I dislike subscriptions to apps[0] because:
1. If I ever stop paying, I get nothing, no matter how much I've spent on the software over the years.
2. It shifts a lot of the risk of developing the new version onto the customer. I'm paying in advance for the next version, instead of being told what the features are and being able to make an informed decision. If I hate the new version, see (1).
3. It's more winner-take-all. If I'm spending $Y/mo on an app, that's $Y/mo I'm not spreading around to other apps. All-in-all, it feels like a clear win for the developers that 'win', but it feels lose-lose to me as a customer. I get all the joy of (1) and (2), but also I get less variety, both in my own purchases, and probably in available choices in the long run.
[0] - To be clear, I'm talking applications which require subscriptions for basic functionality, 'extra' functionality that was clearly removed to push subscriptions, or include useless tacked-on functionality like cloud storage (also clearly to justify a subscription). I'm not talking about apps for which there are recurring costs associated with my continued use of the app.
Edit: An addendum: I also like that I don't have a contract that explicitly states what I'm getting for my money each month. Usually it's just access to the app. Then they'll have language about how the subscription allows them to work on new features, offer support, etc. But they're not contractually obligated to provide me with any of that. (I don't have any levers at all, except not giving them more money, which doesn't help much.)
The Zune music service actually had a great fix for this: every month they allowed you to download a couple DRM-free tracks that you could keep forever. So if you ever cancelled, at least you had those tracks.
That was nice, but at the same time I disagree that when you stop the service you are left with nothing. In fact, what you got was access to the service. If I ever stop paying for Spotify, I'm left with nothing... except for all the hours I spent listening to and enjoying music on Spotify without ads. Isn't that something?
If I pay for a year, I get to keep access to that version.
Regarding Spotify, for Spotify, while yes they have an app, you're mainly for the music streaming from the service. They mention that subscription to services are fine.
Spotify the Application, is just the means of accessing Spotify the Service. It provides me with cheap access to a library of data that I don’t otherwise possess.
By way of analogy, I understand why I have to pay for a magazine subscription: they send me information on pieces of paper every month and that has a cost. But I wouldn’t pay a monthly fee to the manufacturer of my toaster. Whether I toast a thousand slices or let the toaster collect dust on the counter, the manufacturer incurs no additional cost. Leasing a toaster would be absurd, but that’s the expectation some developers of pretty basic applications expect.
One of the related posters mentioned JetBrains. I agree JetBrains get it right. You get to keep your toaster when you unsubscribe. If you stay subscribed you get the latest toaster if that’s what you want. And the incentives and risk are on them to make sure they make the next model toaster compelling.
That’s exactly apps likes Spotify. They restrict downloading, skipping, and bitrate unless you pay for premium, which I would say is basic functionality. You get access to the music whether you pay or not. I’m not paying for the music, I’m paying to skip ads and download to play offline.
You're taking that statement out of the context of the post in which I said it. I began my post with "Subscriptions to services are fine." Everything in the post after that, including that quote, is specifically and explicitly not talking about services like Spotify.
Spotify is different. With Spotify, when I stop paying for Spotify I still get to listen to the music. But I lose the basic functionality of the app, like the ability to save songs to disk, or to skip tracks. To me, this seems like the exact model you're saying is bad. They have removed basic functionality in order to push a subscription.
My footnote is not part of my argument. It's only meant as a clarification for which types of applications (not services) I'm discussing. You also mistake what I mean by 'basic functionality'. I maybe should have said required functionality. Spotify is perfectly usable without download, skip, or bitrate. Instead, I'm talking about applications like an RSS reader (again, an application only, not an online service) that will only show you sample feeds if you're not subscribed.
By way of examples, something like a weather application or access to content. Weather data is, at least until the end of humanity's existence on Earth, ever-changing and in need of update.
> Why are subscriptions bad and what would your solution to this be?
Because I do not want to wind up in a situation where an app developer suddenly turns on subscriptions and hides features of an app behind it, on the back of an opaque update. Plus, for most apps I am quite happy to pay for a particular version and be done. (I have no problem with paying for applications.) I want the finality of the transaction, that I've given my $5 or $10 or $20 or what-have-you a single time and our business is done. Application makers have done this since time immemorial, sometimes releasing complimentary bug fixes, other times not.
I just don't like the idea that in order to retain access to a program that does all of its work on my device, I have to keep paying rent for it. Like the app at issue here, where it was doing what the user wanted and then poof, a change that cannot be reversed.
I also understand that the current model on the app stores is not conducive to one-and-done application purchase transactions. Apple doesn't make it easy to do upgrade-by-version pricing, for example. In-app purchases are available, but they're not (by default, or nearly as widely) sharable on the family-level like outright purchases are.
> What does count as "a lot of back-end work" that's valuable to you?
Perhaps functionality that's not easily recreated using built in tools like shortcuts ?
In the case of the app in question, a simple shortcut in the shortcuts app or in i.e. Pythonista that adds a record to a spreadsheet, or even directly to a .csv file, would take <1 hour to write.
Another example is apps that provide some kind of backend. Of course keeping infrastructure running is not free. For the app in question it's not providing that.
Overcast handles a full index of pretty much all podcasts, with specific metadata. For example, it learns how often a podcast updates. Is it a weekly show? If so, what day does it come out on? etc.
Just the part where it syncs where I am in each episode is just a bonus, I'm happy to pay for the feed database.
What does count as "a lot of back-end work" that's valuable to you?
> I know that developers need to earn a living but I'm not willing to sustain it on the back of 10 or 20 or 30 "low annual price of just $9 or $15 or $25 or $49 per year!" subscriptions
Why are subscriptions bad and what would your solution to this be?