For me, I tried a 'minimalist' launcher app for Android that had a 7 day trial or something and they had a yearly subscription based model for it. I was aghast. I would literally expect the app to blow my mind and do everything one can assume to go that way. In a world, where Nova Launcher (Yes, I know it has been acquired by Branch folks but it still is a sturdy one) or Niagara exist plus many alternatives including minimalist ones on F Droid, the dev must be releasing revolutionary stuff to factor in a subscription service.

Second, is a controversial choice, since it's free tier is quite good and people like it so much. But, Pocketcasts. I checked it's yearly price the other day, and boy, in my country, I can subscribe to Google Play Pass, YouTube Premium and Spotify and still have money left before I hit the ceiling what Pocketcasts is asking for paid upgrade.

Also, what are your views on one time purchase vs subscriptions? Personally, I find it much easier to purchase, if it's good enough even if it was piratable, something if it is a one time purchase rather than repetitive.

(page 2) 50 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] nhgeek@beehaw.org 9 points 2 years ago

I generally hate them in consumer-targeted apps. Theoretically, there's nothing wrong with the model. Devs have to keep the lights on, especially if there is a cloud service behind the app. It's all about what pricing model they set. However, pricing is hard. A lot of companies really screw this up right at the start. I also think a lot of businesses cannot resist the temptation to boil the frog and ask for more and more over time, until their pricing is way out of alignment with value delivery.

[–] RobotToaster@mander.xyz 7 points 2 years ago

All of them

[–] Hiro8811@lemmy.world 6 points 2 years ago

Don't remember the name but there was a magisk module manager that had ads and didn't even install the modules. Just downloaded them after an ad. It asked money for removing ads

[–] beto@lemmy.studio 5 points 2 years ago

There's was a scanner app that I loved, for Android. Turned into a subscription, even though most people use it less than once a month and even though the app was basically complete and never got updates.

[–] NuraShiny@hexbear.net 4 points 2 years ago (1 children)

No app should be a subscription

[–] Scrollone@feddit.it 4 points 2 years ago (2 children)

Keeping an app up to date takes time and work. Especially if it needs cloud services (e.g. multiplayer games).

Good luck trying to maintain an app forever if people just pay it once.

load more comments (2 replies)

[–] No_Ones_Slick_Like_Gaston@lemmy.world 4 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (2 children)

Apps that provide server time either synchronizing data and storing information or providing an api to bring info to the device.
Data intensive apps like windy can charge whatever they need, now MF like Strava pushing an $79/yr for routes is about BS.

load more comments (2 replies)

[–] blakeus12@hexbear.net 4 points 2 years ago

a VR app called "Supernatural" that was a fitness based beat saber clone

[–] Anders429@programming.dev 3 points 2 years ago

Companies are using subscription models because it has proven to be far more profitable than a one-time purchase. Why sell the product to each person just once when you can sell it to them over and over again? You no longer have to constantly develop new products and versions, and you now only have to maintain your existing product.

And it works because people buy it.

load more comments