298

Apps that shouldn't be Subscriptions (discuss.tchncs.de)

submitted 11 months ago by kirk782@discuss.tchncs.de to c/piracy@lemmy.dbzer0.com

186 comments fedilink hide all child comments

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.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[-] Crow@lemmy.world 112 points 11 months ago

There’s only two reasons an app should be a subscription.

The app requires constant server connection that is an active cost to the developer.
The app requires constant updates for maintaining functionality/ relevancy.

There are a few subscriptions I pay for (Nabu casa for one). There’s real merit in the subscription model, but it should only be about 1% of things not 80%.

[-] themurphy@lemmy.world 39 points 11 months ago

You could also argue apps that uses some kind of licensed content the app pays for.

I'm not saying I'm a fan of Netflix and Spotify, but they do use alot of money to keep their content available, and not only for server costs.

They still overcharge tho.

[-] PM_Your_Nudes_Please@lemmy.world 23 points 11 months ago

Yeah, paying for content streaming is different than simply paying for an app that runs locally. Spotify proved that people will be willing to pay for music, as long as it is easier than piracy. Netflix’s early days (when it was actually a one stop shop for all of the available content) proved the same with TV/movie streaming. They proved that piracy largely isn’t an issue with cost, but rather convenience and accessibility.

But with a local app, that all goes right out the window. There’s no reason you’d need to pay a subscription for an app that runs everything locally and only gets sporadic updates. There isn’t any licensing to worry about, or third party systems to pay off. The only reason to have the subscription in this instance is pure greed.