8 ms·

Just Pay the Subscription

40 points by dabluck 2mo ago

sometimelurker 2mo ago
strawman fallacy, I can debate anti-subscription arguments much better. I don't think subscriptions have to be bad, but this is unreasonable
vlian2088 2mo ago
AI is going to make you unemployed and that's a good thing.
- dabluck 2mo ago
  Hmm interesting, wonder how Anthropic and OpenAI make money. Subscriptions perhaps?
  - plagiarist 2mo ago
    It's glib, but allegedly they are losing money on those. Certainly compared to what they'd be getting with their usage-based pricing. Unless you mean people are forgetting to use the maximum amount every month, or forgetting to cancel?
- bbg2401 2mo ago
  Are Anthropic and OpenAI the only entities permitted to charge for their work in this brave new world? Someone should tell the vibe coders because the vast majority posted here seem to include poorly considered subscription plans.
robtherobber 2mo ago
No, thank you. As long as better options exist - and they do - I shan't.
thatxliner 2mo ago
Right, the issue is that we are owning our stuff less and less. You used to be able to even buy a copy of an OS on a CD. Thus, I don't think a subscription justifies the cost of maintenance, and a lot of app models don't do subscriptions for app updates. Of course, if there is a cloud component, that's a different story because there are recurring costs to hosting a server. Or maybe a user uses the service enough to justify the subscription (e.g. Apple Music subscription vs paying per song on iTunes or how Claude Code and Codex are actual subscriptions that are extremely worth it for the user).
- dabluck 2mo ago
  I addressed this in the post. I don't quite understand what people mean when they say they want to own their software. I mean okay you can put the CD on the shelf. Now what? I understand why they don't like paying money. But ownership just doesn't make a lot of sense when talking about a mobile app.
  - thatxliner 2mo ago
    No, I'd argue that this applies even for a mobile app: they can be shut down and become unavailable on the App Store or whatever. On Android the solution is side loading if you have the APK. But on iPhone, unless you have the source code or IPA, you're stuck
  - dminik 2mo ago
    I want to be able to put that CD in my drive 20 years later and have working software. You used to get this. I still have some CDs that I could plug into my computer and (perhaps through Wine) get working software.
  - cogman10 2mo ago
    > But ownership just doesn't make a lot of sense when talking about a mobile app. Why shouldn't it? Why does my calculator app need a subscription? Why does it need constant updates? There's no reason the ownership model shouldn't exist for apps. There's also no reason why all apps should need constant development.
  - edent 2mo ago
    If you shut down, I want to still be able to run the software. OK, if you're running something with a cloud component, I might not get all the functionality. But if you decide that you don't want be in the app business any more, I still want to use what I paid for.
    - lghh 2mo ago
      Tbh for most things you could probably run a personal version of the webserver component yourself.
deleted 2mo ago
[deleted]
ok123456 2mo ago
> I like subscriptions because, in the worst kind of corporate management speak, subscriptions align our interests. You pay for the app for the duration that you see fit. We see the same pattern over and over again: (1) subscription service starts and operates at a loss, (2) people recognise this and sign-up, (3) the service gradually enshittifies to the point where there is no real value propisition, (4) company banks on having enough customers from 1 and 2 that enough people will put up with 3 that they can remain profitable. How does this align with my interests?
- Brendinooo 2mo ago
  I think you're overgeneralizing. I subscribe to a couple of apps (OnX, Strong) and some news sites (Tangle, local sports site); as far as I know none of them started on 1, and 3 hasn't happened yet for any of them. They all provide services that I think are valuable, at a fair price - a price that, as far as I can recall, hasn't changed for any of them in the 4-6 years I've been a subscriber.
  - ok123456 2mo ago
    Strong appears to be a fitness tracker. It's in competition with a spreadsheet. OnX appears to be heatmaps as a service for outdoor recreation. They have to cover their opex costs. These are not the subscriptions people have in mind when they say they hate the subscription model. People dislike obvious rent-seeking behavior; they really dislike it when there is no technical reason something can't be sold to them in a one-time transaction; and they hate it when a product that was offered as a permanent one-time purchase is then only available as a subscription service.
    - cogman10 2mo ago
      Strong is exactly the type of subscription that I hate. This is the sort of app that can be "complete". It doesn't need any sort of backend and doesn't have any sort of real operating expenses. So why is there a subscription? This is exactly the sort of app that should have a single $10 purchase. About the only argument for it having a subscription of any sort is the devs have to cover the BS from apple/google (mostly google) who don't believe in backwards compatibility.
acheron 2mo ago
One great genre of HN comment is where people insist subscriptions are the only way a software business can work, as if commercial software sprung into existence fully formed in 2012.
- dabluck 2mo ago
  In my experience the only genre of HN comments is that subscriptions are evil, so I'm glad to see there are other perspectives. While it's true that software has been around a long time, it's also true that the world changes and building software in 2026 is much different than even in 2012 let alone 1995.
- gdulli 2mo ago
  A growing problem is that there are whole generations of younger people who have no lived experience with or imagination about certain benefits we used to have, so the world you're describing is all they effectively know. It's so easy to fall for the midwit take that the past could not have actually been better in some ways, that it's only nostalgia when people claim it was.
- BeetleB 2mo ago
  > One great genre of HN comment is where people insist subscriptions are the only way a software business can work, It's the primary way most SW can work. Pre-subscription, you needed to make SW that was so much in demand that it could survive piracy. Once the worry about piracy went away, a lot more SW became commercially viable. Even Sid Meier said in his memoir that while he hates subscription, the one time they released something on a subscription based the profits were significantly more than selling his games (but he went back to one time pricing on principle).
cogman10 2mo ago
> I’m honestly not sure what that means. You can’t take Cal.ai and Flighty out of your phone and put them on your shelf. These things are only going to work as long as they’re maintained and updated. It’s not 1995 anymore. Yeah, that's a big problem I have with modern technology. It's true that there are classes of applications which need constant updates and backend infrastructure. However, there is a huge category of applications which don't need those constant updates and are perfectly functional without constant updates. For example, a large number of games from the 90s and 00s are still fun to play, you can still play them with friends over the internet by directly connecting. The developers don't need to invest into those games, they are done. They might have bugs, but that doesn't really matter. In fact, constant updates is something that I don't even really desire. The problem with the subscription model is that it's quite expensive and the entire reason it exists is to try and get users who forget about that subscription (and it encourages businesses to make canceling the subscriptions as hard as possible). It's the gym membership model. The other problem with the subscription model is that it needlessly kills off software when either the developer loses interest or goes bankrupt.
hamdingers 2mo ago
"Ownership" is something only the HN set cares about. The reason your average person hates app subscriptions the author relegated to a footnote: they mostly exist to trick you into paying for the app more than once. Folks pay for all sorts of subscriptions, nobody cares about ownership, but when my mom finds out she's been paying $0.99/mo for a "countdown timer" app she used a few times over a year ago she swears off paying for apps for good.
- dabluck 2mo ago
