start. The competitors product is cheap to try for a month, cheap to switch to with no big upfront costs. The newcomers can generally react much faster to customers needs than the incumbent. (Not because of the model, they can because they’re smaller)

Established software companies doing blatant money grabs happen all the time. Hell most of us are here using Lemmy because Spez attempted a blatant money grab on Reddit. Had nothing to do with the model.

Subscription model gets a lot of hate because greedy companies tried to use it as a blatant money grab exactly as you described. But it doesn’t have to be that way.

Subscription models make it easier for newcomers entering a space, which is good for consumers. It’s more compatible with agile development methodologies because you don’t need wait until you’ve bundled enough features together to market it as a new version worth upgrading to. It’s in your best interest to ship new features immediately as they’re developed.

It’s totally fair of you don’t like the model.

But the model itself isn’t the problem.

Shitty companies being greedy will always happen.

tartan,

Fair enough. I think us and everyone else on this thread can definitely agree on that last point, at the very least. 🫡

conciselyverbose,

I don't want or need continuous updates.

I want to buy something and have it be left alone without trying to steal more money from me for the thing I already bought.

The only possible valid excuse for a subscription to software is services that cannot possibly exist without meaningful spending on server infrastructure. If that's cloud storage as the core of the purchase of the app, computations that are literally impossible to do locally or rely on data that's expensive to maintain, a subscription is legitimate.

If it's anything else it's shitty and you're a shitty person for doing it. Sell actual upgrades when they're actually upgrades, without stealing access to what people bought. It's the only acceptable model.

sub_,

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).
dylanmorgan,

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.

daniyyel,

I agree that a lot of subscriptions are really overpriced, but updates to an app are also a sort-of service. Pixelmator explained it quite well when their app switched to a subscription model, mentioning some fair (I think) pros and cons of the succession model, both from the perspective of users and developers.

pixelmator.com/…/why-pixelmator-photo-is-switchin…

WashedOver, (edited )
@WashedOver@lemmy.ca avatar

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.

PrincessEli,

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

tartan,

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.

PrincessEli,

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.

tartan,

they actually need to be able to consistently make pretty sizeable upgrades

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.

PrincessEli,

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.

tartan,

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.

PrincessEli,

Are you just talking to hear yourself speak?

Thorned_Rose,
@Thorned_Rose@kbin.social avatar

Eshittification :(

Pirasp,

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.

kratoz29,
@kratoz29@lemm.ee avatar

Well, there are too many to name, but one that called my attention recently was Battery Guru… I thought you could buy the app, but it seems that it has only a subscription model? Yeah I’d rather buy it once than having to pay each day, month or year.

dasgoat,

Would you rather drain your battery or your bank account

kratoz29,
@kratoz29@lemm.ee avatar

I chose none 😆

There is BetterBatteryStats and Franco Kernel Manager, AccuBattery and GSam Battery Monitor to track the battery, most tools should exist too.

Anyway, the free version of Battery Guru doesn’t bother me in the slightest.

kirk782,
@kirk782@discuss.tchncs.de avatar

Lol, I was actually browsing Mobilism yesterday and came across a modded version of this app, I think. I didn’t install it though. I wonder if I should that a try.

kratoz29,
@kratoz29@lemm.ee avatar

I’d say you are going to be fine with the free app, at least I don’t see ads as I have AdAway always on lol.

entropicdrift,
@entropicdrift@lemmy.sdf.org avatar

UltimateGuitar.com

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.

Nommer, (edited )

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.

criitz,

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.

njordomir,

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. :)

finthechat,
@finthechat@kbin.social avatar

Fuck that site. Going there now is like looking at the desecrated corpse of an old friend.

mindbleach,

Products aren’t services.

So much bullshit has come from pretending otherwise.

janguv,

But loans are temporal. That’s all that is happening – you’re renting out software (akin to digital library borrowing), in some sense, not buying a product.

The problem is how to do it otherwise and maintain enough income to ensure continued active development for future updates.

I don’t have a solution to it, and subscriptions aren’t ideal, but that’s the problem at least.

Crow,
@Crow@lemmy.world avatar

There’s only two reasons an app should be a subscription.

  1. The app requires constant server connection that is an active cost to the developer.
  2. 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%.

themurphy,

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.

PM_Your_Nudes_Please,

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.

nicetriangle,
@nicetriangle@kbin.social avatar

Yeah the Pocketcasts pricing is stupid as hell. I've been having some issues with Overcast and was looking to switch but there's no way that price is worth it.

Rizoid,

I purchased pocketcasts years ago when it was a one time fee and when they moved to a subscription model they gave everyone who purchased a lifetime pass on the subscription model but that rubbed me so wrong I moved away from it. Currently I run Audiobookshelf on my server and have all my podcasts in a library on there. Works really well and I have control over it.

nicetriangle,
@nicetriangle@kbin.social avatar

Yeah I've recently gone the self hosted route for video and may go for audio soon too, but not quite there yet. I think for now I can deal with the few minor annoyances I have with Overcast.

What I'd really like to see someone crack is an machine learning prodcast player that can snip out ads. A few of the podcasts I like have gotten fucking insufferable for ads lately.

Anders429,

Companies are using subscription models because it has proven to be far more profitable than a one-time purchase. Why sell the product to each person just once when you can sell it to them over and over again? You no longer have to constantly develop new products and versions, and you now only have to maintain your existing product.

And it works because people buy it.

discusseded,

Microsoft Solitaire on Android. The ads were driving me nuts so I went to pay for the app. If I recall they wanted almost 10 bucks a month for that shit. Deleted, forgotten, until now.

ilco,

id rather pay a webhost a monthly fee and host most things i need myself your better of donating/buying a opensorce project /app than pay for a licensen to a company whom enforces always online apps . if possible sadly its not always an option as not all things have an alternative or a lacking

RatzChatsubo, (edited )

I’m a big fan of the way Plex does it. I paid like 100 dollars a decade ago and all my apps stay up to date forever

What’s great about it is that it’s optional and not forced on you. I’m a Plexamp power user so it makes sense to me with my expansive music collection

  • All
  • Subscribed
  • Moderated
  • Favorites
  • •
  • piracy@lemmy.dbzer0.com
  • localhost
  • All magazines
    •
    Loading…
    Loading the web debug toolbar…
    Attempt #