> I like subscriptions because, in the worst kind of corporate management speak, subscriptions align our interests. You pay for the app for the duration that you see fit.

We see the same pattern over and over again: (1) subscription service starts and operates at a loss, (2) people recognise this and sign-up, (3) the service gradually enshittifies to the point where there is no real value propisition, (4) company banks on having enough customers from 1 and 2 that enough people will put up with 3 that they can remain profitable.

How does this align with my interests?

▲

Brendinooo 2 hours ago | parent [-]

I think you're overgeneralizing.

I subscribe to a couple of apps (OnX, Strong) and some news sites (Tangle, local sports site); as far as I know none of them started on 1, and 3 hasn't happened yet for any of them. They all provide services that I think are valuable, at a fair price - a price that, as far as I can recall, hasn't changed for any of them in the 4-6 years I've been a subscriber.

▲

ok123456 2 hours ago | parent [-]

Strong appears to be a fitness tracker. It's in competition with a spreadsheet.

OnX appears to be heatmaps as a service for outdoor recreation. They have to cover their opex costs.

These are not the subscriptions people have in mind when they say they hate the subscription model. People dislike obvious rent-seeking behavior; they really dislike it when there is no technical reason something can't be sold to them in a one-time transaction; and they hate it when a product that was offered as a permanent one-time purchase is then only available as a subscription service.

▲

Brendinooo an hour ago | parent | next [-]

> It's in competition with a spreadsheet.

I mean, I guess in the sense that any software that stores data is in competition with a spreadsheet? It's in competition with pencil and paper too. And if those things work for you, great!

The app runs on my watch, which tracks my heart rate through the workout and ultimately passes data to Apple's Health stuff. It syncs the workout to my phone so I can more easily input data. It keeps a database of exercises with video instructions (WAY better than trying to run down stuff via search or YouTube), keeps track of my history and records per-exercise, as well as doing one-rep max calculations. It has built in timers and a bunch of little conveniences that make it easy to log weighted exercises.

If you don't see value in that, that's fine, but it's hardly a grift, especially when the cost is just $2.50 a month.

>These are not the subscriptions people have in mind when they say they hate the subscription model.

Right. This why I replied saying that I think you're overgeneralizing, and why I provided examples of subscriptions that are eminently reasonable and in the spirit of the post we're commenting on ("talented individuals work hard on making great software like craftsmen, and they just get paid for it." - though I'll admit I don't know the size of the team that make Strong, they're certainly not Adobe-sized).

▲

cogman10 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Strong is exactly the type of subscription that I hate. This is the sort of app that can be "complete". It doesn't need any sort of backend and doesn't have any sort of real operating expenses. So why is there a subscription? This is exactly the sort of app that should have a single $10 purchase.

About the only argument for it having a subscription of any sort is the devs have to cover the BS from apple/google (mostly google) who don't believe in backwards compatibility.

▲

Brendinooo an hour ago | parent [-]

> It doesn't need any sort of backend

It's far down the list as to why I decided to subscribe, but I do like the idea that if I lose my phone, my data won't be lost forever.

>This is exactly the sort of app that should have a single $10 purchase.

If you cloned the app and offered it as a one-time $10 charge, I'd be interested in that for sure!

> So why is there a subscription?

Recently they pushed out some updates that made the Watch experience a lot better. If you were the developer, would you have delivered that to $10 one-time purchasers for free, or would you have charged for a major version bump that had the feature?

▲

cogman10 an hour ago | parent [-]

> It's far down the list as to why I decided to subscribe, but I do like the idea that if I lose my phone, my data won't be lost forever.

You can pay for backup services with both google and apple. There's really no reason that data should be lost forever assuming the app stores data using that service. $7 a month gives you the ability to backup 1000s of apps worth of data.

> Recently they pushed out some updates that made the Watch experience a lot better. If you were the developer, would you have delivered that to $10 one-time purchasers for free, or would you have charged for a major version bump that had the feature?

This is a tricky thing. Sort of depends on where sales are currently at. I somewhat view this as the software not being complete before it was sold.

It'd be up to the dev if they wanted to run a new rev of pull out some good will to hopefully sell more apps. I'd assume you wouldn't make a new major version just for better watch integration. But then, there is the case of EA sports whose entire business model is releasing the same game with only roster and game player updates.

	▲	Brendinooo an hour ago \| parent [-]
		>You can pay for backup services with both google and apple. I could, but I don't because (for more broad reasons beyond of this particular app) I don't want my data storage to dictate what software and hardware I use. And yeah, thoughtful reply to the other point. There are a few options, each with their pros and cons. I was a happy customer before the Watch integration was good, and it's nice to see genuinely new stuff land on an update. That's the perk of the subscription model, especially when I'm getting more for the same price. Which...well, we all rightly get mad when we get the same or less for a higher price!