I can tell you now, I will never pay a subscription for software. I pay for iCloud, Amazon Prime, Netflix and Patreon through a subscription but ever piece of software that I want that is subscription, I’ll find an alternative that is pay once.
You know, a lot of software people use is already under a subscription model. Instead of calling it a subscription it’s called an upgrade. And instead of paying monthly/yearly you paid every couple years for the latest version. Yet when you change the wording suddenly it’s bad?
I always bring up Office 365. There’s a reason Office 365 is so successful - because they offer a lot of value for what you pay. More than what you used to get by upgrading Office every few years. Developers need to offer compelling subscriptions. Simply converting your App price from one-time to subscription isn’t going to be enough.
I would come Monate this for a moment to buying or leasing a car. When you buy it, it’s yours, you can basically do with it what you want and if you want something better or get it fixed you need to pay for it (out of warranty period). With a lease you know that for a limited time of a couple of years you have all-in service and stay up to speed, and after that tyou me you can switch over to the next latest and greatest basically permanently continuing this model without ever owning the product.
Well, with software its slightly different. First, to my knowledge you never actually own the software anyway. What you buy is a license for a specific use. No reverse engineering, bumper stickers or similar. Also, the environment aka OS is changing faster than let’s say the streets’ infrastructure bringing along the need for regular fixes and updates. From that perspective I can see clear benefits of a subscription model. What I don’t like - and I haven’t done the complete math - is that it’s kind of working out for bigger software right now. Such as Adobe CC or Office 365. In those cases the buying price and the “leasing rate” to me are in proportion. However, with smaller software currently costing between 0,99 and let’s say 4,99 what would a reasonable subscription price be? And for sure I don’t want some insecure cloud storage from anyone attached as benefit. So here is where I feel an overall flat rate for AppStore could come into play.
You know, a lot of software people use is already under a subscription model. Instead of calling it a subscription it’s called an upgrade. And instead of paying monthly/yearly you paid every couple years for the latest version. Yet when you change the wording suddenly it’s bad?
I always bring up Office 365. There’s a reason Office 365 is so successful - because they offer a lot of value for what you pay. More than what you used to get by upgrading Office every few years. Developers need to offer compelling subscriptions. Simply converting your App price from one-time to subscription isn’t going to be enough.
I would come Monate this for a moment to buying or leasing a car. When you buy it, it’s yours, you can basically do with it what you want and if you want something better or get it fixed you need to pay for it (out of warranty period). With a lease you know that for a limited time of a couple of years you have all-in service and stay up to speed, and after that tyou me you can switch over to the next latest and greatest basically permanently continuing this model without ever owning the product.
Well, with software its slightly different. First, to my knowledge you never actually own the software anyway. What you buy is a license for a specific use. No reverse engineering, bumper stickers or similar. Also, the environment aka OS is changing faster than let’s say the streets’ infrastructure bringing along the need for regular fixes and updates. From that perspective I can see clear benefits of a subscription model. What I don’t like - and I haven’t done the complete math - is that it’s kind of working out for bigger software right now. Such as Adobe CC or Office 365. In those cases the buying price and the “leasing rate” to me are in proportion. However, with smaller software currently costing between 0,99 and let’s say 4,99 what would a reasonable subscription price be? And for sure I don’t want some insecure cloud storage from anyone attached as benefit. So here is where I feel an overall flat rate for AppStore could come into play.
Adding to your comment about not actually owning SW, there are a lot of people that seem to be fine with having subscriptions to iCloud, Dropbox, Netflix, Hulu, etc. Why are those acceptable when you can buy movies and TV shows from other services like iTunes Store, Prime Video, and Sony Ultra? And why would they buy a digital copy when they can buy a DVD or Blu-ray copy since having a physical copy is what I've been told since the iTunes Store started. And, yet, we're seeing people movie to subscription-based music, and we're seeing subscription video services rise—which includes YouTube Premium nee YouTube Red—and this move to subscription apps only seems to be happening because Apple saw the trend, not because Apple invented the trend.
Apps that are used only occasionally, do developers expect people to pay a subscription?
If the benefit is higher than the cost then it would make sense to subscribe to an app. As for what a developer expects I couldn't tell you what all devs think, but I would assume that they all try to price apps to maximize their revenue.
