[jszymborski]

> why does the author here feel so entitled

People were promised they just needed to pay one fee to get the app.

Then, they went to a subscription fee, but grandfathered in previous purchasers.

Now, they've introduced ads.

Their overhead is their problem, they sold me something and now they are renegging. It's like the first thing in the article, not exactly burried.

[fluidcruft]

The company could also go bankrupt and shutdown. Lifetime subscriptions are nice but notice that in other real-world transactions say a "lifetime warranty" on a stove or whatever is defined as the expected lifetime of the device. I agree that "lifetime" is deceptive marketing, but it's not unusual marketing. It is a bit unusual perhaps that there isn't a defined term for the life of the software or service.

[Wurdan]

To my knowledge reneging only applies when it's a voluntary decision. A company that has been sold by its previous owner for generating a 800k loss is not doing much of anything by choice. It's just fighting insolvency.

[jszymborski]

IANAL and I'm not making legal claims, if that's what you're getting at.

Just on the basis of fair expectations in the marketplace, if you say all you need is a fixed rate to serve me for the rest of time, then that's the deal. Anything short, insolvency or otherwise, is reneging. The mismanagement of the company is not my concern.

And before people hop on and make it sound like people with this expectation are naive for believing a company could offer this lifetime service for that fee, AntennaPod + gPodder.net provide the _exact same service_ for the low price of $0. I gave PocketCasts money, and somehow they turned that into -800K .

I don't know where this mentality that customers owe companies that fall short of their promises grace or understanding come from. When I fall short of my obligations to companies, collection agencies rather than thank you notes usually appear.

[fullstop]

> but grandfathered in previous purchasers

If you bought the app only you weren't grandfathered into anything. You needed to have also bought the web player.

[carlosjobim]

I hope you never hear about free refills that they have in some restaurants.

You're demanding more than a decade of free app updates for a small sum you paid ages ago. Why can't you instead be happy with all the value you got from the app? We aren't born to be small minded and stingy, look up to greater goals and a greater attitude in life. We only have so many years before it is cut from us.

[bathtub365]

The app updates aren’t free, I paid for them with my lifetime subscription.

They could do what other apps have done and release a new SKU for a new business model or with a new feature set that justifies asking for more money. Reeder has done this, for example.

I think JetBrains has one of the most fair and honest subscription schemes where you pay for a subscription but when you stop paying you’re free to keep using the last major version that released while you were subscribed. I think that’s much harder to do on mobile app stores, though.

[photomatt]

Anyone who paid shouldn't see ads.

[carlosjobim]

But you can still use the app you paid for during the rest of your life. Nobody is forcing you to do updates to your phone, certainly Pocket Cast aren't forcing you to update your phone.

[Zagorath]

They didn't warn us ahead of time that there would be ads. The patch notes didn't even mention the ads! Shifty Jelly used to have legendary patch notes, but it's been a long time since that was true. And since app stores don't actually let you downgrade to a previous version, your comment is simply untrue.

[johanyc]

I think apple and google should allow us to disable updates to certain apps.

[brokenmachine]

I have updates disabled on my Android phone. Every couple of weeks I go through and update what I want.

But yes I don't think you can disable updates only for particular apps.

[jjulius]

>But you can still use the app...

If we're doing "but"s...

But the original agreement was for updates for a lifetime. Of course people are going to be upset if they were promised one thing and ended up getting something else.

[mcv]

It's a life time membership, not a decade time membership. And OP is still alive.

Why they feel entitled to the thing they paid for is not hard to see. A good question is why an app that worked fine over a decade ago apparently still costs $800k per year to support.

[zmmmmm]

> A good question is why an app that worked fine over a decade ago apparently still costs $800k per year to support

This is what I would like to know. Granted, Google makes it hard to be an app developer these days with constant requirements to update things just to stay compatible and compliant with all their requirements. But still - $800k a year is like 4 full time well paid staff. And that was their loss, so add all the revenue to that.

The real answer of course, is they aren't just maintaining the app as is, they are trying to push all sorts of new features into it and this is what's costing them. But why should previous users be paying for that?

[TiredOfLife]

Total Commander has done free updates for 31 years

[0x6c6f6c]

Except those are not even close to the same type of software to fairly compare. A file manager has virtually no inherent servicing costs to pay compared to a podcast player.

[jjulius]

>You're demanding more than a decade of free app updates for a small sum you paid ages ago.

I mean... that was the agreement between both parties. Really not that hard to grasp.

[carlosjobim]

So how about those free refills at McDonalds? Clearly you have the right to return there every day for the rest of your life and fill up hundreds of cups each time. After all, it is in the agreement between both parties, so go for it!

[brailsafe]

There's a free refill policy at Starbucks too, but it specifically states the constraints, which I used the hell out of for years, and is just part of the deal. It's advantageous in a number of different ways for them, but if it wasn't they can take that out of the contract. Worth noting that it still remains despite lackluster and varying performance in the market; their milk sales would compensate anyway.

"Free refill(s) of hot or iced brewed coffee and tea. Starbucks Rewards members may receive free refills of hot or iced brewed coffee or tea during the same day in store visit at participating Starbucks stores (excludes Cold Brew and Nitro Cold Brew, Iced Tea Lemonade, Flavored Iced Tea, and Starbucks Refreshers® base). To be eligible for free refill(s) of hot or iced brewed coffee or tea, your initial order must be served in for-here ware or a clean reusable cup."

[jjulius]

That's an apples and oranges comparison.

While the timeline isn't explicitly stated, free refills are implied that it's for the duration of your visit. In fact you can see the implication given that's how it's used most of the time.

Telling someone they'll get "lifetime" access for a one-time payment is not the same.

[tacitusarc]

In fact, if I was told I had purchased lifetime free refills, I would expect I could obtain a refill during any visit without purchase.

[carlosjobim]

Where does it say that the refills are not for your lifetime? Now go get that soda which is rightfully yours!

[explodes]

If someone tells me one thing and delivers another I am never going to default to "happy" and be quiet because I "should be thankful" for the deal I did get.

I don't know what world that failing to keep your word is OK, but just because an entity is a company doesn't give them a free pass. No matter how good the deal is.