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.

  • WashedOver@lemmy.caEnglish
    111·
    11 months ago

    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@reddthat.comEnglish
      4·
      11 months ago

      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@lemmy.worldEnglish
        4·
        11 months ago

        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@reddthat.comEnglish
          21·
          11 months ago

          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@lemmy.worldEnglish
            1·
            11 months ago

            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@reddthat.comEnglish
              12·
              11 months ago

              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@lemmy.worldEnglish
                1·
                11 months ago

                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.

    • Pirasp@lemmy.worldEnglish
      4·
      11 months ago

      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.