How many subscriptions can the average person handle?
That depends on the user. How many monthly payments do you make now? I can assure you that paying $1 per month for 1Password so I can have an up-to-date security audit is the least of my monthly expenses.
If anyone hear thinks that apps moving from a flat fee every few years to every year (like Parallels *ugh*) is opening up a major void in the market then you're not going to find an easier solution by creating flat-rate apps. Let's remember that Apple is still allowing you to purchase apps if you desire, but, of course, forum members go to extremes and are wondering if they won't even be able to buy a calculator app without having buy a subscription. I have to assume there are dozens, if not several hundred, on their App Stores.
They exist not for the consumer but for the business, to provide more revenue by forcing customers to pay to keep using something they think they need
I'm not especially pro-subscripiton (outside of "pro" apps), but there's a lot of hooey in your statements:
1. The big appeal of subscriptions to developers is a steady flow of income, not really more income. Photoshop, at $10/month, is making way less money per user than it did as a standalone product, but it is regular every month rather than tidal every three years, and subscribers not only get lots of updates, but full company product support. I used to buy PS every three years -- at a cost of around $500-600 IIRC. Do you know how many years I'd have to pay $10/month to approximate the "old" cost of one cycles of major updates? Do the math.
2. How exactly are you "forced" to pay for more than a year at a time? Do you really not pay any attention to what you have subscribed to and whether it's worth the money to you now versus when you subscribed? Doesn't that say more about you than them?
You know, a lot of software people use is already under a subscription model. Instead of calling it a subscription it’s called an upgrade. And instead of paying monthly/yearly you paid every couple years for the latest version. Yet when you change the wording suddenly it’s bad?
I always bring up Office 365. There’s a reason Office 365 is so successful - because they offer a lot of value for what you pay. More than what you used to get by upgrading Office every few years. Developers need to offer compelling subscriptions. Simply converting your App price from one-time to subscription isn’t going to be enough.
Honestly, that is a bit of a stretch. If you chose not to upgrade the product under the first model, what you have will continue to work.
If you don't pay the subscription.... well thanks for coming, the door's that way.
I see value in the subscription model for things like entertainment (and I admit I subscribe to Office365), but the idea in general of subscriptions, I'm not a fan.
This to me is just as much about Apple producing their own income stream as that of a developer's. In my view, it's kind of user hostile and does not place a strong incentive on the developer to continue to improve their product. Yes, subscriptions will fall away if the product is not improved, but once it's locked in as a recurring and more or less invisible line item in someone's Apple ID account, a lot of people will simply forget they have paid for something. That's preying on people's apathy and not on the merits of the thing that has been subscribed to.
Ethically, that might be OK for some, but it's not really OK by me.
They exist not for the consumer but for the business, to provide more revenue by forcing customers to pay to keep using something they think they need
I'm not especially pro-subscripiton (outside of "pro" apps), but there's a lot of hooey in your statements:
1. The big appeal of subscriptions to developers is a steady flow of income, not really more income. Photoshop, at $10/month, is making way less money per user than it did as a standalone product, but it is regular every month rather than tidal every three years, and subscribers not only get lots of updates, but full company product support. I used to buy PS every three years -- at a cost of around $500-600 IIRC. Do you know how many years I'd have to pay $10/month to approximate the "old" cost of one cycles of major updates? Do the math.
2. How exactly are you "forced" to pay for more than a year at a time? Do you really not pay any attention to what you have subscribed to and whether it's worth the money to you now versus when you subscribed? Doesn't that say more about you than them?
1) I'd also argue that Adobe probably have more users because of the small monthly fee (I know I'm one of them) and they can reduce costs by not having to support as many older versions of their SW.
2) I don't understand how people feel tricked into this. Besides keeping a record of all my repeating, monthly costs, I also an entire color-coded calendar in Calendar just to know when bills are due. Most of these are monthly, but some are every two months, every 6 months or annual. Some are even automatic payments because my card is on file and those have "(Auto)" around them so I know I don't have to make those payments. I even keep the expiration date of the card on file in the Notes sections of the entry so I can quickly see when that card will be expiring instead of expecting the vendor tell me that my card is expiring or, worse, one day sending me an email that my payment didn't go though. It only takes a minute to set up the entry and yet this simple organization tactic seems to be atypical, but I hope my anecdotal observations are not the norm.
djsherly said: In my view, it's kind of user hostile and does not place a strong incentive on the developer to continue to improve their product.
