[lapcat]

> Subscriptions align developer and user interests and produce better products and less wasted money in the long run.

This is incorrect, as evidenced by the entire history of software development before the App Store, as well as software now that is sold outside the App Store.

When developers can choose their own business model, outside the constraints out the App Store, they overwhelming do not choose subscriptions. Indie devs outside the Mac App Store still largely follow the traditional upfront paid with paid upgrade model.

The subscription model was started mostly by BigCos such as a Adobe and Microsoft, who had a monopolistic market share for their software suites and thus could bleed a captive audience for almost unlimited amounts of money.

The ahistoricalness of the claim "subscriptions were always the only viable business model" really bothers me. It feels like a kind of Stockholm Syndrome. Cupertino Complex?

Let's call it what it is: software rental. Long-term rental is almost never a good deal for consumers over ownership.

> One-time up front purchases only reward developers for expanding the target market of their product; whether the product improves over time has no bearing on revenue.

This seems ridiculous to me, as a developer. Improving your product over time is one of the most important ways you can expand the target market of your product. I mean, why do you think Apple keeps making a new iPhone ever year? Were they going to keep expanding their market by still selling the 2007 model of iPhone in 2023?

[hgsgm]

Software was incredibly expensive before the subscription era.

[goosedragons]

Was it? It's not really cheaper now. If you're lucky the subscription price is similar to the price of the standalone price after X years, usually how often they'd release an update. Except with the subscription you can't NOT update if the current version meets your needs.

I think of a few apps I've bought that moved to the subscription model where the subscription is several times the price of the app in a year.

[brookst]

> If you're lucky the subscription price is similar to the price of the standalone price after X years,

Yes! That is how it should work. Think of it as costing the same if you find value for years, but you have the option of bailing early and getting a refund if you don’t find it as valuable as you expected.

> where the subscription is several times the price of the app in a year

Don’t conflate the price and the model. Those developers found that they were not financially viable and changed both price and model. The thinking was probably something like “in order to make a decent living, we have to increase price by 3x” / “wow! Nobody will pay that up front, it’s too risky. But subscriptions will produce the same financial result and not scare off new customers.”

This is a pie-slicing problem. Developers want to make money, users don’t want to pay. Upfront pricing is a lose-lose, with lower sales for developers and higher risks for buyers.

[goosedragons]

Okay. But if you're happy with the feature set AS IS the day you subscribe then you're paying more. E.g. if Photoshop 7 still meets your needs then you don't need to upgrade to CS, CS2,... etc. Now with CC you're "upgrading" every version even if you don't touch a single new feature. That's not cheaper. There's no guarantee the user needs or wants the upgrade but with a subscription there's no choice.

Let me bail early with a trial or a return period.

It's also not cheaper if devs reprice things to be more expensive even if that's more sustainable for them.

[ghaff]

Right. (Also in-app purchases.)

It used to be routine to spend maybe $100 up to even a $1000 in today's dollars for a retail software package--and you probably got some discount on the next upgrade. Good luck selling that today. People have just gotten away from paying for digital content up-front (whether software, music, or movies)

[lozenge]

The revenue of the developer is the cost paid by the users. They are one and the same. We can't say that subscriptions help keep developers in work without also saying they are costing users.

[AlexandrB]

True in the sense that I stopped paying for any software that went subscription. Saved me hundreds of dollars a year that would otherwise have gone to the developers.

[moritz]

Not only that, in case of the App store it also made me spend way less on paid-upfront as well. Time and time again, software I paid for was replaced on my device with shareware that nags me for subscription later on. Once you experience that maximal user-hostile conduct a few times, it makes you wary of "buying" anything in that ecosystem except for maybe the occasional 1$ throwaway thing— Why should I spend 69$ on an app that will most probably pivot to a "sustainable" rentsomeware model once they have milked the market of people willing to pay upfront, and, again, take the software you paid for away from you and replace it with shareware on your device.

[lapcat]

The submitted article discusses software pricing extensively.