Personally, for smaller developers, I attribute this more to ignorance than malice (greed). Pricing is hard so they just look around and pick what they see happening around them without taking a moment even to think, forget about doing actual research.
people (including me) complain about apple taking a 30% cut from developers, but for that money, they do make that part easy.
The alternative is charging to write software, which is actually how most people (employees) make money writing software. Corporations take advantage of the difference between paying people to write software, and charging people over and over again to use the same software that has already been written.
Putting on my Older Person hat for a moment, software from indie publishers used to cost in the ballpark of $40 in the late 1980s (that's ~$100 in 2024 dollars after adjusting for inflation). $100 for a single version of a single app. When the next point release comes out, the publisher might give you a discount of 50%, so it might only cost you $50. A major release was often required for compatibility with a new OS version.
All the software we used back in the day? We spent significant money on it.
Do you think apps like these pomodoro apps would sell in sustainable quantities if it were $100 for major releases and $50 for point releases? What if it were $100 to get the current version every time iOS did a major version upgrade?
Or is it more likely that these apps would simply not exist?
People say they want one-time purchases, but the small $ subscriptions are more consumer-friendly than is immediately apparent. And they support a vastly more comprehensive software ecosystem.
Why go that far back? The average computer back then cost thousands of dollars, much more than what an iPhone costs now in inflation-adjusted terms. The App Store is not a new invention, it's been around since 2008, and for year apps were sold for a flat one-time fee.
The reason everything is a subscription now is because accountants decided that recurring revenue was how every startup should be valued, and every vendor adjusted their pricing structure accordingly.
(The example of the Pomodoro app with the subscription is pretty dubious, though.)
Because this is the era before really any major software was sold by subscription. Even 2008 was a hybrid era where some Web software was already subscription-based. Consumer behavior had already started to shift by 2008.
> for year apps were sold for a flat one-time fee.
This model also makes a lot of assumptions about where user data is stored and who is paying for that storage. Many apps have non-trivial backend requirements to support very normal use cases like "I also would like to access this from a Web browser sometimes." Those requirements cost money on an ongoing basis. One-time purchases are not a good fit for this either. We do not see many one-time purchases of Web software; many mobile apps are essentially parts of a larger whole that includes other modes of access to underlying services.
The thing is, all software constantly needs new updates. If not platform-driven, then security, bug fixes, etc.
The more niche (like a pomodoro app), the fewer users over which to amortize the dev costs. A lifetime fee of $1, sold to a huge audience of 100k paid users, will pay for ~1 year of a single dev in the US, perhaps 2-3 years of a developer in a low-cost country. And then where does the money come from for updates in year 4 and beyond?
Subscription payments recognize the realities that a) development never ends for most apps that are in use and b) developers are not going to be free in the future just because the publisher only charged once.
I challenge you to demonstrate the Pomodoro app that has a full time dev effort for a year, and then requires anything more than piecemeal bug fixes or maybe a recompile in that four years of support...
You have already been paid everything you will ever get paid for work you did in 2021. Next year, I want you to do an unpredictable amount of work to support the 2025 iOS. How much will you charge me? Where will I get the money to pay you? Why would I spend it on this instead of something else where I might see a return?
Similarly, in the 1990s, things like Myst and Sim City 2000 were $40 each. Shareware at the time (mostly indie) were usually $20 or less; often $5, and sometimes fun/silly things like postcardware or beerware.
Whether it's ethical for developers to cater to that kind of helpless behavior is another question.
Software costs time and money. People complain that they don't want the same uninspired corporate created junk – and then they balk at paying indie developers a reasonable amount for apps.
So much work goes into this stuff! It's so tempting for indie devs to just take the high paying job, and then congrats – no more unique and interesting apps like this.
Most people don’t balk at paying fair prices for an app, but the definition has drifted so far that €7/month (€84/year) is described as “fair” for a simple timer, and that is plain absurd.
Halide goes for €69 one-time purchase, or €12,50/year. For professional software that is really well designed and is actually kept up to date. This should be the benchmark.
> People are greedy af
I hope the irony of these two statements isn't lost on you
In-App Purchases Yearly $11.99 Monthly $2.99 One Time Purchase $59.99
I see cases where it makes sense...but I also see the need for development to get paid their salery, and once you have reached all the users you can....their is no new user growth....and if your just selling based off a one time fee then that means you got very little income except the random guy who might donate, but a company shouldn't rely on donations to keep products alive.
If the thing needs updates or changes regularly say once very 6 months....due to changes in standard or just keeping things updated....this stuff costs money to keep developers paid.
My crude C program I wrote that converts an input between celcius or Fahrenheit is not really going to change. Unless I want to also support data inputs other than floating point numbers, I don't need to update or modify anything. But other stuff is more complex and might change due to standards, advancements, and the needs of the users.
On iOS, it gets even worse as there never were high prices to begin with. Which means that the OTP model was never very sustainable.
To me that's the fairest. First, it incentives them to make a good product, and keep developing it as opposed to just throwing it out there and then not updating.
And secondly it's also fair for the customer. If I don't find something useful I might stop using it after a week, but I paid the full price, same as if I found it useful for years.
> If the thing needs updates or changes regularly say once very 6 months....due to changes in standard or just keeping things updated....this stuff costs money to keep developers paid.
The problem is of course, that the industry has settled into a nash equilibrium of constantly changing things, so regular people have to continuously update software, as a way to charge rents, on top of whatever productive improvements they provide.
[0]: http://web.archive.org/web/20111130073123/http://www.filmicp...
[1]: https://www.cined.com/filmic-pro-is-joining-forces-with-bend...
[2]: https://www.theverge.com/2023/12/3/23986187/filmic-staff-lai...
They were a successful business employing 23 people after more than a decade on the one time sales model!
It's happened with so many businesses.
Maybe the solution here is to stop supporting new phones with old versions. So your app works forever but if you upgrade your phone you have to buy the software again. It's hard to find what feels fair.
In the old days, you'd buy a new version of Mac or Windows or any software that you run on it (Office, Parallels, etc.) when you wanted the new features each year.
I think Apple's App Store has a lot to do with why everything is now subscription-based. They used to offer developers a smaller Apple-commission (15%) for subscription sales instead of the typical 30% for in-app purchase sales and paid-apps.
This was great for businesses, but in my opinion, only service businesses should be subscriptions - this transition would help reduce subscription fatigue. Normal software should mostly go back to just issuing new versions each year (or whatever frequency), so that consumers re-frame the purchase cycle to something that feels more reasonable again.
In order for this to occur, however, Apple may need to adjust the App Store algorithms. If you were to launch a new app (ex. "Kino v6"), you'd start all over again from day 1 with 0 app ratings and reviews, and not rank well on any keywords nor in the top apps charts.
Some apps simply rename their app with each new version, but that introduces similar complexities, especially for users who already paid & downloaded the previous "version". So in a big way, the App Store de-incentivizes any kind of transition away from a subscription-based business model.
The "new versions" business model vs. subscription may be similar cost to consumer (it wouldn't support monthly users), but it would allow consumers to only update when their ready and could continue using an old app version (especially on older devices) as long as they'd like. If a customer really likes the software, they'd likely buy the new version to access new features & device support before too long anyhow
One way which feels fair that I have seen companies do is provide "Maintenance".
Premium paid support offerings which also includes upgrades to any versions released during your contract duration. It's enterprisey, and maybe weird for a camera app (how much support could you possibly really need?).
Thank you for the one-time purchase option. It's a win already on today's software world.