In my view, I think it keeps developers from resting on their laurels and will allow for more frequent upgrades to add features and increase performance whereas with the paid model you could be stuck with what you have with no update, you'll likely have to rebuy the app again for any major changes, and there will come a time when the app is so old that it simply gets pulled from the App Store and will no longer play on your device.
Of course Apple is pushing it. Gotta boost those services revenues.
Since subscriptions drop to 15% after the first year, then wouldn’t this lower Apples service revenues? Surely they want people to keep their subscriptions which means an eventual loss for Apple and gain for developers.
I don’t mind subscription. But I think they only work for a small number of Apps that provide an ongoing service. Dropbox makes sense. A game or calculator App doesn’t.
How does it lower Apple’s revenues since subscriptions are recurring?
I agree with others that subscriptions are appropriate for products that provide ongoing services such as cloud storage -- but not for products that are one offs that simply sit there on your computer.
But worse is how I see subscriptions being abused:
My grandson on my Family Plan continuously gets sucked into these "free trials" for cheap games and, if I don't cancel in time, I get socked with outrageous subscription costs -- typically, $6.99 a WEEK for what used to be a $0.99 game.
I’ve pretty much stopped checking out the App Store altogether now. As already it seems the vast majority of apps, especially games are in-app and or subscription only now.
As long as subscription apps have a way to export all your files in industry standard formats then its not much of a trap. Subscription apps with proprietary file formats are something to watch out for.
I dislike the subscription model for certain apps.
I use a very useful sleep tracking app which allows me, among other things, to track how different things such as using an eye mask or showering before bed affect how well I sleep.
I purchased this app many years ago under the single-payment model, but have refused to update the app after it moved to a freemium subscription model and put the above functionality behind the pay wall.
I can understand the reasoning for paying for a subscription if I want to backup my data to their servers, but not for tracking data that I enter myself.
I avoid Calm even though I really like the app because of subscription. I understand it’s another option for income to app developer but “encouraged” by Apple? Could end up be harmful to the ecosystem.
I heard about this app a while back and was very interested in trying it, until it turned out to be subscription only like nearly everything else nowadays. As I’ve written here already, I’ve given up on the App Store. I’m paying enough already for Netflix et al, and refuse to do the same for bloody iPhone apps! Life is expensive enough already, I’m not made of money.
I refuse to get any apps that use the subscription model. I would rather pay a one time price (even if it's more than pay monthly for apps. I hope this model fails before we have to pay hundreds of dollars a month to use our phone apps
You know, a lot of software people use is already under a subscription model. Instead of calling it a subscription it’s called an upgrade. And instead of paying monthly/yearly you paid every couple years for the latest version. Yet when you change the wording suddenly it’s bad?
I always bring up Office 365. There’s a reason Office 365 is so successful - because they offer a lot of value for what you pay. More than what you used to get by upgrading Office every few years. Developers need to offer compelling subscriptions. Simply converting your App price from one-time to subscription isn’t going to be enough.
Paying for something useful for work and personal like Office 365 or paying hundreds of dollars within a freemium game are not the same. I play a popular Marvel game.. it's totally free to play, but they are constantly trying to sell you character shards or other perks... .99 cents or a couple of bucks is one thing, but I am talking $14.99 - $49.99 depending on what it is they are offering. That's how a lot of games are.. the pricing is outlandish.
There are a couple of apps I use for the ATV that are once a year. I prefer that model if I can't buy the app outright. Pay once see you in 12 mos. If I decide I don't want the subscription ( app ) anymore I can stop it prior to the yearly billing.
There is more here than meets the eye. Some of what's happening now is an evolutionary and natural selection processing occurring with the App Store itself. I believe that a huge number of the apps currently contributing to the absurd numbers attributed to the App Store are primeval in nature. They don't do a whole heck of a lot, they don't require a large development staff to develop and maintain, they are dirt cheap, and they have a small customer base. If they disappeared tomorrow or never received another bug fix or upgrade very few people would notice. The folks who "depend" on these primeval apps would probably not be impacted in any meaningful way when these apps are no longer supported. When I hear the obscene numbers of apps in the App Store stated in a keynote I always assume most of them fall into the primeval category. I seriously doubt that any of these apps will ever employ a subscription model.
