People seem to prefer subscriptions to expensive one-time purchases... What's a developer to do?
My 0.02: people feel the exact opposite. People hate subscriptions, people hate not having control over something that they feel has been "purchased".
It’s searching app stores and seeing all the non subscription prices being <$20.
Doesn't mean this is what users prefer – it just means this is what the companies behind the apps (and thus making the $) prefer.
Of course people rather pay $10 x 1 than $10 x some number greater than 1. They rather pay $10x1 than $100x1 as well. All else being equal people prefer to pay less for things.
When more are willing to pay $10x20 than $100x1 I don’t know what you’d call that other than expressing a preference.
For example, people complained very loudly about not being able to buy photoshop anymore. Any time office365 is discussed, again people complain. People seem to hate subscriptions.
What is true instead is that people are forced into subscriptions because one-time purchases are just not offered anymore.
I consider a note-taking service to be a different situation, similar to a photo hosting service. Costs are ongoing (and typically growing) so it's not reasonable to expect a one time payment.
As for the first case, both Adobe and Microsoft are thriving for forcing subscriptions, so it makes a lot of business sense. From their perspective it makes sense to dismiss the outrage. People that need the software will ultimately give in and those that are complaining the most, weren't delivering revenue anyway.
The important thing to understand is that both examples are industry standard, irreplaceable software. There are little to no serious alternatives. A startup with some very optional software can't afford this arrogance.
They may well not be using the 'most current' version of the software, and I can think of a few pieces of software where that's been the case for me too. Either because I don't use it enough to justify the upgrade, or I actively object to being fleeced again for essentially the same product that's been "updated".
But eventually, if they want to continue doing the task they'll end up paying for a new version. Unless it's open source, it's always under the control of the product creator, and their incentives are always going to be on extracting money, and indeed they need to, to continue supporting the software.
In the Apple Ecosystem, the move to M1 Macs is an example that will force people to pay for upgrades.
Buying it once and riding it as long as possible is undoubtly cheaper than subscriptions, however it's still got a lifespan that eventually requires the next payment.
Freehand[1] has been discontinued for almost two decades, and ten years ago I was still able to use it to great effect. Heck, if I wanted to use it today I probably could, thanks to Wine[2].
> however it's still got a lifespan that eventually requires the next payment.
Unless you wait so long that a competitor arises or you stop having the need. I never paid for Adobe Creative Cloud and Affinity[3] came along without subscriptions. One could also conceivably do without Microsoft Office updates so long that Open Office catches up to the needed features and surpasses it.
Note I do tend to pay for new versions of software I use. But I have no quarrel with stopping if they no longer provide adequate value, like 1Password moving to subscription pricing to collect rent on a done product yet somehow still managing to make it inferior (Electron).
I continue to disagree with the premise that “one-time purchases are a lie we tell ourselves”. If that were the case companies would have continued as they were. They move to subscriptions precisely because it removes the customer’s choice to upgrade—you either keep paying or can’t even access your past files. And they can jack up the price or remove features at any time (see LastPass).
Though I can get behind the hybrid model of Perpetual Fallback Licenses[4].
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adobe_FreeHand
[2]: https://appdb.winehq.org/objectManager.php?sClass=version&iI...
[3]: https://affinity.serif.com/
[4]: https://github.com/vitorgalvao/perpetual-fallback-licenses
I don't think we disagree as much as you think, I'm not arguing in favour of subscriptions. I'm simply pointing out that the majority of the companies that have avoided subscription models still have to make money and they do that by only releasing features in new versions of the software. Only supporting new platforms with new versions.
When it comes to technically competant users, there are usally alternatives that allow usage (as you suggest), but those aren't realistic for the majority of users.
Software creators must take in money to support themselves (or else work for free, as is the case with open-source). That can either be in the form of subscriptions, paid upgrades, or donations.
Given the constant onward march of technology and platforms, eventually they'll get you (or their competitor will get you), and you'll open your wallet again.
Said no-one ever...
I sell a one-time-purchase Mac app and I've had multiple customers tell me "I wouldn't have bought if it was a subscription" - and this is for an app that saves people hours a week on video editing, what would seem like the prototypical example of a "recurring need". I think people are just tired.