  I think broadly your comment is true, and it would be better for the good actors if the bad actors didn't exist. Apple and Google do make it pretty easy to cancel though vs the wild west of the web
ventana 2mo ago
Speaking about paying for apps in general, I'm all for it. The moment a new app shows an ad, if this app seems useful to me, I'll go make a purchase if it's a single "remove ads" IAP with a reasonable price, where "reasonable" is a price that is less or equal to a price of a cup of flat white where I live. But I really don't see a reason to pay for a subscription for the app I probably don't use that often. If it's impossible to use the app without signing up for a trial, I'll normally set a reminder to cancel it a day before its expiration.
- hellisothers 2mo ago
  You can cancel immediately and still get that initial trial/month! I always do this, especially for apps i aspirationally purchase a subscription for a year for (fitness/language apps).
  - dabluck 2mo ago
    I do the same. Then when I lose access and I actually care, I know that's something I should support.
  - eertami 2mo ago
    Yeah as a rule I cancel every service immediately after payment. If I still need it in the second month I'll just buy another month, it takes seconds and I don't need to track anything. (Only exception being a music subscription, the only thing I use on a daily permanent basis.) I would much prefer if all services offered an option to buy only one period rather than always requiring manual deactivation - but I also understand they make a lot of money from people paying for things they aren't using.
selfsimilar 2mo ago
This is such a garbage take. Yes, if you're running a cloud-backed service, a subscription makes sense. But the overwhelming number of complaints have been when previous download-only apps (e.g. Photoshop) become part of a subscription service (Creative Cloud). And people complain when the option of a thing that didn't need the cloud (like a garage door opener) now is only available in a subscription model (see "Unauthorized Bread" by Cory Doctorow). It's called "enshitification".
ChessGenome 2mo ago
I agree 100%. The key thing is that the monthly subscription should be cheap. That way it really does work for everyone - the user does not end up paying very much over a lifetime and they are getting value for it. And I think in most cases the subscriptions are cheap enough because those that aren't get no business. Of course there are rip-offs out there, and there's nothing wrong with them existing, but just don't subscribe to them.
- RugnirViking 2mo ago
  this. I would happily pay subscriptions if they reflected an app's value to my daily life. The unfortunate truth many many app developers would immediately find out is that their sun tracking app or sprit level app or game I play on the train twice a year or whatever is worth approximately 10 cents a month if they're lucky. It's far too common for me to download something ive never used before and for it to ask me to cough up 10 dollars a month. Thats what I pay for netflix or youtube or whatever, things I use for hours each week! I suppose theyre trying to target some mythical user that checks the sun position every morning and evening obsessively or some nonsense, as though their strategy should be to capture the entirety of the value a top 1% poweruser gets from their software. No! it's expected that a top 1% poweruser will get a lot of value, if you design your monetization for them, they'll be humming and hawing and comparison shopping, and nobody else will ever even entertain the idea of paying. And then you'll get half of 1% of your addressable market. But of course, the entire reason it really exists is to profit off people who forget about the subscription. This is clear to see when looking into the financials of it, or the number of people paying for things they havent used in a year. This also affects incentives! Finally, the neccasary structure around the apps means for the most part, if a company goes bankrupt, decides its not worth mantaining, or plain gets bored, you lose access to the thing.
  - dabluck 2mo ago
    The cheaper it is then the more people you need to sustain it. If there are only a small number of obsessives who want the sun tracking app, and the sun tracking app is really great and serving their needs, it should probably be more expensive not less. If the sun tracking obsessives want it to exist, they have to pay for it, because nobody else cares.
deleted 2mo ago
[deleted]
neilalexander 2mo ago
> Upgrade pricing also doesn’t solve this. [...] versioned upgrades incentivize developers to chase shiny features that people might pay for rather than improving their app and building for the long haul. It makes the product worse. In my mind this is missing the point. I am very pro-upgrade pricing because upgrade pricing actually forces the developer to think about what their users actually will pay for, or what improvements will make my workflow better, instead of just adding whatever fancy side-quest thing that you've decided I need today. If users are asking for shiny new features and are willing to pay for them then fine. If we want refinements and are willing to pay for them then fine. If you want to optionally provide backend storage or backups or whatever then fine. However, if my continued use of a specific version of your software has no continued cost to you, then be absolutely assured that I do not feel a moral obligation to keep on paying for it endlessly, nor should you assume that I do.
- mpyne 2mo ago
  > However, if my continued use of a specific version of your software has no continued cost to you That's just it, it does carry a cost, at the least for security updates and allowing the application to continue to be installed on later OSe or key libraries. That's why even open-source libraries that in actively being used will get forked if unmaintained too long, because there's always something to do to keep bitrot at bay.
  - neilalexander 2mo ago
    I don't expect that my current version of the software will be updated forever or remain indefinitely secure though. I expect that I'll get some small updates or security patches for a certain amount of time only and I'm OK with that. If something comes along that I can't live without, or the platform breaks things sufficiently, then I pay for the upgrade at that time.
- dabluck 2mo ago
  Can you list any examples of companies that have done this well? The products I have used that tried this either stopped trying it (Ulysses articulated it really well) or devolved into shinier objects. In practice I think it's pretty tough to pull off.
deleted 2mo ago
[deleted]
BeetleB 2mo ago
> Maybe for budgeting purposes you don’t want to lock in future obligations. And I guess I can understand that, but I can’t help feeling like you have in mind that this one-time purchase is going to be $5 total. And I’m here to tell you that’s not happening. For anything that takes effort it’s going to be more like $200. Except he's forgetting that before subscriptions, most consumer SW cost $10-50 with a certain timeframe for support. Not every app is Photoshop, you know. And stuff like music players? Free! I think the real problem is the ecosystem keeps changing. The need to ensure there is an update after upgrading Android broke the app.
bee_rider 2mo ago
Interesting take. In my gut I hate subscriptions mostly because keeping track of them is annoying. But I’m semi-convinced. I mean, aligning the interests of the developer and the users is a nice benefit. Something Apple could do is allow iOS to handle some of this stuff automatically. Establish a sort of “small app subscription” account. Keep track of which apps had been opened every month, only pay the subscriptions for the ones I’ve opened, and allow me to set monthly limits. It could also offer feedback to the app developers, “X% of your users didn’t use the app this month,” etc.
- dabluck 2mo ago
  Thanks for reading. Totally agree Apple can do more a lot here and it's disappointing they haven't tried.
- RulerOf 2mo ago
  > Keep track of which apps had been opened every month, only pay the subscriptions for the ones I’ve opened, and allow me to set monthly limits. That turns app icons into land-mines though. Idk what the happy medium is, but there's gotta be something between "buy this kids game once" and "pay $13 a month until he gets sick of it," and I don't think we've quite found one that's equitable for all parties yet.
  - bee_rider 2mo ago
    That’s true. A difficulty is that making the billing time more granular could reduce the landmine factor, but also would incentivize developers to keep users in the app for longer than necessary. We’ve already seen in social media that that incentive is… quite bad. I guess it remains to be figured out. I dunno, maybe my framing is wrong, maybe development bounties are a better ongoing revenue stream or something.
