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.

RanchOnPancakes,
@RanchOnPancakes@lemmy.world avatar

All of them. You should be able to buy a program and its yours.

Zikeji,

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.

tsonfeir,
@tsonfeir@lemm.ee avatar

But if the server side element is just cloud storage, you should be able to supply your own server.

WhatAmLemmy,

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?

iopq,

I’m not putting my data up some random server run by some dev

WhatAmLemmy,

Your commenting here is evidence to the contrary

iopq,

That’s my public posts, not my private data.

tsonfeir,
@tsonfeir@lemm.ee avatar

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.

ShrimpsIsBugs,

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.

Chriswild,

If you’re developing an app that has you provide your own backend then I don’t think you’ll be getting many average users.

You could also hide it in advanced settings to weed out those unwilling to learn and offer users a fee to use your server.

Ultimately the only reason I can think of not wanting people to self host is because you want to make money off having people’s data.

PrincessEli,

You clearly haven’t dealt with the “average user”. Get ready for a boatload of idiots who followed some crappy tutorial for “how to get it for free” making a problem for support or review bombing the app when they lose all their data through incompetence.

operetingushisutemu,

The average user doesn’t work like that, also an average user does not always think he is average. There are many people thinking they are advanced, because they know where settings in Windows or Android are located. You will probably get bad reviews then emails, because quote “your app doesn’t work”. This comment is based on real experiences with Google Play Store and its users, thinking they know what they do.

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

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.

Pechente,

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.

lemann,

Adobe is the one company i’d never, ever, ever want to support, especially with a subscription. 🏴‍☠️ all day every day

isVeryLoud,

I love JetBrains.

floofloof, (edited )

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.

princessnorah,
@princessnorah@lemmy.blahaj.zone avatar

If you want a worse example than Roland, let me tell you about my solitary experience with IK Multimedia. I bought a secondhand hardware synth of theirs off marketplace. Get it home and try to download the software tool to control and update it. It tells me to set up an account, and then lets me download it, awesome. Plug it in and fire up the software, and it tells me I’m not licensed. Wait, what? Search through their support site and it turns out that to transfer the “license” for this piece of hardware you have to pay them $49. Sunk cost fallacy got the better of me at this point and I sent an email through to support asking if I could pay the transfer fee. Nope, only the original owner can transfer the license. I was so immediately turned off it that it sat around as a paperweight for a few months. Ended up selling it to a pawn shop.

Meanwhile, Arturia are the exact opposite. When you buy a digital license of the Arturia V Collection, you own that license. Which includes being able to sell it to someone else, and transfer it to their account for free. I bought a secondhand MIDI controller of theirs, which had some bonus licenses for their software originally included. They transferred the license to me with just a picture of the serial number label. But I could still download and use the software for setting up macros and updating it without doing that.

floofloof, (edited )

I hope Arturia don’t change. They are one of the most reasonable companies out there when it comes to licensing and pricing.

Licenses for hardware are a concerning trend, because it’s unnecessary, and because the terms are never made clear before purchase. I suspect it’s mainly there to sabotage the second hand market.

princessnorah,
@princessnorah@lemmy.blahaj.zone avatar

Yeah, I hope they don’t change either. I wouldn’t have been surprised, or particularly disappointed, if they said they wouldn’t transfer the bonus licenses. These weren’t needed to use the device at all. The license was originally for Analog Lab 3, this was a Minilab Mk1, but they’d given free upgrades so the license I got was for Analog Lab V. Having that license meant getting a cheaper upgrade to the V Collection 8. I got a 50% off upgrade to 9 as well, and I just checked now that X is out and they’re offering me the same deal again until late January.

They did deactivate my license for 8 because I’d used it to upgrade to 9, but I think that’s pretty reasonable. You can also absolutely choose to pay the full price and keep the previous version. You can still sell and transfer it too though, and their system will happily let the new owner re-download it. They’ll let you activate the license on an offline computer too, and as far as I can tell, it’s indefinite. You could absolutely take advantage of that, but they don’t punish all of their users because there’s a chance a few are bad actors.

Honestly, in my opinion, they are the platinum standard that software companies across the entire industry should strive to be.