On the other hand, once you start moving up the evolutionary food chain into apps that provide significant functionality you are talking about apps backed by a software product development team. Software product development teams don't come cheap - unless they are comprised of some sort of open source initiative or coordinated group of volunteers. Some of these teams are just a handful of software developers. But serious business apps have marketing people, product managers, engineering managers, developers, testers, support & continuation engineers, security experts, and a fair amount of organizational, development, testing, and deployment infrastructure infrastructure and people to support it, like HR, payroll, and accounting. These are serious businesses with serious overhead. The fact that an app runs on a teeny tiny little phone doesn't mean it has teeny tiny little development and support costs. Don't let the size fool you.
Of course the total number of apps at the upper levels of the cost models are relatively few. But there is an expansive gradient of costs and revenues associated with apps in between the primeval apps and the top tier business apps. The higher you go in the app food chain the more revenue you need to sustain the continued development and support of an app. Someone has to pay for this, regardless of what the initial or continuing (subscription) cost of the app may be. Again, it's easy to get fooled in this area because there are some apps that provide large functionality with a very expensive software product organization backing them but are still given away for "free" on the App Store, i.e., everything Google. But we all know how these apps are paid for. For everyone else it all comes down to cost vs benefit and where you want to place your bet.
The reason I mentioned evolution is because once the app developer and the customer enter into a relationship the value of the relationship will be tested and only the ones that provide continuing mutualbenefit will survive. If customers don't get value from an app they will dump it. If developers don't cover their costs and make a profit they will find something else to work on. If you're a business that depends on an app for your business you really want its developer to stay in the game, and subscriptions provide some level of assurance that the developer will stick around. Nothing is guaranteed, but what is more certain is that if the relationship is one-sided the app is at great risk of extinction. Over time many many apps will go extinct and the number of survivors, or at least broadly relevant survivors, will be a much smaller number than what we are seeing today. For some apps the only survival mechanism will be the subscription model.
Somebody who either is a developer or knows people who are, tell me something. Isn't this move to subscription based apps just a way for developers to make more money? And to do it knowing they kind of have customers over a barrel in many cases, leaving them no option but to pay up? I really hate this trend. I fail to see what has changed in the app developement world that suddenly these coders are all starving and have to do this in order to survive.
There are several industries that rely on customer inertia to take more money than they would naturally receive (in the UK, insurance is one of those: reinsure with the same company each year and you are guaranteed to be charged more than 'new' customers elsewhere). I fear that software subscriptions will (often, not always) be a step in the same direction.
If a developer is producing a succession of upgrades, why not sell them as regular updates? If there aren't such upgrades (and assuming there isn't a costly service element to the product) then why is the developer entitled to a revenue-stream: they should be earning money from whatever they're doing instead of producing those upgrades?
Comments
I pay for iCloud, Amazon Prime, Netflix and Patreon through a subscription but ever piece of software that I want that is subscription, I’ll find an alternative that is pay once.
Well, with software its slightly different. First, to my knowledge you never actually own the software anyway. What you buy is a license for a specific use. No reverse engineering, bumper stickers or similar. Also, the environment aka OS is changing faster than let’s say the streets’ infrastructure bringing along the need for regular fixes and updates. From that perspective I can see clear benefits of a subscription model. What I don’t like - and I haven’t done the complete math - is that it’s kind of working out for bigger software right now. Such as Adobe CC or Office 365. In those cases the buying price and the “leasing rate” to me are in proportion. However, with smaller software currently costing between 0,99 and let’s say 4,99 what would a reasonable subscription price be? And for sure I don’t want some insecure cloud storage from anyone attached as benefit. So here is where I feel an overall flat rate for AppStore could come into play.
That depends on the user. How many monthly payments do you make now? I can assure you that paying $1 per month for 1Password so I can have an up-to-date security audit is the least of my monthly expenses.
If anyone hear thinks that apps moving from a flat fee every few years to every year (like Parallels *ugh*) is opening up a major void in the market then you're not going to find an easier solution by creating flat-rate apps. Let's remember that Apple is still allowing you to purchase apps if you desire, but, of course, forum members go to extremes and are wondering if they won't even be able to buy a calculator app without having buy a subscription. I have to assume there are dozens, if not several hundred, on their App Stores.
