Hacker News Reader

Comment by bluk | Hacker News Reader

I think that’s more that developers want to make a decent living. The vast majority of subscription apps have a server side maintenance cost. As the platform matured and developers realized those users were going to stick to their apps for years without paying another penny, then it becomes untenable.

View on HN

That's simply not true, many offline apps are transitioning to subscriptions and maybe add some lame cloud sync as an excuse/afterthought.

Happened to me recently with an app which is the interactive version of a book. From one day to the other they switched from buying chapters/the book to some stupid subscription.

If they can't make a living they need to charge more and if they can't charge more they need to find a real job/business.

The problem is that so many companies burning VC cash and/or ad dollars have trained customers to think software costs less than a cup of coffee. If you charge what you need for a sustainable business up front, your sales will be enormously less and you’re going to get tons of negative reviews from people who think a $20 app would need to cure cancer to justify that price. (And, of course, even $3 deserves lifetime free updates and new features)

It’s especially bizarre that you’re ranting about them needing to find a real business when that is exactly what they’re doing by finding a billing model which is viable long-term.

Very few developers have proven that they're capable of building a sustainable business (like e.g. OmniGroup).

It's impossible to say if a particular app will in a week:

a) still be available

b) if it will have switched to subscriptions or free + IAP or free with ads and IAP

c) what the IAPs will be and if your old (if any) IAPs will still work.

d) if they'll decide to sell your info to the next available bidder

This is why almost all apps are worthless and why I've essentially stopped purchasing or downloading apps. It's simply not worth the trouble to invest time to learn to use an app and investigate whether you can trust the developer.

> If they can't make a living they need to charge more and if they can't charge more they need to find a real job/business.

That’s exactly what they’re doing: charging more.

They're also changing the nature of the commercial relationship from buying to renting. Stopping the subscription stops access to many essential features, no matter how much one has already paid.

The only kind of reasonable subscription is what's used for IntelliJ & co: if you stop paying after a minimum of X months, you get to keep what you paid for.

Users are trained that app costs few bucks. Charging fair price, e.g. $200 just won't work. So they're trying to charge that price over years.

What app is $200 really a fair price for though? Most apps do not provide nearly that much value to users, regardless of their development costs

I don't know would I calculate value for non-trivial apps. What's value for FaceApp app? Navigator app?

That's an interesting question.

$200 is about 10 to 20-ish decent meals in most US cities (not high class, but not bottom barrel fast food either).

Do _most_ apps really not provide as much utility over a lifetime of use as ten meals?

A business is about covering development costs.

If the users see no value in paying for it, then there are better business opportunities to spend development efforts on.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com