[_zzaw]

> they need to keep earning your money a little at a time

So release new products or paid updates, the way everyone did before subs.

> A one-time unlock front-loads 100% of revenue

Also known as "buying", which is a thing

> making all maintenance work have negative ROI unless the app experiences constant, consistent growth forever

Unless you release paid updates, which is what a number of developers do.

> Eventually that ceiling will be hit, and the app's revenue could drop to effectively zero, even if a million users count on it daily.

So don't put all your eggs in one basket. Have different products. Explore different things. You're essentially asking to be rewarded for stagnation here.

Subscriptions are about (1) being paid for work you didn't do, since you get paid whether you did anything or not; (2) disrespecting my choice as a consumer, since maybe I don't feel I need any updates and I don't want to pay for them, and (3) encouraging bloat, since there's more pressure to pack in needless features just so you can justify demanding payment every month.

You're basically saying "I need regular handouts because I couldn't make money otherwise." That's a problem with your business plan, and it doesn't justify demanding money for work you didn't do, or requiring me to pay for things I don't need.

I'll agree with you on one thing: years of free or artificially cheap software have conditioned people to not want to pay a lot for software. I always thought $0.99 per app was ridiculously low. I don't have a problem paying tens or even hundreds of dollars for good, powerful software, but I want to own it. If I'm going back through old files a decade or two from now, as a lot of us do, I want to be able to open them. And I don't want to have every one of my apps draining my bank account bit by bit.

If you want to offer a subscription for people who want every update you release, fine. At least they're getting something. But the fairer model is what a number of developers are doing: more money upfront, which includes a lifetime license and one year of updates (which is nice, but I would understand if they didn't include it).

There's a reason why so many people despise subscriptions, and why I doubt that model—while it seems to be the fad now—will ever be normalized. Most of us can't afford it, it denies us long-term access to our own content, and we know on a basic level that it's wrong.

[xp84]

I am surprised to see your comment about bloat. If anything, the fact that you only ever got paid again for a major update, and an update HAD to have whiz-bang features to sell, that was what contributed to so much bloat. Think of how many home users needed anything that was added to Word from 1990-2000. By contrast, to keep subscribers happy you don’t need new features, you need to continually keep the experience great. That means judicious adding of things people really want, but also NOT adding crap just to add a bullet point on a box. And NOT “ruining” the app by screwing up what people like about it.

> Unless you release paid updates, which is what a number of developers do.

This just introduces two more user complaints: those paid updates are very likely to either be not consequential enough to justify paying, or to add bloat. Presumably, when you bought the app, you were satisfied with the functionality it already had (and indeed if they make big changes it often gets hate just for the disruptiveness). But my point is software costs money (time) to support, forever. And once a product (especially a specialized one) has already found most of its buyers, that means the developer has every incentive to abandon the app because maintaining or updating it is never going to justify the cost. So yes, a developer doing your preferred model absolutely must have a half dozen apps, which will be at various stages in their life cycles, but only the apps that are new, and have a chance of growing their user base further, are going to get any maintenance, attention, and updates. The mature ones will be left to wither even if they are widely-used and popular, because there aren’t enough new buyers.

The other part of this is that besides just maintenance, many modern apps have a server-side component which needs to be paid for forever. It’s basically a pyramid scheme if your only source of revenue is new users and they subsidize the lifetime access of the earlier buyers. It will collapse eventually.

As for “files” — that’s really not the primary type of application I am talking about here. If you are making an application that authors proprietary documents, I think it’s perfectly reasonable to expect a free reader to exist whether you have an active subscription or not. However I think that’s maybe 2% of the consumer software market today. I think the only files that I can think of on my computer that aren’t standards-based formats are Pixelmator files and TurboTax files (though I stopped using that and use a web-based replacement).

> since maybe I don't feel I need any updates and I don't want to pay for them,

The updates I’m talking about, which you “don’t want to pay for,” include “making the app continue to run on a current OS”

[_zzaw]

> That means judicious adding of things people really want, but also NOT adding crap just to add a bullet point on a box.

So if you didn't do anything, why should you get paid?

> those paid updates are very likely to either be not consequential enough to justify paying, or to add bloat. Presumably, when you bought the app, you were satisfied with the functionality it already had (and indeed if they make big changes it often gets hate just for the disruptiveness).

So if your updates aren't doing me any good, why should you get paid?

> But my point is software costs money (time) to support, forever. And once a product (especially a specialized one) has already found most of its buyers, that means the developer has every incentive to abandon the app because maintaining or updating it is never going to justify the cost.

Some things aren't meant to last forever. Some apps aren't meant to be ongoing business models. Apple isn't still producing the computers it sold in the 90s. Sunsetting a product and ending support for it is a natural part of a product's life cycle. This is how pretty much every company operates.

Part of running a successful company is handling change and continually innovating and evolving, not just expecting your customer base to subsidize your stagnancy.

> So yes, a developer doing your preferred model absolutely must have a half dozen apps ... The mature ones will be left to wither even if they are widely-used and popular, because there aren’t enough new buyers.

That's part of business. I can't think of any successful business with only one single product that it maintains for eternity. There might be one, but that's not how normal businesses operate.

> many modern apps have a server-side component which needs to be paid for forever.

I don't have a problem with paying for resources I'm actually using. I use a note-taking app that includes a cloud subscription for syncing across devices; I'm fine with paying for that, because I'm getting something in return that I actually want and use.