FatherOfCurses 2mo ago
Every other business has figured out a way to operate on a single transaction model where I give them money and they give me a product and that is the end of our relationship until I need something else that they make. Somehow we have managed to operate in this manner for hundreds of years. Why is software development any different?
- wffurr 2mo ago
  That might work if the software platform vendors kept compatibility with old versions, but they're quite poor at this. Windows used to be quite good at it, but Android and iOS are really bad at it, and macOS is not a lot better. Software is, unfortunately, a living thing and when not actively maintain bit-rots and becomes unusable.
- carimura 2mo ago
  Agreed. "I don't need a receipt for the donut, I'll just give you some money, you give me the donut. End of transaction. We don't need to bring ink and paper into this."
- xnorswap 2mo ago
  Because people expect: 1. bug fixes and updates 2. Services to work in the "cloud" If you bought a piece of software, received precisely that version and never got updates, and didn't expect your data to magically follow you around, then we could have that model, as evidenced by that model working well back when software largely did work that way.
  - JKCalhoun 2mo ago
    If I bought Adobe Photoshop I expect the OS to fix anything change they might have made that broke Photoshop. This is how it used to work. (Ho, ho, the Mac OS source base was well known to have workarounds to keep, for example, Microsoft products running.) I can manage my own documents cloud. Affinity got my money for years for not having a subscription strategy. (And for their apps being pretty badass.)
- organsnyder 2mo ago
everdrive 2mo ago
No, no, never. Subscriptions never benefit the consumer. They all work exactly the same way: - Get the user hooked into their ecosystem - Slowly make the service worse / more expensive / different over time - The user is paying for a subscription which feels like an investment, so they put up with more crap than they would otherwise. Trust me. If you have a subscription for something, and you like it, it will change under your feet. It will get worse, and in effect, it will be taken from you. I'm not paying for the subscriptions. If everyone moves towards subscriptions, I'll move into a shack in the woods. I don't care. I don't want your subscriptions. If you think subscriptions are a good idea I don't want to hear from you, and I wish you had no say in how anything was built. [edit] If the counter-point is that mobile apps will suffer, then good. I don't like or any want any mobile apps whatsoever.
- dabluck 2mo ago
  If you don't like or want any mobile apps whatsoever, I completely agree you should not pay for them.
- ur_tech_friend 2mo ago
  This feels backwards—if the service gets worse, simply cancel your subscription. If it were a one-time purchase, wouldn't that encourage the service provider to make it worse over time because they've already taken your money?
  - fusslo 2mo ago
    I agree with you in theory > If it were a one-time purchase, wouldn't that encourage the service provider to make it worse over time because they've already taken your money? Couldn't it encourage the provider to make it better because their revenue comes from new customers? > if the service gets worse, simply cancel your subscription. There's plenty of examples of subscriptions that are nearly impossible to cancel, or have a giant fee for cancelling early. Adobe, Comcast, siriusxm spring to mind. Anecdotally, streaming services are partly funded by people who subscribe for a particular film/tv show and just never cancel.
  - 2mo ago
mirmor23 2mo ago
Just ask for one-time payment also. IMO, this whole 'article' has such a corporate bootlicky flavor to it. I pay for subscription (claude, gpt, netflix etc) since there are no real (pragmatic, convenience and financial) alternatives and it's not easy to rig a solution. otherwise the very fact that the only option is app subscription, i stay out of it on principle. even IDApro has perpetual license.
erelong 2mo ago
Interesting article, I guess it may come off as a reflection of being of a different mindset than an older style of open source software and culture? I thought the idea was, software is created with an open source and open license to it - so people know what the software is, and are able to make copies of it freely, and so that becomes hard to monetize. If you are trying to sell software and make it proprietary with closed source, it's not software you can trust (could contain literally any insecure code) so you avoid it and it would lack people using it (not saying this happens in practice, but I thought was the open source argument). Hence you're saying, just create / pay for insecure proprietary closed source software that can't be shared and isn't intended to be shared. The subscription model lends itself towards abuses: namely, you can use something temporarily, then lose access. The open source vision was about creating software that can be freely re-used indefinitely without a required subscription and shared without as much of restrictions. So I think basically people object to this increased limitation of "indefinite reuses" which you can get with open source software that you "own", and maybe the proprietary closed source tendencies of these locked down subscriptions. Now granted, some of the newer "spaces" we operate in may look a little differently, with lots of things needing or desiring constant updates and we recognize we only have so much time so a question comes up if we even want or need "indefinite reuse" or to even have open source software or to understand how the software works. But, there might not even be disagreement here... if you just "donate" to an open source nonprofit project, that could still be framed as a "subscription". I think it's maybe not conventionally how we're referring to subscriptions, but I think I could see your case for reframing the subscription towards being something "good" or "ok". There are open source monetization strategies, but if code tends towards being less able to be monetized, how can software projects be funded? I think in this "post-intellectual property" open source scenario I'm suggesting at, the funding might shift in other directions (maybe like from selling hardware or tangible physical goods). But anyway, I guess we would just probably distinguish between "unwanted" and "desired" subscription practices: limited locked down subs versus unlimited maybe subscription-less or limited open source subs. At least these were some thoughts this essay was generating in me.
- dabluck 2mo ago
  Yes open source is a whole different animal, I had a paragraph addressing open source but decided it really needs its own essay, so stay tuned for 'open source is a scam'
haritha-j 2mo ago
The big problem with the subscription model for me is that it gives devs carte blanche to "fix it in post". Its now okay to sell a half baked product and then sell a subscription for bug fixes. Befiore the advent of subscriptions, comapnies sold complete tools that just worked. Im not saying there weren't bugs, but there were certainly far less.
stego-tech 2mo ago
I mean in a perfect world where I knew my subscription fees were going to developers and enabling them to live a high quality of life, sure thing. Except in practice, that’s rarely the case. The systemic incentives in society have perverted the subscription into little more than rent extraction rather than genuine support. Products see arbitrary “updates” all the time just to justify someone’s promotion or some executive’s whims rather than actual customer feedback or needs. Hiding software behind layers of infrastructure to justify largesse instead of transparency around how it actually works and providing options for those who would rather retain some degree of ownership even at the expense of building the infra themselves. The entire present-day model for 99% of corps out there isn’t subscriptions-as-support, it’s subscriptions-at-gunpoint. Companies like Panic or Capture One are the exception to the norm, making it clear what the fees actually do and don’t just funnel them up and out to external shareholders. I am all for supporting developers, content creators, and everyone else involved in technology. I’m just beyond done with forced migrations to new UI/UX or arbitrary monetary extraction schemes for technology that frustrates me rather than helps return time back to me.
tavavex 2mo ago
