Hacker News Reader

There's a lot of arguments one way or another - but the killer deal-breaker for many of us is the feeling of being held hostage: once you stop paying subscription, you typically don't get to "keep last paid version" - you loose application, and any files, data or artifacts that you created with it or would open/manipulate with it :-/

The other aspect is just how well we each feel we can keep track of and be disciplined with dozens of subscriptions. I'm the other way around from you - I'd pay $5 for an app without blinking, even to "try it out"; but I hesitate to "commit" to $3 a year, let alone $3 a month, for something new.

I think the way Jetbrains does it is ideal - every chunk of 12 months you pay for with your subscription gives you permanent use of that version.

I firmly believe this model is the future, and really, the only sustainable way forward.

It's the only solution so far that doesn't lock customers into a subscription that may stop giving them value commensurate with what they're paying, while giving developers a recurring source of revenue that incentivizes continuous improvement.

I've seen it work wonders for Sketch, which seems to have increased its pace of development after switching to an update-subscription model (as a side note, the lack of a clear, standard name for this model may be its greatest disadvantage). I use an active subscription at work, while I have a slightly older version that I've currently let lapse on my personal machine because I only need it occasionally. Between subscriptions and major-version upgrades, it really is the best of both worlds.

The maddening thing with Apple is that this model would slot neatly into the App Store. All they'd need is a new type of subscription that gates App Store updates. Apple already keeps old packages on the server, as one discovers if they download a purchased app on a device stuck on an old version of iOS – the only thing missing is the will to implement this model.

But this only works if you're releasing a new version every subscription period -- and in that case, it's equivalent to upgrade pricing.

If the developer isn't providing upgrades then they shouldn't keep getting paid for a product someone already bought. If the argument is that developers need _regular_ pay days then we have dedicated financial instruments for smoothing an irregular cash flow.

In any case, subscriptions aren't directly equivalent to upgrade pricing even when an upgrade is provided every subscription period because in an upgrade pricing model the end user can always choose to stop paying and continue to use software they already bought.

If the argument is that developers need _regular_ pay days then we have dedicated financial instruments for smoothing an irregular cash flow.

I think that ignores how little most developers make in the app store. They aren't rolling in money, most are just trying to figure out a way to eke out a living.

I think developers would make a ton more of money, if the App store didn't suck so badly. My spending on iOS apps has rather gone down over time, because the App universe got increasingly worse.

Oh yeah, I agree with you. I was replying to the above commenter about the Jetbrains subscription system and trying to understand how it differs from a pay-to-upgrade system.

Yes, most models converge in the case of frequent updates by the developer and regular usage by the customer and the customer upgrading regularly. The difference is, that when there are no regular updates, why should a developer get constantly paid? And sometimes, there are huge updates, which are not really reflected in value by a reasonable subscription. On the other side, the subscription model holds the customer hostage, the customer cannot decide to use an older version a bit longer and update later.

I’m willing to pay enough monthly software subscriptions to count on one hand. Subscriptions are not the answer for the vast majority of apps and Apple’s insistence on pushing this as the solution is just more evidence that the survival of indie devs doesn’t matter much to them.

I responded to some of these in a different response, I’ll edit it a bit here, but my points are the same:

The subscription model fails in a lot of ways, for everyone. For example, my next app is an interior design / home control app. How would the customer feel if they stopped paying and didn’t have access to their house any more? Most people would be pissed.

I don’t want to hold my customers’ data for ransom and cut them off if they stop paying me my extortion money.

Also, I estimate about half the people who buy version one of my app will enter their floorplan into their computer, place their furniture, be happy, and never use the app again (until I upgrade it to offer home control, as well). If those users just pay like a buck each and cancel after the first month, I’m not going to make my money back for the six years I’ve put into this app.

--

New stuff:

I’d argue that it’s much more important Apple let developers put out one-time-per-customer, timed, fully-functional demos.

Developers with successful products are already incentivized to keep updating them. What I’ve found again and again is that version two of a product will do better than version one.

Adobe’s been selling Photoshop since I was in college, and it’s not like they didn’t upgrade their app. Same with Intuit / Quicken.

-Wil

I don’t want to hold my customers’ data for ransom and cut them off if they stop paying me my extortion money.

You don't have to, you could make it readonly when the subscription expires.

This would be what I’d aim for, absolutely.

I talked to some indies who do this for apps they sell outside the App Store, but none of them did it with App Store apps. I believe they indicated there were obstacles to doing it with the App Store (as it is). I’m definitely not an expert in this — I’ve never had a subscription app.

-Wil

That's not a choice for Apple to make, developers should be able to sell upgrades as they see fit (I am not referring to extravagant never before seen business models)

I'm very adverse to subscriptions but not to upgrade pricing, so it is their loss.