Maintaining an app isn't free. You let it sit stale for a year or 2 and you'll get kicked from the App Store for non-compliance.

Not to mention the developer account subscription is $99/year

▲

joenot443 24 minutes ago | parent | next [-]

I’ve been at it over a decade now and still found the only reliable way to make money from offline App Store apps is good old fashioned paid apps, $2.99 being a nice sweet-spot.

If you had customers buying last year, it’s likely you’ll have even more customers buying next year. If you stop maintaining your app, that stream of new sales almost immediately dries up.

Offline mobile apps which charge a subscription are a very silly fad to me. The few that get away with it are being steadily edged out by someone else who wants to eat their lunch.

I love the OP’s idea and absolutely see the use case. I also think it’s very promptable. My unsolicited advice is to strike while the iron’s hot at $0.99, because I’d be very skeptical if they’ll attract enough subscribers before getting starved out by copycats.

▲

cush 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

This is hardly convincing. A $99/yr fee and a once every 2 years update doesn't warrant a monthly subscription fee from every user. Eg a $9.99 app could cover those costs with a few dozen downloads

▲

anigbrowl 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

OK? That's just the reality of business. You launch something and then need to do marketing to keep getting it in front of people until word spreads around that your app is a must-have thing for whatever it does and you get a decent number of sales every month.

In general, when I buy something I want to pay for it once and then have it. I don't want to rent or lease it, even if it's consumable. When I eat a restaurant I I pay for the meal when it's over; if it was delicious I might come back again. Even if I like it so much that I eat there every week, that doesn't mean I want a weekly subscription.

▲

hbn 2 hours ago | parent [-]

You're using a device with an ever-evolving OS that constantly breaks compatibility.

If you paid for it once and only got to keep the version of it as of when you paid for it, in a couple years the platform would remove your ability to use it.

▲

shibapuppie an hour ago | parent [-]

That's their problem, not yours.

	▲	dudu24 42 minutes ago \| parent \| next [-]
		Even when you paid for software in the Good Old Days it was guaranteed to be compatible with ONE version of your OS, e.g. Windows 95. When you upgraded Windows, you'd often need to buy a new edition.
	▲	ashdksnndck 38 minutes ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		If charging for a subscription causes the business to fail it’s their problem. Alternatively it could be what allows them to make a living.

▲

bryceacc 11 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-]

demonstrably incorrect, it is very easy to find apps with "last updated" dates 2+ years ago. Paid example:

https://apps.apple.com/us/app/a-dark-room/id736683061

▲

prmoustache 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

users don't need the app to be maintained, just installed once.

	▲	hbn 2 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Yes they do need it to be maintained because they update their phone and any apps that don't keep up can no longer be used unless the dev does more work.

▲

dawnerd an hour ago | parent | prev [-]

What’s their LLM sub cost? That’s the ongoing cost plus App Store fee. Some expensive sub to save photos is just dumb.