> The updates I’m talking about, which you “don’t want to pay for,” include “making the app continue to run on a current OS”

What I said—and what you included in your quote—was "maybe I don't feel I need any updates". I want a choice. "Stupid feature we added just to justify demanding 10 bucks a month from you" is one thing. "This app works on the latest OS release" is another.

Copying-and-pasting from above: I'm fine with paying for that, because I'm getting something in return that I actually want and use.

Your basic logic here is that you just want to write one little app and then sit back and have that one little app support you for the rest of your life. That's not a reasonable business model. I'm sorry if this sounds blunt, but that's just you wanting money without having to work for it.

Essentially you're trying to take an unprofitable way of working and force it to be profitable by demanding money you don't deserve. I think that's wrong. A lot of us think that's wrong. And I'd go so far as to say that, judging by every tech forum I'm active on, most of us—with the exception of a handful of wealthy tech influencers and their dev friends—think that's wrong.

So yeah. As I said: Grubby.

[xp84]

First off, I'd really appreciate if you could reduce the angry, accusatory tone, I don't think it's productive. I have zero apps including subscription apps. I work for a B2B company for a paycheck. I am on the consumer side of the transactions at issue here. I don't know what you do for a living, because from your positions, it appears you might have no idea how the software business actually works in 2023.

Nobody's forcing you to pay for software subscriptions. If you don't see an ongoing benefit from using software under active development and maintenance, by all means, don't subscribe. Use abandoned software from 10 years ago forever on your Windows 7 machine, or write your own, or use awful ad-supported dreck. You'll get no objection from me, it's your choice.

But a lot of people have moved on from the one-time-only model. Developers know that you don't build the "final email client" or "final podcast app" or "final note taking app" and have it stay static for 30 years. Apps are either under development or they die.* If you don't think the users who derive value from the app every day, and need it to keep existing, should be the ones who pay for that app to keep existing, well, I don't know what to tell you. I for one expect all my core apps to just work on every new device I get, and when I install a new OS version I don't want to worry that apps were left behind. I want Office on my Android tablet today, and if I buy an iPad tomorrow I want it working there, and I have a PC and a Mac so I want it on both. I don't want to have to spend $350 for a new copy of Office just because I decided to buy a Mac.

There are other advantages for consumers too. For instance, you can pay like $20-30 for all Adobe's top-end apps for a month - to try them out or to do a one-off project now and then. That would have cost you $2000 20 years ago when the "buy" model was the only one. Likewise, it would be silly to pay $20 each for 5 competing apps to see which one you like best, but when they're $1 a month you can try them all serially to find your favorite, without any "trial" restrictions which can get in the way.

But it's clear you think that continuing to make sure software works forever, fielding support issues from customers, making updates for every new OS feature, is "sitting back" and doing nothing, and that it's realistic for you to update neither your OS nor your software, ever, just to avoid paying maybe $80 a year in software subscriptions, so, okay. You do you. I'll refrain from replying after this comment, because it appears you have no interest in anything but griping about paying for what you use.

* This was even true in the 1980s, but the timescales were much longer then. A Commodore 64 program was also pretty obsolete 12 years later when everyone had moved onto new and incompatible hardware, but today Apple can hardly keep the SDK stable for 12 months.

[_zzaw]

I've gone back over my posts to see if I said anything out of line, and I don't think I did. I'm just being direct; I haven't been nasty, or even snarky (which you were, consistently, in your last response). I am indeed rightfully disturbed by what I see as a greedy, lazy business model that shuts lower-income folks out of the tech world, so the tone's not going to change.

I'm not going to address most of your post, because there honestly is not a lot to reply to: you're just reiterating assertions and—more problematically—insisting I said things I didn't say. I don't think it's the best use of my time to indulge that.

> If you don't think the users who derive value from the app every day, and need it to keep existing, should be the ones who pay for that app to keep existing, well, I don't know what to tell you.

Show me where I said I don't think users should pay for the app to keep existing. I'm fine with paying for app releases. Once per release.

> There are other advantages for consumers too. For instance, you can pay like $20-30 for all Adobe's top-end apps for a month - to try them out or to do a one-off project now and then.

Cool! If it's such an advantage for consumers, I'm all for offering that. Just include a lifetime license as well. If rentware is so beneficial to consumers, then there wouldn't be any problem offering people a choice, correct? Let the market decide.

> But it's clear you think that continuing to make sure software works forever, fielding support issues from customers, making updates for every new OS feature, is "sitting back" and doing nothing

Again: Show me exactly where I said that. I'm getting tired of this; you saw that I said the exact opposite as far as updates. Regarding support, again, I have no problem charging for that. That's a service.

I'm disappointed by this last response of yours. You came off as reasonable initially, but the shift to deliberately misquoting me is not cool. I don't think you should do that; it implies a lot about how confident you are in your reasoning.

Anyway—I suspect the rentware fad will be over in a few years, since everyone hates it and subscription fatigue is still setting in. (Especially if a recession, which I think is coming, makes a lot of folks question why they're paying $50–$100 in subscriptions every month for software they would have owned a few years ago.) The market will settle down to either a hybrid—apps offered under both rentware and lifetime licensing—or simply back to charging a more reasonable one-time amount.

And devs will be fine; they'll just have to treat their businesses as actual businesses, not lifestyle passive-income streams. I'm good with that.