Subscriptions are difficult to avoid for certain situations where the developer does a lot of ongoing work and where the work is expected to continue in perpetuity without there being a set-in-stone finished product somewhere in the future. But in all other cases, or even many of the ones where it is 'necessary', the presence of a subscription is a red flag for predatory pricing. Minor ongoing work or maintenance really doesn't cost as much as the author thinks it does. Keeping the lights on and updating API calls can be covered by new sales of permanent licenses as long as the app continues to sell. But if they had to go with a subscription, the real per-user cost would probably be measured in cents per month. Maybe add a bit more for their profit margin and charge a nice $1/mo. Do you see that anywhere except the rare app by a small developer that doesn't want to price gouge? No, all software businesses want at LEAST $5/10 a month because they've run the numbers and figured out all the tricks to human psychology, and they know they can trick someone into spending 'just $5' without them internalizing that the company is charging them a ridiculous $50-100 per user per year for even the most trivial service, leaving with almost pure profit. This is why investors love anything with a subscription service. The author just inflates the prices and adds zeros to numbers to make permanent purchasing seem dead in the water, ignoring that we had multiple decades of software development before the advent of subscription services, where those prices were reserved for big professional suites and not your everyday app or a minor service. It's not that expensive, companies charging insane prices has just shifted your perception of what's going on behind the curtain. We even had one-time purchase mobile apps briefly, and they weren't doing it for charity either. Video games that don't require external services are still overwhelmingly priced for a single purchase, and somehow they're making bank despite also having to release updates and bugfixes.
bpev 2mo ago
I feel like I'd be more comfortable with subscriptions if accounts weren't consistently required for everything. I don't particularly like everything I do being tied to an email or phone or whatever. And all those accounts are consistently a pain in the butt to delete. Despite their recent news, I do prefer the way Mullvad has done it re this: "Here's an id. If you make a payment, it funds that id.". Then you can use the id to login. They can still enforce limits like # of users, etc, but it still enables you to have an account where you can be sure the company isn't going to ignore your unsubscribe settings, send you upsells, and then leak your phone # in some db breach.
rspoerri 2mo ago
Never use any subscription based software in which you create data you want to keep! They have no incentive to allow good export options, you often loose all or most data that you kept in it. You have no alternative to go back to if the service is stopped!
spwa4 2mo ago
First, a big part of subscription is the fault of Google and Apple, and that is not given enough credit. There are plenty of non-subscription software models that obviously work. But Apple and Google don't let them work, because of money. Yes, you need infrastructure and you need to keep paying for it ... because Google and Apple make it so. There is no reason apps can't work standalone, they're just making this hard on purpose. Second all the arguments against subscription software also apply against essentially every AI service everywhere.
- dabluck 2mo ago
  It's definitely true that Apple and Google have not allowed enough experimentation here
spwa4 2mo ago
Is this REALLY a software developer making robocalling software complaining about intrusive ads? REALLY? Yes ... yes it is. I mean is there any doubt at all what companies will use this software for? (and of course, zero attention given to the fact that robocalling is illegal in most places. For good reason. Using this software is a crime. Which means scummy salespeople and scammers are the only ones going to use it)
- dabluck 2mo ago
  I don't know what you're referring to but I own a podcast app and have nothing to do with robocalling
  - spwa4 2mo ago
    This is the app you're defending: https://cal.com/ai https://cal.com/ai First: this is obviously a robocalling application. It's probably illegal in half the world. And being against ads, but helping companies with robocalling ... that's not a very consistent attitude.
    - dabluck 2mo ago
      No it isn't. I was talking about this app https://www.calai.app/ https://www.calai.app/ But I don't work on it I was just giving examples. And I'm not against ads, I just don't think they should be the only way to make money on the internet.
angiolillo 2mo ago
At least in my case, when I lament the fact that everything is becoming a subscription I'm not judging independent developers who charge a subscription for their mobile or web apps. They need to stay abreast of an endless treadmill of bugs, security issues, and API changes and may have servers to maintain as well, and all of that costs money. But I do pine for the days when I could buy all the software I needed in a box like any other product and use it for decades with no updates or UI changes whatsoever. It's not the fault of independent app developers that I don't live in that world anymore.
- dabluck 2mo ago
  Yes, it's fine to nudge the world in the direction you want it to be, but it's also worth reconciling yourself to the world as it exists
  - angiolillo 2mo ago
    To be honest it's also a little bit of rose-colored glasses. In the 2000s I probably spent the equivalent of thousands of dollars purchasing one-time commercial software licenses and I appreciate not having to save up for that any more.
1vuio0pswjnm7 2mo ago
Nice try https://www.jpeek.com/free_sw.html https://www.jpeek.com/free_sw.html
Archit3ch 2mo ago
As a developer, subscriptions come with a few problems: - Users cannot open their old projects unless they pay the subscription. - Lower uptake in general, which affects viral adoption ("my friends use this software, so will I"). This is important if you rely on word-of-mouth instead of ad spend. - Need to keep shipping features to justify the subscription cost. There is less focus on stability/maintenance.
bdcravens 2mo ago
I have no issue paying for subscriptions, and I pay for many. However, usage-based can quickly outpace value. For example, we do a lot of background tasks that integrate with third-parties. A small change over something we have no control over can explode the number of events sent to a bug tracker, even though event 100,000 is no more valuable than event 1. Yet at a certain size, you're paying hundreds of dollars a month to track those 99,999 extraneous events. The common answer is configuration, but honestly, it's easy enough to just spin up one of the many self-hostable options like GlitchTip and call it a day.
kmfrk 2mo ago
In my experience, every good paid iOS app eventually gets copied by someone who releases the clone for free; with games, this was basically a given even eons ago. That being said, a lot of people have been bitten by a paid app that transitioned to a subscription-based app. It's happened to more of my apps than I can count; thank goodness for some grandfathering. I guess there's less frustration about sunk cost with a subscriptions, but we're also used to so many dark UX patterns that any subscription seems sinister. And I really hate all the apps mandating a trial you have to cancel to avoid getting charged, just to try a damn app. And lately, we've also seen AI companies demonstrating how fluid a subscription "plan" really is, with features coming and going, and the way credits are counted and spent being unreliable. If the UX got streamlined, I'd probably feel better about it. Maybe the problem isn't a lack of money, but that all our trust has been spent at this point.
zombot 2mo ago
Be warned that the headline is neither sarcastic nor even ironic. That's all you need to know about this post. Don't waste your time with it.
JKCalhoun 2mo ago
"I believe subscriptions for mobile apps are the best thing that has ever happened for both indie developers and iPhone users." Not at all. Users hate subscriptions, will therefore not subscribe to your product. I sure as shit won't (and I frankly don't know anyone else that will). Users particularly hate subscriptions they don't use. How many of us have paid for an Adobe subscription, or an AllTrails subscription only to find months (years?) go by and you barely if ever used said app? It creates a kind of anxiety: I am paying for apps with a subscription but not using them.

