Yes, I have subscriptions for IntelliJ IDEA, for Dropbox, for FastMail and for a DigitalOcean VPS. All these are producing money for me. But the list ends here. Because here's the thing: $5/month here, $10/month there and pretty soon we're talking about serious money. Not only that, but as soon as you stop paying for whatever reason (eg temporary financial problems) you're out.
Of course, with our oversized salaries, we stop noticing that $5/month for a passwords app is actually expensive. And that's actually a good example because a passwords app at least has some utility.
More importantly, subscriptions are immoral because the end result is robbing users of any sense of ownership. And as a software developer, you no longer feel compelled to innovate, to improve, in order to convince users to upgrade. I for one hate renting things, I prefer ownership.
1) You're absolutely right: Pricing matters. If I charge you $10/mo for my app that sends you a text message every time there's a full moon, that would be way too expensive and you'd be well within your rights as a consumer to spend your money on something else. As far as I'm aware, Apple will not force you to subscribe to any apps.
2) "... subscriptions are immoral..." Bullshit. And you don't "own" software you buy and pay for once. Operating systems change. Companies and developers come and go. If you value a piece of software, then you value the developer and should desire that they maintain and improve the app.
What is moral is creating a system by which software developers can support themselves by creating products that are useful to the community. I'd say the App Store is currently broken in that regard (with a few high-profile exceptions). If popularizing subscription-based pricing will help fix that, I'm all in favor.
The mechanism is simple: the slight inconvenience of cancellation prevents a huge number of users from cancelling as soon as they want to.
This is why getting your customers to set up automated and recurring payments is the pot of gold everybody wants (not just in software).
You don't have to intend to bilk people if you do subscriptions; it's inherent in your business model.
Try putting a confirmation screen in your app that makes the user press "Renew" each month before the app charges them again. That would move you toward the moral end of the spectrum, but it would gut your sales.
A $2 per month subscription, even if totally unneeded, is not something most busy people can find the time to deal with cancelling. Pretty soon a year has gone by and your "service" has provided zero value to them but you've ripped them off for $24.
(For clarity: I don't mean you personally, and also I do work in subscription-based software. I just don't have any illusions about it and it makes me feel icky.)
I like this experiment. If I had to bet, I think you're right that it would reduce revenue.
OTOH, to be fair, try this approach in the old-fashioned model... take the standard (large) transaction up front, offer a lifetime money-back guarantee (a very moral policy, to be sure), and then put a launch dialog in your app with two buttons: "Refund Now" and "Continue Using".
I predict one would also see reduced revenues by taking what could be considered moral high ground in the non-subscription model.
The pot of gold that everybody wants is not because people forget to cancel the subscription, but because you don't have to acquire new customers every single day. You can provide a good product to your "fan base" for years.
I can speak only from my experience in the B2C space with a 2 bucks a month product:
It's basically prepaid. Accounts will become inactive when the payment period ends. There is no automatic renewal. The reason is precisely, because I think this is the most transparent way.
It works, it pays me a decent salary and I get to maintain the software for a long time.
I'm sure that happens. But when I buy an iPhone app for a fixed price, the incentive for the vendor is to make the app look fantastic at a first glance, and then to never fix any bugs or incompatibilities. Because why bother? Everyone who notices these problems has already paid, and getting a refund is even more troublesome than cancelling a subscription. How is that more moral? As a consumer, I generally prefer subscriptions for everything that I plan to use for a year or longer (which is most software).
Speaking as a developer - what kind of entitled, self-important thinking is this? No one owes developers a decent lifestyle or a liveable income. I can't wait till some idiot sells a subscription to a calculator or flashlight app - I say to them GTFO! The app 'industry' is not the first one to deal with product saturation, but somehow we do not have Dishwasher subscriptions (thank goodness).
> "... subscriptions are immoral..." Bullshit. And you don't "own" software you buy and pay for once. Operating systems change. Companies and developers come and go. If you value a piece of software, then you value the developer and should desire that they maintain and improve the app.
Sadly, all apps 1) non-consumable & non-perishable and 2) most apps are utilitarian and can't really be improved - if they could be, subscriptions wouldn't be necessary as developers would depend on people buying the improved versions as in every other. If Nike sold you an indestructible trainer (including non-wearing sole) that you could buy tomorrow, would you rather buy it outright or pay subscriptions in perpertuity?
If the developer cannot make a living by creating an app (or any other piece of software for that matter), why would they bother creating it at all?
> If Nike sold you an indestructible trainer (including non-wearing sole) that you could buy tomorrow, would you rather buy it outright or pay subscriptions in perpertuity
This is not a great comparison. As was previously mentioned, software like requires updates to continue running correctly (new OS versions, bugs, etc) while a shoe does not require any changes or maintenance. If the shoe fits, then you wear it and that is that. You can do nothing to it and it will continue to work as a shoe forever (especially, if it is indestructible as in your example). However, if you paid once for a piece of software and then do nothing to it for a few years, the chance of it running correctly on your device is close to zero.
People should be paid for creating and maintaining software.
I've been employed by companies (who I've now left) where the management explicitly wanted to move to subscription for this reason: not having to keep adding new features to get customers to buy new versions. (apps were desktop software).
That's not to say subscription doesn't make sense - but it's not a complete win for everyone.
Apple is not forcing anyone to adopt this model, and most people won't be comfortable with a subscription based game anyway.
However, for MMO's, subscriptions make sense.
> If you value a piece of software, then (...)
No. Just no. If I value X, I value X. Don't try to con me into doing something else. It is "I value X because something.", not "I value X because I want something else to happen in the future." (in this case, maintain and improve the app). I may want to donate, or buy future products from the same developer, just so I can support him. But if I just value X, no further action is implied.