1. The big appeal of subscriptions to developers is a steady flow of income, not really more income. Photoshop, at $10/month, is making way less money per user than it did as a standalone product, but it is regular every month rather than tidal every three years, and subscribers not only get lots of updates, but full company product support. I used to buy PS every three years -- at a cost of around $500-600 IIRC. Do you know how many years I'd have to pay $10/month to approximate the "old" cost of one cycles of major updates? Do the math.
2. How exactly are you "forced" to pay for more than a year at a time? Do you really not pay any attention to what you have subscribed to and whether it's worth the money to you now versus when you subscribed? Doesn't that say more about you than them?
If you don't pay the subscription.... well thanks for coming, the door's that way.
I see value in the subscription model for things like entertainment (and I admit I subscribe to Office365), but the idea in general of subscriptions, I'm not a fan.
This to me is just as much about Apple producing their own income stream as that of a developer's. In my view, it's kind of user hostile and does not place a strong incentive on the developer to continue to improve their product. Yes, subscriptions will fall away if the product is not improved, but once it's locked in as a recurring and more or less invisible line item in someone's Apple ID account, a lot of people will simply forget they have paid for something. That's preying on people's apathy and not on the merits of the thing that has been subscribed to.
Ethically, that might be OK for some, but it's not really OK by me.
2) I don't understand how people feel tricked into this. Besides keeping a record of all my repeating, monthly costs, I also an entire color-coded calendar in Calendar just to know when bills are due. Most of these are monthly, but some are every two months, every 6 months or annual. Some are even automatic payments because my card is on file and those have "(Auto)" around them so I know I don't have to make those payments. I even keep the expiration date of the card on file in the Notes sections of the entry so I can quickly see when that card will be expiring instead of expecting the vendor tell me that my card is expiring or, worse, one day sending me an email that my payment didn't go though. It only takes a minute to set up the entry and yet this simple organization tactic seems to be atypical, but I hope my anecdotal observations are not the norm.
On the other hand, once you start moving up the evolutionary food chain into apps that provide significant functionality you are talking about apps backed by a software product development team. Software product development teams don't come cheap - unless they are comprised of some sort of open source initiative or coordinated group of volunteers. Some of these teams are just a handful of software developers. But serious business apps have marketing people, product managers, engineering managers, developers, testers, support & continuation engineers, security experts, and a fair amount of organizational, development, testing, and deployment infrastructure infrastructure and people to support it, like HR, payroll, and accounting. These are serious businesses with serious overhead. The fact that an app runs on a teeny tiny little phone doesn't mean it has teeny tiny little development and support costs. Don't let the size fool you.
Of course the total number of apps at the upper levels of the cost models are relatively few. But there is an expansive gradient of costs and revenues associated with apps in between the primeval apps and the top tier business apps. The higher you go in the app food chain the more revenue you need to sustain the continued development and support of an app. Someone has to pay for this, regardless of what the initial or continuing (subscription) cost of the app may be. Again, it's easy to get fooled in this area because there are some apps that provide large functionality with a very expensive software product organization backing them but are still given away for "free" on the App Store, i.e., everything Google. But we all know how these apps are paid for. For everyone else it all comes down to cost vs benefit and where you want to place your bet.
The reason I mentioned evolution is because once the app developer and the customer enter into a relationship the value of the relationship will be tested and only the ones that provide continuing mutual benefit will survive. If customers don't get value from an app they will dump it. If developers don't cover their costs and make a profit they will find something else to work on. If you're a business that depends on an app for your business you really want its developer to stay in the game, and subscriptions provide some level of assurance that the developer will stick around. Nothing is guaranteed, but what is more certain is that if the relationship is one-sided the app is at great risk of extinction. Over time many many apps will go extinct and the number of survivors, or at least broadly relevant survivors, will be a much smaller number than what we are seeing today. For some apps the only survival mechanism will be the subscription model.
If a developer is producing a succession of upgrades, why not sell them as regular updates? If there aren't such upgrades (and assuming there isn't a costly service element to the product) then why is the developer entitled to a revenue-stream: they should be earning money from whatever they're doing instead of producing those upgrades?
Disclosure: been there, done that, earned money.