40 points by dabluck 2mo ago

strawman fallacy, I can debate anti-subscription arguments much better. I don't think subscriptions have to be bad, but this is unreasonable

vlian2088 2mo ago

AI is going to make you unemployed and that's a good thing.

dabluck 2mo ago
Hmm interesting, wonder how Anthropic and OpenAI make money. Subscriptions perhaps?
- plagiarist 2mo ago
  It's glib, but allegedly they are losing money on those. Certainly compared to what they'd be getting with their usage-based pricing. Unless you mean people are forgetting to use the maximum amount every month, or forgetting to cancel?
bbg2401 2mo ago
Are Anthropic and OpenAI the only entities permitted to charge for their work in this brave new world? Someone should tell the vibe coders because the vast majority posted here seem to include poorly considered subscription plans.

robtherobber 2mo ago

No, thank you. As long as better options exist - and they do - I shan't.

thatxliner 2mo ago

Right, the issue is that we are owning our stuff less and less. You used to be able to even buy a copy of an OS on a CD. Thus, I don't think a subscription justifies the cost of maintenance, and a lot of app models don't do subscriptions for app updates. Of course, if there is a cloud component, that's a different story because there are recurring costs to hosting a server. Or maybe a user uses the service enough to justify the subscription (e.g. Apple Music subscription vs paying per song on iTunes or how Claude Code and Codex are actual subscriptions that are extremely worth it for the user).

dabluck 2mo ago
I addressed this in the post. I don't quite understand what people mean when they say they want to own their software. I mean okay you can put the CD on the shelf. Now what? I understand why they don't like paying money. But ownership just doesn't make a lot of sense when talking about a mobile app.
- thatxliner 2mo ago
  No, I'd argue that this applies even for a mobile app: they can be shut down and become unavailable on the App Store or whatever. On Android the solution is side loading if you have the APK. But on iPhone, unless you have the source code or IPA, you're stuck
- dminik 2mo ago
  I want to be able to put that CD in my drive 20 years later and have working software. You used to get this. I still have some CDs that I could plug into my computer and (perhaps through Wine) get working software.
- cogman10 2mo ago
  > But ownership just doesn't make a lot of sense when talking about a mobile app. Why shouldn't it? Why does my calculator app need a subscription? Why does it need constant updates? There's no reason the ownership model shouldn't exist for apps. There's also no reason why all apps should need constant development.
- edent 2mo ago
  If you shut down, I want to still be able to run the software. OK, if you're running something with a cloud component, I might not get all the functionality. But if you decide that you don't want be in the app business any more, I still want to use what I paid for.
  - lghh 2mo ago
    Tbh for most things you could probably run a personal version of the webserver component yourself.

deleted 2mo ago

[deleted]

ok123456 2mo ago

> I like subscriptions because, in the worst kind of corporate management speak, subscriptions align our interests. You pay for the app for the duration that you see fit. We see the same pattern over and over again: (1) subscription service starts and operates at a loss, (2) people recognise this and sign-up, (3) the service gradually enshittifies to the point where there is no real value propisition, (4) company banks on having enough customers from 1 and 2 that enough people will put up with 3 that they can remain profitable. How does this align with my interests?

Brendinooo 2mo ago
I think you're overgeneralizing. I subscribe to a couple of apps (OnX, Strong) and some news sites (Tangle, local sports site); as far as I know none of them started on 1, and 3 hasn't happened yet for any of them. They all provide services that I think are valuable, at a fair price - a price that, as far as I can recall, hasn't changed for any of them in the 4-6 years I've been a subscriber.
- ok123456 2mo ago
  Strong appears to be a fitness tracker. It's in competition with a spreadsheet. OnX appears to be heatmaps as a service for outdoor recreation. They have to cover their opex costs. These are not the subscriptions people have in mind when they say they hate the subscription model. People dislike obvious rent-seeking behavior; they really dislike it when there is no technical reason something can't be sold to them in a one-time transaction; and they hate it when a product that was offered as a permanent one-time purchase is then only available as a subscription service.
  - cogman10 2mo ago
    Strong is exactly the type of subscription that I hate. This is the sort of app that can be "complete". It doesn't need any sort of backend and doesn't have any sort of real operating expenses. So why is there a subscription? This is exactly the sort of app that should have a single $10 purchase. About the only argument for it having a subscription of any sort is the devs have to cover the BS from apple/google (mostly google) who don't believe in backwards compatibility.

acheron 2mo ago

One great genre of HN comment is where people insist subscriptions are the only way a software business can work, as if commercial software sprung into existence fully formed in 2012.

dabluck 2mo ago
In my experience the only genre of HN comments is that subscriptions are evil, so I'm glad to see there are other perspectives. While it's true that software has been around a long time, it's also true that the world changes and building software in 2026 is much different than even in 2012 let alone 1995.
gdulli 2mo ago
A growing problem is that there are whole generations of younger people who have no lived experience with or imagination about certain benefits we used to have, so the world you're describing is all they effectively know. It's so easy to fall for the midwit take that the past could not have actually been better in some ways, that it's only nostalgia when people claim it was.
BeetleB 2mo ago
> One great genre of HN comment is where people insist subscriptions are the only way a software business can work, It's the primary way most SW can work. Pre-subscription, you needed to make SW that was so much in demand that it could survive piracy. Once the worry about piracy went away, a lot more SW became commercially viable. Even Sid Meier said in his memoir that while he hates subscription, the one time they released something on a subscription based the profits were significantly more than selling his games (but he went back to one time pricing on principle).

cogman10 2mo ago

> I’m honestly not sure what that means. You can’t take Cal.ai and Flighty out of your phone and put them on your shelf. These things are only going to work as long as they’re maintained and updated. It’s not 1995 anymore. Yeah, that's a big problem I have with modern technology. It's true that there are classes of applications which need constant updates and backend infrastructure. However, there is a huge category of applications which don't need those constant updates and are perfectly functional without constant updates. For example, a large number of games from the 90s and 00s are still fun to play, you can still play them with friends over the internet by directly connecting. The developers don't need to invest into those games, they are done. They might have bugs, but that doesn't really matter. In fact, constant updates is something that I don't even really desire. The problem with the subscription model is that it's quite expensive and the entire reason it exists is to try and get users who forget about that subscription (and it encourages businesses to make canceling the subscriptions as hard as possible). It's the gym membership model. The other problem with the subscription model is that it needlessly kills off software when either the developer loses interest or goes bankrupt.

hamdingers 2mo ago

"Ownership" is something only the HN set cares about. The reason your average person hates app subscriptions the author relegated to a footnote: they mostly exist to trick you into paying for the app more than once. Folks pay for all sorts of subscriptions, nobody cares about ownership, but when my mom finds out she's been paying $0.99/mo for a "countdown timer" app she used a few times over a year ago she swears off paying for apps for good.