> As far as I'm aware, Apple will not force you to subscribe to any apps.
True. In the same way nobody will force you to pay taxes. You are not forced to pay taxes. But you are punished if you don't. You are not forced to use this app model, but you are punished if you don't. (if the current model of buying apps completely migrates to a subscription based one).
Do you really think people like subscriptions?
People prefer to pay $50 for a 64GB micro SD card in a store, than $1/mo for 50GB cloud storage.
Offering your app for a one time fee is an advantage for the developer.
No, but if the marketplace shifts to 90% of developers using subscriptions in their apps (essentially replacing the existing in-app purchases model), then it was facilitated by Apple as the "preferred" model for monetization.
I'm in the same boat as others in the comments. I am willing to pay a subscription for the 2-3 pieces of software that are absolutely core to my daily habits. Beyond those precious few apps, no developer deserves a monthly subscription from me - and they will never suck one out of me. I'm sorry, but too many solo developers think that creating a single app should earn them a $200k/year salary. I've known a couple of these people who think that a single app they worked on for 3 months should set them up for lifetime retirement. The expectations are unreal, and will never be fulfilled no matter the monetization scheme used.
But very little software needs to be SaaS, that was a mess you got yourself into in the first place.
What else could ownership possibly mean at that point?
The thing that's missing from the app store isn't subscriptions, it's service contracts.
* I go down to the store and buy a toaster -- I now own that toaster. Now I don't expect the toaster to last forever, but if the toaster breaks or simply stops functioning after a year I have both contractual and legal recourse to have my toaster replaced or refunded.
* When I buy a Windows license I know that I am paying for a guaranteed X years of support.
* If I buy an app I'm paying for... well that's the thing, I don't really know. Some apps it's indefinite, some apps it's until the VC funding runs out, some apps it's until the dev is bored with the project, etc.. Worse, since apps are all thin clients now when that support ends the app is useless.
> What is moral is creating a system by which software developers can support themselves...
Don't kid yourself, no morality went into this decision from Apple's side or any Dev that chooses this monetization path. This is about what people think they can get away with.
I think the central point worth debating is this: A customer has a reasonable expectation that a one time purchase guarantees them that an app will continue to function and be maintained^1 for either the lifetime of the service or the lifetime of the device on which it runs^2.
^1 Not necessarily any new features, just continuing to function.
^2 Depending on whether the app is a service or not.
I applaud your idealism, but with this attitude, you might as well not buy any apps at all. When you buy an app, or TV show, or pretty much anything digital in 2016, you're purchasing a license, not the thing itself. You don't "own" anything.
Even if you can download the app you buy in 2016 in 5 years from now, what are the odds that it still works on whatever operating system is still available, on your 2016 hardware? What good is ownership when you can't even use what you own?
I pay subscriptions for a few TV-related things (Netflix+Amazon for me, DirecTv for the wife). If I really expect to want to watch the shows at some point in the future, I'll buy a copy. If I buy them, it's on a medium that I can format-shift at my convenience and get to run on arbitrary devices (which usually means DVD and the subset of Blurays with released keys).
> What good is ownership when you can't even use what you own?
I've never run into this in a practical sense, but it's an excellent point in the theoretical one. I keep around enough old hardware and software to make it a non-issue.
Sure as long as you also accept that you are not owed bug fixes it updates. If you however believe that with system upgrades you should get corresponding app upgrades, then it starts to sound more like a service. I like subscription because I want developers to treat this as a service: support, fixes, features, etc.
"Bug fixes" and "updates" are both too broad. If a feature is broken enough that an advertised feature of the software doesn't work, or in the case of something criminally negligent on the developer's part, I'd consider myself entitled to an update to fix the issue. Either that or a refund for whatever amount I paid for the app (or potentially damages, if I could prove them negligent).
New features and functional changes should be available as an upgrade, perhaps with a discount over buying a new copy of the software.
I'd expect the app not to break over minor OS updates, but major versions changes are always a less predictable.
If a company publishes an app and then goes out of business, and then years later the platform shifts out from under that app such that it no longer works, do you feel like you deserve a refund? If so, who do you expect to pay? The platform gave your money to the developer; the developer ceased to exist. Neither one has "your" money any more.
It's a chicken and egg problem.
I don't know why people allowed this transition from software ownership to subscription to happen (although they really weren't given the choice). It's ridiculous that the customer is giving away his MS Office ownership in exchange for the marginal improvements that MS has been doing in the last couple of releases.
Most people here on HN (me included) would benefit from this development but I agree with you: subscriptions are immoral.
PS: IntelliJ IDEA it's great but it is ridiculously expensive imho.
I wish there was more software like it that can just instantly make all my developers more effective. The cost is so minuscule compared to what it actually costs to keep a developer's butt in the chair, I'd be a complete idiot to try to save a few bucks on the tools they use.
Do note that the big conversions to SaaS models in recent years—Adobe Creative Cloud, Microsoft Office 365, etc.—are of products where 90+% of the revenue already came from corporate buyers rather than from individual consumer licenses. That the SaaS model also does something-or-other to drive consumer income is cute, but kind of irrelevant to the product managers who are making these business-model decisions.
I don't know why developers allowed to happen the transition of reasonably priced software to ridiculously underpriced almost-free apps.
A bed was made. This bed worked worked out well for IAP driven consumer apps but not so great for less disposable software.
Go ask a mechanic or carpenter how much money they spend on their tools for a job that pays significantly less.
That's a hilarious example, because they don't rent and pay subscription for those tools, they buy them.
