I think the ideal model is something like 1-time purchase w/ 12 months of updates.
Software does often require ongoing maintenance. So after 12 months, no more updates, and it works as long as it continues to work, without any new features or patches. Updates are an optional fee for like 10-20% of purchase price.
Yeah, no subs. I prefer editions. Like Microsoft Office 2020. And then when Microsoft Office 2026 comes out you can still use 2021 or buy 2026 if you want the newer features.
Yeah, you can’t expect devs to actively work on an app indefinitely just because you gave them a few bucks that one time. It makes no sense financially if the app isn’t exceptionally successful.
IIRC app stores downrank apps that are not regularly updated too, hence the vague “bug-fixes and improvements” updates in many apps. But seriously, how much could a developer update in a calculator, habit/medicine tracker, sky map, or any other app that is a complete feature?
Which would also prevent sales from dropping and not solely benefit the user. But in a case like this, i’d argue it’s reasonable to give people who bought v1 a long time ago no free access to v2.
I blame Apple for setting the standard of $1-$3 for an app with lifetime updates. And also for making it so old apps stop working on newer OSes after just a few years. The business model was broken from the start. It was great at first but the bubble burst in record time.
I understand your sentiment, but a lot of that isn’t right.
Early iPhone apps were going for $10-20. So many developers being okay with just data harvesting plus so many devices out there made the $0.99 / free with ads model dominate – people got used to “free” apps from the big guys (Facebook, Google, whoever).
iOS apps are pretty resilient to OS updates. They usually only totally break when huge changes happen (dropping 32-bit support, etc) and those happen once a decade.
Tons of Windows software didn’t survive the 3.1 to 95 transition. A bunch died on 98 to XP, too. In the Apple world, a lot got left behind on the Mac when they went from PowerPC to Intel processors in 2007, or when they dropped 32-bit libraries.
As with anything, nuance exists. Does a monthly / annual donation to a FOSS developer count as a subscription?
I have a few things I’ve paid once for additional function or even banner ad removal that don’t receive updates. Though at a glance I don’t see anything I have installed that has a recurring cost and receives no updates.
I suppose there’s a fine difference between what I consider a subscription, and supporting active development of something I use regularly, but that difference probably varies person to person.
Paying once is fine. Subs are not to be tolerated.
Subs are fine for services. I personally also think they provide a better incentive structure. But they’re often abused
Yeah, server dependent stuff makes sense. Like emails and streaming services that don’t function without the servers run by them.
I think the ideal model is something like 1-time purchase w/ 12 months of updates.
Software does often require ongoing maintenance. So after 12 months, no more updates, and it works as long as it continues to work, without any new features or patches. Updates are an optional fee for like 10-20% of purchase price.
Yeah, no subs. I prefer editions. Like Microsoft Office 2020. And then when Microsoft Office 2026 comes out you can still use 2021 or buy 2026 if you want the newer features.
Yes!
Yeah, you can’t expect devs to actively work on an app indefinitely just because you gave them a few bucks that one time. It makes no sense financially if the app isn’t exceptionally successful.
IIRC app stores downrank apps that are not regularly updated too, hence the vague “bug-fixes and improvements” updates in many apps. But seriously, how much could a developer update in a calculator, habit/medicine tracker, sky map, or any other app that is a complete feature?
It could be updated to follow the newest design guidelinestm
Which would also prevent sales from dropping and not solely benefit the user. But in a case like this, i’d argue it’s reasonable to give people who bought v1 a long time ago no free access to v2.
I blame Apple for setting the standard of $1-$3 for an app with lifetime updates. And also for making it so old apps stop working on newer OSes after just a few years. The business model was broken from the start. It was great at first but the bubble burst in record time.
That was nearly unheard of just 20 years ago.
I understand your sentiment, but a lot of that isn’t right.
Early iPhone apps were going for $10-20. So many developers being okay with just data harvesting plus so many devices out there made the $0.99 / free with ads model dominate – people got used to “free” apps from the big guys (Facebook, Google, whoever).
iOS apps are pretty resilient to OS updates. They usually only totally break when huge changes happen (dropping 32-bit support, etc) and those happen once a decade.
Tons of Windows software didn’t survive the 3.1 to 95 transition. A bunch died on 98 to XP, too. In the Apple world, a lot got left behind on the Mac when they went from PowerPC to Intel processors in 2007, or when they dropped 32-bit libraries.
As with anything, nuance exists. Does a monthly / annual donation to a FOSS developer count as a subscription?
I have a few things I’ve paid once for additional function or even banner ad removal that don’t receive updates. Though at a glance I don’t see anything I have installed that has a recurring cost and receives no updates.
I suppose there’s a fine difference between what I consider a subscription, and supporting active development of something I use regularly, but that difference probably varies person to person.