dabluck 2mo ago
I think broadly your comment is true, and it would be better for the good actors if the bad actors didn't exist. Apple and Google do make it pretty easy to cancel though vs the wild west of the web

ventana 2mo ago

Speaking about paying for apps in general, I'm all for it. The moment a new app shows an ad, if this app seems useful to me, I'll go make a purchase if it's a single "remove ads" IAP with a reasonable price, where "reasonable" is a price that is less or equal to a price of a cup of flat white where I live. But I really don't see a reason to pay for a subscription for the app I probably don't use that often. If it's impossible to use the app without signing up for a trial, I'll normally set a reminder to cancel it a day before its expiration.

hellisothers 2mo ago
You can cancel immediately and still get that initial trial/month! I always do this, especially for apps i aspirationally purchase a subscription for a year for (fitness/language apps).
- dabluck 2mo ago
  I do the same. Then when I lose access and I actually care, I know that's something I should support.
- eertami 2mo ago
  Yeah as a rule I cancel every service immediately after payment. If I still need it in the second month I'll just buy another month, it takes seconds and I don't need to track anything. (Only exception being a music subscription, the only thing I use on a daily permanent basis.) I would much prefer if all services offered an option to buy only one period rather than always requiring manual deactivation - but I also understand they make a lot of money from people paying for things they aren't using.

selfsimilar 2mo ago

This is such a garbage take. Yes, if you're running a cloud-backed service, a subscription makes sense. But the overwhelming number of complaints have been when previous download-only apps (e.g. Photoshop) become part of a subscription service (Creative Cloud). And people complain when the option of a thing that didn't need the cloud (like a garage door opener) now is only available in a subscription model (see "Unauthorized Bread" by Cory Doctorow). It's called "enshitification".

ChessGenome 2mo ago

I agree 100%. The key thing is that the monthly subscription should be cheap. That way it really does work for everyone - the user does not end up paying very much over a lifetime and they are getting value for it. And I think in most cases the subscriptions are cheap enough because those that aren't get no business. Of course there are rip-offs out there, and there's nothing wrong with them existing, but just don't subscribe to them.

RugnirViking 2mo ago
this. I would happily pay subscriptions if they reflected an app's value to my daily life. The unfortunate truth many many app developers would immediately find out is that their sun tracking app or sprit level app or game I play on the train twice a year or whatever is worth approximately 10 cents a month if they're lucky. It's far too common for me to download something ive never used before and for it to ask me to cough up 10 dollars a month. Thats what I pay for netflix or youtube or whatever, things I use for hours each week! I suppose theyre trying to target some mythical user that checks the sun position every morning and evening obsessively or some nonsense, as though their strategy should be to capture the entirety of the value a top 1% poweruser gets from their software. No! it's expected that a top 1% poweruser will get a lot of value, if you design your monetization for them, they'll be humming and hawing and comparison shopping, and nobody else will ever even entertain the idea of paying. And then you'll get half of 1% of your addressable market. But of course, the entire reason it really exists is to profit off people who forget about the subscription. This is clear to see when looking into the financials of it, or the number of people paying for things they havent used in a year. This also affects incentives! Finally, the neccasary structure around the apps means for the most part, if a company goes bankrupt, decides its not worth mantaining, or plain gets bored, you lose access to the thing.
- dabluck 2mo ago
  The cheaper it is then the more people you need to sustain it. If there are only a small number of obsessives who want the sun tracking app, and the sun tracking app is really great and serving their needs, it should probably be more expensive not less. If the sun tracking obsessives want it to exist, they have to pay for it, because nobody else cares.

deleted 2mo ago

[deleted]

neilalexander 2mo ago

> Upgrade pricing also doesn’t solve this. [...] versioned upgrades incentivize developers to chase shiny features that people might pay for rather than improving their app and building for the long haul. It makes the product worse. In my mind this is missing the point. I am very pro-upgrade pricing because upgrade pricing actually forces the developer to think about what their users actually will pay for, or what improvements will make my workflow better, instead of just adding whatever fancy side-quest thing that you've decided I need today. If users are asking for shiny new features and are willing to pay for them then fine. If we want refinements and are willing to pay for them then fine. If you want to optionally provide backend storage or backups or whatever then fine. However, if my continued use of a specific version of your software has no continued cost to you, then be absolutely assured that I do not feel a moral obligation to keep on paying for it endlessly, nor should you assume that I do.

mpyne 2mo ago
> However, if my continued use of a specific version of your software has no continued cost to you That's just it, it does carry a cost, at the least for security updates and allowing the application to continue to be installed on later OSe or key libraries. That's why even open-source libraries that in actively being used will get forked if unmaintained too long, because there's always something to do to keep bitrot at bay.
- neilalexander 2mo ago
  I don't expect that my current version of the software will be updated forever or remain indefinitely secure though. I expect that I'll get some small updates or security patches for a certain amount of time only and I'm OK with that. If something comes along that I can't live without, or the platform breaks things sufficiently, then I pay for the upgrade at that time.
dabluck 2mo ago
Can you list any examples of companies that have done this well? The products I have used that tried this either stopped trying it (Ulysses articulated it really well) or devolved into shinier objects. In practice I think it's pretty tough to pull off.

deleted 2mo ago

[deleted]

BeetleB 2mo ago

> Maybe for budgeting purposes you don’t want to lock in future obligations. And I guess I can understand that, but I can’t help feeling like you have in mind that this one-time purchase is going to be $5 total. And I’m here to tell you that’s not happening. For anything that takes effort it’s going to be more like $200. Except he's forgetting that before subscriptions, most consumer SW cost $10-50 with a certain timeframe for support. Not every app is Photoshop, you know. And stuff like music players? Free! I think the real problem is the ecosystem keeps changing. The need to ensure there is an update after upgrading Android broke the app.

bee_rider 2mo ago

Interesting take. In my gut I hate subscriptions mostly because keeping track of them is annoying. But I’m semi-convinced. I mean, aligning the interests of the developer and the users is a nice benefit. Something Apple could do is allow iOS to handle some of this stuff automatically. Establish a sort of “small app subscription” account. Keep track of which apps had been opened every month, only pay the subscriptions for the ones I’ve opened, and allow me to set monthly limits. It could also offer feedback to the app developers, “X% of your users didn’t use the app this month,” etc.

dabluck 2mo ago
Thanks for reading. Totally agree Apple can do more a lot here and it's disappointing they haven't tried.
RulerOf 2mo ago
> Keep track of which apps had been opened every month, only pay the subscriptions for the ones I’ve opened, and allow me to set monthly limits. That turns app icons into land-mines though. Idk what the happy medium is, but there's gotta be something between "buy this kids game once" and "pay $13 a month until he gets sick of it," and I don't think we've quite found one that's equitable for all parties yet.
- bee_rider 2mo ago
  That’s true. A difficulty is that making the billing time more granular could reduce the landmine factor, but also would incentivize developers to keep users in the app for longer than necessary. We’ve already seen in social media that that incentive is… quite bad. I guess it remains to be figured out. I dunno, maybe my framing is wrong, maybe development bounties are a better ongoing revenue stream or something.