Oh I just remembered another thing. You can buy individual V Collection instruments without ever being worse off. The price of it will be discounted off the full collection. Then, after 4-6 instruments, they’ll just upgrade you to the full ~39 for free. I don’t think even when you could still buy the Creative Suite from Adobe, that they would let you upgrade like that.

(Sorry for the lengthy reply. Arturia is just one of the few companies out there that I will legitimately praise.)

danielquinn,
@danielquinn@lemmy.ca avatar

Yeah that was basically the sentiment of the developer community when JetBrains announced the change. Thankfully they heeded the screaming and fixed their model. I’ve been using JetBrains tools for around 10 years now and they continue to impress. I can’t recommend them enough.

Alborlin,

Sygic broke trust like that with me . The software is/was excellent and very reasonable, so I bought licences for parts of world and suddenly they made it subscription based app, with ability to keep forever licence for only part of world you bought.

So even though I have fully paid software , i have to pay subscription for the feature of Android Auto and world maps.

It was the list betrayal of trust i have seen. I never used sygic after that at all.

princessnorah,
@princessnorah@lemmy.blahaj.zone avatar

Someone linked them up thread and it doesn’t quite work like that. You need to have been using a version for 12 months before that becomes your “fallback license”. So, if v3 came out the day before, your fallback license would only be v2 if you cancelled.

danielquinn,
@danielquinn@lemmy.ca avatar

Oh! Good to know. I guess that’s there to prevent people from reaping 2 years worth of development for a 1 year fee. That still seems reasonable to me.

princessnorah, (edited )
@princessnorah@lemmy.blahaj.zone avatar

Yeah I think so too. They give it to you immediately if you pay for annual too.

unique_hemp, (edited )

Not quite - you get a perpetual license for the version that was released a year before you cancelled your subscription. And for most languages this is not really practical anyway, as they get relatively frequent updates that require IDE updates, so you will just stay subscribed.

This was a fairly low business risk, high PR value move by JetBrains.

RobotToaster,

All of them

nhgeek,

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.

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.

otter,

If the app needs a server component, a small subscription is justified. If it doesn’t, then a subscription isn’t justified.

If the subscription is optional, and it gets more frequent updates & support, that might be ok too as long as you can choose to just keep the product as is (and the product isn’t riddled with bugs)

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.

520, (edited )

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.

people_are_cute,
@people_are_cute@lemmy.sdf.org avatar

Microsoft only tolerates retail users, it has always intended its products to be for commercial entities.

ares35, (edited )
@ares35@kbin.social avatar

the pricing of '365' is essentially a subscription to cloud storage, whether you use it or not, and getting office 'free' with that sub.

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.

LeylaLove,
@LeylaLove@hexbear.net avatar

Adobe CC. They’ve added new features recently to justify a subscription, but it’s still not that good of a pitch. Some editors will have offline PCs so that their software doesn’t get fucked up by anything (SUPER common in music), so having a subscription model works against professional users of their software.

No_Ones_Slick_Like_Gaston, (edited )

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.

Chozo,

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.

kirk782,
@kirk782@discuss.tchncs.de avatar

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.

themurphy,

What. If that business model actually works for him, something is wrong with this world.

andrew,
@andrew@lemmy.stuart.fun avatar

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.

muelltonne,

It does work. People are distracted and are not reading every message correctly. And payment processing in the appstores is also kind of easy - so you might be able to scam a few people into subscribing and they might not notice this directly. You know that you are not checking your credit card bills in details every month. So you can get a nice revenue stream of unsuspecting customers for a few month until you’ve burned down every little bit of trust and user base you had

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.

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.

Zink, (edited )

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.

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…

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

    Fatal error: Allowed memory size of 134217728 bytes exhausted (tried to allocate 23258328 bytes) in /var/www/kbin/kbin/vendor/symfony/http-kernel/Profiler/FileProfilerStorage.php on line 174

    Fatal error: Allowed memory size of 134217728 bytes exhausted (tried to allocate 10479008 bytes) in /var/www/kbin/kbin/vendor/symfony/error-handler/ErrorRenderer/HtmlErrorRenderer.php on line 339