What is the most useless app that you have seen being given as a subscription?
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.
A watch face for a smart watch.
This one guy made a really popular Android Wear watch face that mimicked the Pixel lockscreen. It only cost a few bucks, and people loved it. Due to some personal things in his life, he had to sell the app to a new developer to make ends meet. The new developer then started charging something like $7/WEEK subscription for a watchface that he didn’t even develop in the first place, and runs entirely locally on the device so it’s not like he’s maintaining any servers or anything.
Absolutely absurd.
This has to be one of the lamest attempts at getting folks to subscribe. I couldn’t have imagined that watch faces could also be subscription based in the first place.
I too ran into an Android Wear watch face that mimicked the Pixel lockscreen. However, it was priced X INR(Indian Rupee) per year in my country and was decently cheap. However, I soon ran into another app, which was a one time purchase, that did what it did mainly(sync and show phone and watch battery on each other) and worked on most lock screens. So the latter was a proper kind of app design amd atleast not subscription hell.
Any app that doesn’t require any backend to function.
If you ask for a subscription for an app without the need to support a backend… I won’t subscribe. I’ll find something else.
Mostly anything else is fine.
Though, if it’s something like a Note-Taking app where the cloud infrastructure for backups and sharing would cost pennies and you’re asking more than $1 a month, I’m out. Looking at you, Evernote. $64 a year to replace the built-in Notes app? No thanks.
Ok so I don’t completely agree… The thing is: mobile apps today have this approach where they don’t have “releases”, there’s one entry on the app store, and if you buy that you usually get updates for as long as it exists.
In the past, computer software always had periodic (usually yearly) releases, which meant that if you bought one version, afterwards you’d have maybe updates for bugfixes and such, but no new features. The result was that the development of new features was paid by people replacing the old version with the new one, because they wanted the improved version.
Nowadays you buy the app and you keep getting new features, sometimes for years, and that development is paid solely thanks to new buyers. Which is cool if you are the customer but it’s not great long term for the developer.
That’s true, but it’s also possible to release apps individually on mobile similar to PC releases.
We also currently get the worst of both worlds with stuff like Goodnotes. They had a one-time buy, but currently they’ve injected AI-related nonsense into v6. They allow owners of the previous version to still use v6, but it’s extremely crippled and functionally worse than 4 or 5. Constant nagging about the new version and features. V6 fully replaced v5 on the App Store, so we can’t do anything about it now. Even in my purchase history, my purchase was forcibly “upgraded.”
What I paid for was a digital notebook app that I could write down notes on with my Apple Pencil and iPad. It had a few nice features I didn’t really need, but were nice to have like writing-to-text replacement. It had cloud backups, but they were through iCloud or OneDrive on the user’s individual storage so I’m assuming it didn’t add a monthly cost overhead to the developer.
Now it’s a subscription model app with features I don’t want nor need that completely replaced the app I paid for.
Good notes has an option to revert to v5 and I haven’t had any issues so far staying on v5.
I thought they also had a one time purchase option for v6 but it’s been awhile since I looked.
They did the switch better then notability tried to do. Notability tried to switch otp users to their new plane after a grace period of a year. They caved to backlash and added a legacy plan for older purchasers.
Yeah I think this presents a genuine problem for the active development of apps for smaller developers, for sure.
x
Payroll pretty much always costs more than hosting. Update frequency and quality is a far more useful consideration
I’ve seen some companies make a valiant effort to make their AWS bill their largest expense, but you’re right.
Maybe you can think of the developer like a backend.
the developer’s an ass
So companies/indie Devs don’t deserve profit. I see
Software as a Service is only a value when the service offers you something that the software on its own cannot do; otherwise it’s just rent seeking.
Paying for cloud storage, for continuous content updates (especially news), or a server to process or generate content that can’t be done on my device, all fine. Paying for a messaging service to pass my messages to others, or for a game to maintain servers for multiplayer play? No problem.
But a subscription to remove ads? Your app doesn’t need an external server to do that. That’s rent-seeking. Same with a subscription to unlock widgets or some third-party connection.
A subscription for regular software updates are right on the line for me. In a sane world, the software package you purchase would be provided with some amount of security updates, but you wouldn’t have to pay any extra until you decided to purchase the next version for new features. You know, like it was until Adobe decided to upend the industry. (Incidentally, it’s weird that Adobe has gone from being the poster child for rent seeking in software to one of the more reasonable companies that’s doing software as a service. I still hate that there’s no way to get their software without a subscription, but at least they are providing some form of continuous value in the form of continuous updates, as well as fonts and stock images and such.)
On the other end of the spectrum you have something like Minecraft, where my ($20? I don’t remember) purchase from over a decade ago is still receiving regular content updates for free, multiple times a year, with no subscription needed. I can pay a subscription fee to get an online realm for myself and my family, but I don’t have to because I can also just set up and operate a server myself. More than reasonable.
But a subscription to remove ads? Your app doesn’t need an external server to do that.
This is kind of a bad example because the value proposition is different but still very clear - the default version of the app provides a regular income stream to the developers. If you don’t like that, you can choose to provide an alternative income stream instead.