FatherOfCurses 2mo ago

Every other business has figured out a way to operate on a single transaction model where I give them money and they give me a product and that is the end of our relationship until I need something else that they make. Somehow we have managed to operate in this manner for hundreds of years. Why is software development any different?

wffurr 2mo ago
That might work if the software platform vendors kept compatibility with old versions, but they're quite poor at this. Windows used to be quite good at it, but Android and iOS are really bad at it, and macOS is not a lot better. Software is, unfortunately, a living thing and when not actively maintain bit-rots and becomes unusable.
carimura 2mo ago
Agreed. "I don't need a receipt for the donut, I'll just give you some money, you give me the donut. End of transaction. We don't need to bring ink and paper into this."
xnorswap 2mo ago
Because people expect: 1. bug fixes and updates 2. Services to work in the "cloud" If you bought a piece of software, received precisely that version and never got updates, and didn't expect your data to magically follow you around, then we could have that model, as evidenced by that model working well back when software largely did work that way.
- JKCalhoun 2mo ago
  If I bought Adobe Photoshop I expect the OS to fix anything change they might have made that broke Photoshop. This is how it used to work. (Ho, ho, the Mac OS source base was well known to have workarounds to keep, for example, Microsoft products running.) I can manage my own documents cloud. Affinity got my money for years for not having a subscription strategy. (And for their apps being pretty badass.)
organsnyder 2mo ago

everdrive 2mo ago

No, no, never. Subscriptions never benefit the consumer. They all work exactly the same way: - Get the user hooked into their ecosystem - Slowly make the service worse / more expensive / different over time - The user is paying for a subscription which feels like an investment, so they put up with more crap than they would otherwise. Trust me. If you have a subscription for something, and you like it, it will change under your feet. It will get worse, and in effect, it will be taken from you. I'm not paying for the subscriptions. If everyone moves towards subscriptions, I'll move into a shack in the woods. I don't care. I don't want your subscriptions. If you think subscriptions are a good idea I don't want to hear from you, and I wish you had no say in how anything was built. [edit] If the counter-point is that mobile apps will suffer, then good. I don't like or any want any mobile apps whatsoever.

dabluck 2mo ago
If you don't like or want any mobile apps whatsoever, I completely agree you should not pay for them.
ur_tech_friend 2mo ago
This feels backwards—if the service gets worse, simply cancel your subscription. If it were a one-time purchase, wouldn't that encourage the service provider to make it worse over time because they've already taken your money?
- fusslo 2mo ago
  I agree with you in theory > If it were a one-time purchase, wouldn't that encourage the service provider to make it worse over time because they've already taken your money? Couldn't it encourage the provider to make it better because their revenue comes from new customers? > if the service gets worse, simply cancel your subscription. There's plenty of examples of subscriptions that are nearly impossible to cancel, or have a giant fee for cancelling early. Adobe, Comcast, siriusxm spring to mind. Anecdotally, streaming services are partly funded by people who subscribe for a particular film/tv show and just never cancel.
- 2mo ago

mirmor23 2mo ago

Just ask for one-time payment also. IMO, this whole 'article' has such a corporate bootlicky flavor to it. I pay for subscription (claude, gpt, netflix etc) since there are no real (pragmatic, convenience and financial) alternatives and it's not easy to rig a solution. otherwise the very fact that the only option is app subscription, i stay out of it on principle. even IDApro has perpetual license.

erelong 2mo ago

Interesting article, I guess it may come off as a reflection of being of a different mindset than an older style of open source software and culture? I thought the idea was, software is created with an open source and open license to it - so people know what the software is, and are able to make copies of it freely, and so that becomes hard to monetize. If you are trying to sell software and make it proprietary with closed source, it's not software you can trust (could contain literally any insecure code) so you avoid it and it would lack people using it (not saying this happens in practice, but I thought was the open source argument). Hence you're saying, just create / pay for insecure proprietary closed source software that can't be shared and isn't intended to be shared. The subscription model lends itself towards abuses: namely, you can use something temporarily, then lose access. The open source vision was about creating software that can be freely re-used indefinitely without a required subscription and shared without as much of restrictions. So I think basically people object to this increased limitation of "indefinite reuses" which you can get with open source software that you "own", and maybe the proprietary closed source tendencies of these locked down subscriptions. Now granted, some of the newer "spaces" we operate in may look a little differently, with lots of things needing or desiring constant updates and we recognize we only have so much time so a question comes up if we even want or need "indefinite reuse" or to even have open source software or to understand how the software works. But, there might not even be disagreement here... if you just "donate" to an open source nonprofit project, that could still be framed as a "subscription". I think it's maybe not conventionally how we're referring to subscriptions, but I think I could see your case for reframing the subscription towards being something "good" or "ok". There are open source monetization strategies, but if code tends towards being less able to be monetized, how can software projects be funded? I think in this "post-intellectual property" open source scenario I'm suggesting at, the funding might shift in other directions (maybe like from selling hardware or tangible physical goods). But anyway, I guess we would just probably distinguish between "unwanted" and "desired" subscription practices: limited locked down subs versus unlimited maybe subscription-less or limited open source subs. At least these were some thoughts this essay was generating in me.

dabluck 2mo ago
Yes open source is a whole different animal, I had a paragraph addressing open source but decided it really needs its own essay, so stay tuned for 'open source is a scam'

haritha-j 2mo ago

The big problem with the subscription model for me is that it gives devs carte blanche to "fix it in post". Its now okay to sell a half baked product and then sell a subscription for bug fixes. Befiore the advent of subscriptions, comapnies sold complete tools that just worked. Im not saying there weren't bugs, but there were certainly far less.

stego-tech 2mo ago

I mean in a perfect world where I knew my subscription fees were going to developers and enabling them to live a high quality of life, sure thing. Except in practice, that’s rarely the case. The systemic incentives in society have perverted the subscription into little more than rent extraction rather than genuine support. Products see arbitrary “updates” all the time just to justify someone’s promotion or some executive’s whims rather than actual customer feedback or needs. Hiding software behind layers of infrastructure to justify largesse instead of transparency around how it actually works and providing options for those who would rather retain some degree of ownership even at the expense of building the infra themselves. The entire present-day model for 99% of corps out there isn’t subscriptions-as-support, it’s subscriptions-at-gunpoint. Companies like Panic or Capture One are the exception to the norm, making it clear what the fees actually do and don’t just funnel them up and out to external shareholders. I am all for supporting developers, content creators, and everyone else involved in technology. I’m just beyond done with forced migrations to new UI/UX or arbitrary monetary extraction schemes for technology that frustrates me rather than helps return time back to me.

