|
|
|
|
|
by jwr
1214 days ago
|
|
The article says the author has no solution to propose. I do have a solution to propose. Accept subscriptions, but be very selective about the apps that you use. It's what I do — I happily pay the subscription fees, because this is the only way to sustainably maintain an app. And I'd much rather have a few really good apps than a plethora of half-baked ad-ridden garbage. In other words, I don't have "subscription fatigue", I have "app fatigue": I don't want too many apps, but the ones I do want, I'd like to see maintained over the long term. |
|
No, it's not. Sustainably building an app requires revenue. Whether that revenue comes in the form of a subscription, a one-time payment, or multiple payments in return for updates does not matter to the developer. There's this idea that people are idiots, not knowing that they're paying more if it's a subscription. If that's your business model, you're screwed, because it doesn't work that way.
What makes subscription-only even worse is that it's a big burden to keep track of subscriptions and, if you decide to cancel, putting up with all that BS. I spend far less on software as a result of subscription models. I don't have time to play those games.
> And I'd much rather have a few really good apps than a plethora of half-baked ad-ridden garbage.
That's not the choice that's being made.