It is still unfair because the subscription cost is usually many times more than what the ads will earn for a single user - but it’s a matter of quantity at that point, not quality.
The Adobe case is still a much better example, IMO. Yes, they may offer regular content updates worth subscribing for, but their products could still work perfectly well as one-time purchases without access to the content stream. The only reason they didn’t is that they don’t have enough competition to be worried about customers moving away.
This is kind of a bad example because the value proposition is different but still very clear - the default version of the app provides a regular income stream to the developers.
No, I was quite intentional about that example. My assertion remains: if they’re not providing regular value, then I don’t feel obliged to provide them with regular income.
I don’t hope that they go hungry or anything. I just don’t think it’s my responsibility to subsidize them forever just because they made an app for me once. I’ve got bills to pay too.
Ok, yeah, upon reflection I think I agree with you.
Adobe. Anything Adobe. Fuck Adobe.
Finding that Gimp, and Darktable are at least as useful as photoshop and lightroom is really satisfying
A subscription to a mobile game that gives more gold when buying gold
It used to be entirely free and the vast majority of its tablature was uploaded by community members for free.
The app used to be a one-time purchase. Thankfully I did purchase it back then and they grandfathered me in with a lifetime pro membership, but I can’t blame the people who would never want to use the site/app when they’ve effectively paywalled a ton of community content.
Fuck that site. Going there now is like looking at the desecrated corpse of an old friend.
Agreed. I bought the lifetime membership back then and I still have to deal with ads and upsells. Unfortunately they are still the most comprehensive tab source.
Its crazy to think of a subscription for something like community sourced tabs. They’re often literal text files. You could host thousands of them off a thumbdrive. :)
One-time purchase. If I’m buying something, I want to own it. No compromises. Luckily basically every software that I use is free and open-source so I don’t have to worry about that. If I can’t find a particular software for a niche usage, I make it.
The most useless I’ve ever seen was wallpaper packs for roku for $10/month
Is that why every TV has that god awful purple background photo?
Geocaching. Like come on.
Awww I had forgotten about that. Now I’m sad.
I do miss it, that changed very much killed my koy for the past time. The alternatives were never as good.
x
$30/yr? $2.50 a month? A hobby that gets you outdoors, exploring nature, exploring cities, learning the history and culture of an area, getting you to spend time with your kids in those same spaces if that’s applicable to you isn’t worth that?
$10 a month or $50 a year in Canada. Aren’t all the caches community created? Where does the $50 a year go?
Well, Canadian costs change the equation, even for me. $10/month is significant compared to $2.50. Caches are community created. But no one would known they were there unless someone published the information. So the money goes to a team of developers working to maintain the app and website, and the API they share with other 3rd parties. They have an office in Seattle as well. They have office staff and a foyer that is maintained for geocachers to visit and earn the find of Geocaching HQ.
Mobile games for kids are the worst. Those and any self-help mental health apps.
It’s $10 a month to access the features of a basic game that runs on the local device, or the subscription renews weekly, or you can get a 7-day free trial after which it charges you for the entire year. And in the latter case, you usually have to sign up for the free trial before you are allowed to see ANY content.
A cheap subscription makes sense for some things, especially those using cloud based resources. But so much of that business model seems to rely on making money by screwing people that forgot they were paying you.
Microsoft Solitaire on Android. The ads were driving me nuts so I went to pay for the app. If I recall they wanted almost 10 bucks a month for that shit. Deleted, forgotten, until now.
Products aren’t services.
So much bullshit has come from pretending otherwise.
But loans are temporal. That’s all that is happening – you’re renting out software (akin to digital library borrowing), in some sense, not buying a product.
The problem is how to do it otherwise and maintain enough income to ensure continued active development for future updates.
I don’t have a solution to it, and subscriptions aren’t ideal, but that’s the problem at least.
Microsoft Office.
The subscription service is actually alright for businesses, but for retail users there is no compelling reason for it to be a subscription.
the pricing of ‘365’ is essentially a subscription to cloud storage, whether you use it or not, and getting office ‘free’ with that sub.
Microsoft only tolerates retail users, it has always intended its products to be for commercial entities.
Filebot, I like and use the app but it shouldn’t be a subscription. You can buy a lifetime license for $48 but it’s too expensive for what it is.
I’m with you here. I figure I’ll buy the year when I need it. I did the math and figured the lifetime was about 10 years worth. I figured if I end up paying for 10 years worth eventually, they’ve earned it. Likely something free will come out and I won’t need it anymore.
I’ve mostly stopped using it because I have had no more issues with plex recognizing files now.
Filebot is wildly useful. U cray
Only subscriptions that make sense to me a cloud based ones that can’t function at all without access to the internet due to not being able to retrieve content needed to function. Examples that come to mind are netflix and spotify, since even though you can download content to watch or hear offline you need internet to retrieve new content. Means there are hosting costs, and I’m basically paying to not host all that content myself.
But, anything else doesn’t make sense to me. If app wants to charge again then they can do another version release, and let people keep using the old version if they want while stopping updates for it. I don’t do subscriptions.