tavavex 2mo ago

Subscriptions are difficult to avoid for certain situations where the developer does a lot of ongoing work and where the work is expected to continue in perpetuity without there being a set-in-stone finished product somewhere in the future. But in all other cases, or even many of the ones where it is 'necessary', the presence of a subscription is a red flag for predatory pricing. Minor ongoing work or maintenance really doesn't cost as much as the author thinks it does. Keeping the lights on and updating API calls can be covered by new sales of permanent licenses as long as the app continues to sell. But if they had to go with a subscription, the real per-user cost would probably be measured in cents per month. Maybe add a bit more for their profit margin and charge a nice $1/mo. Do you see that anywhere except the rare app by a small developer that doesn't want to price gouge? No, all software businesses want at LEAST $5/10 a month because they've run the numbers and figured out all the tricks to human psychology, and they know they can trick someone into spending 'just $5' without them internalizing that the company is charging them a ridiculous $50-100 per user per year for even the most trivial service, leaving with almost pure profit. This is why investors love anything with a subscription service. The author just inflates the prices and adds zeros to numbers to make permanent purchasing seem dead in the water, ignoring that we had multiple decades of software development before the advent of subscription services, where those prices were reserved for big professional suites and not your everyday app or a minor service. It's not that expensive, companies charging insane prices has just shifted your perception of what's going on behind the curtain. We even had one-time purchase mobile apps briefly, and they weren't doing it for charity either. Video games that don't require external services are still overwhelmingly priced for a single purchase, and somehow they're making bank despite also having to release updates and bugfixes.

bpev 2mo ago

I feel like I'd be more comfortable with subscriptions if accounts weren't consistently required for everything. I don't particularly like everything I do being tied to an email or phone or whatever. And all those accounts are consistently a pain in the butt to delete. Despite their recent news, I do prefer the way Mullvad has done it re this: "Here's an id. If you make a payment, it funds that id.". Then you can use the id to login. They can still enforce limits like # of users, etc, but it still enables you to have an account where you can be sure the company isn't going to ignore your unsubscribe settings, send you upsells, and then leak your phone # in some db breach.

rspoerri 2mo ago

Never use any subscription based software in which you create data you want to keep! They have no incentive to allow good export options, you often loose all or most data that you kept in it. You have no alternative to go back to if the service is stopped!

spwa4 2mo ago

First, a big part of subscription is the fault of Google and Apple, and that is not given enough credit. There are plenty of non-subscription software models that obviously work. But Apple and Google don't let them work, because of money. Yes, you need infrastructure and you need to keep paying for it ... because Google and Apple make it so. There is no reason apps can't work standalone, they're just making this hard on purpose. Second all the arguments against subscription software also apply against essentially every AI service everywhere.

dabluck 2mo ago
It's definitely true that Apple and Google have not allowed enough experimentation here

spwa4 2mo ago

Is this REALLY a software developer making robocalling software complaining about intrusive ads? REALLY? Yes ... yes it is. I mean is there any doubt at all what companies will use this software for? (and of course, zero attention given to the fact that robocalling is illegal in most places. For good reason. Using this software is a crime. Which means scummy salespeople and scammers are the only ones going to use it)

dabluck 2mo ago
I don't know what you're referring to but I own a podcast app and have nothing to do with robocalling
- spwa4 2mo ago
  This is the app you're defending: https://cal.com/ai https://cal.com/ai First: this is obviously a robocalling application. It's probably illegal in half the world. And being against ads, but helping companies with robocalling ... that's not a very consistent attitude.
  - dabluck 2mo ago
    No it isn't. I was talking about this app https://www.calai.app/ https://www.calai.app/ But I don't work on it I was just giving examples. And I'm not against ads, I just don't think they should be the only way to make money on the internet.

angiolillo 2mo ago

At least in my case, when I lament the fact that everything is becoming a subscription I'm not judging independent developers who charge a subscription for their mobile or web apps. They need to stay abreast of an endless treadmill of bugs, security issues, and API changes and may have servers to maintain as well, and all of that costs money. But I do pine for the days when I could buy all the software I needed in a box like any other product and use it for decades with no updates or UI changes whatsoever. It's not the fault of independent app developers that I don't live in that world anymore.

dabluck 2mo ago
Yes, it's fine to nudge the world in the direction you want it to be, but it's also worth reconciling yourself to the world as it exists
- angiolillo 2mo ago
  To be honest it's also a little bit of rose-colored glasses. In the 2000s I probably spent the equivalent of thousands of dollars purchasing one-time commercial software licenses and I appreciate not having to save up for that any more.

1vuio0pswjnm7 2mo ago

Nice try https://www.jpeek.com/free_sw.html https://www.jpeek.com/free_sw.html

Archit3ch 2mo ago

As a developer, subscriptions come with a few problems: - Users cannot open their old projects unless they pay the subscription. - Lower uptake in general, which affects viral adoption ("my friends use this software, so will I"). This is important if you rely on word-of-mouth instead of ad spend. - Need to keep shipping features to justify the subscription cost. There is less focus on stability/maintenance.

bdcravens 2mo ago

I have no issue paying for subscriptions, and I pay for many. However, usage-based can quickly outpace value. For example, we do a lot of background tasks that integrate with third-parties. A small change over something we have no control over can explode the number of events sent to a bug tracker, even though event 100,000 is no more valuable than event 1. Yet at a certain size, you're paying hundreds of dollars a month to track those 99,999 extraneous events. The common answer is configuration, but honestly, it's easy enough to just spin up one of the many self-hostable options like GlitchTip and call it a day.

kmfrk 2mo ago

In my experience, every good paid iOS app eventually gets copied by someone who releases the clone for free; with games, this was basically a given even eons ago. That being said, a lot of people have been bitten by a paid app that transitioned to a subscription-based app. It's happened to more of my apps than I can count; thank goodness for some grandfathering. I guess there's less frustration about sunk cost with a subscriptions, but we're also used to so many dark UX patterns that any subscription seems sinister. And I really hate all the apps mandating a trial you have to cancel to avoid getting charged, just to try a damn app. And lately, we've also seen AI companies demonstrating how fluid a subscription "plan" really is, with features coming and going, and the way credits are counted and spent being unreliable. If the UX got streamlined, I'd probably feel better about it. Maybe the problem isn't a lack of money, but that all our trust has been spent at this point.

zombot 2mo ago

Be warned that the headline is neither sarcastic nor even ironic. That's all you need to know about this post. Don't waste your time with it.

JKCalhoun 2mo ago

"I believe subscriptions for mobile apps are the best thing that has ever happened for both indie developers and iPhone users." Not at all. Users hate subscriptions, will therefore not subscribe to your product. I sure as shit won't (and I frankly don't know anyone else that will). Users particularly hate subscriptions they don't use. How many of us have paid for an Adobe subscription, or an AllTrails subscription only to find months (years?) go by and you barely if ever used said app? It creates a kind of anxiety: I am paying for apps with a subscription but not using them.