> For an app like this, I think that’s a reasonable price.

Except that it’s not a price, it’s an access fee, and those are very different. If it were a price I’d have the thing I paid for — a binary to use as a like. Instead what I have is a token that you can revoke at any time for any reason, including you getting hit by a car or getting bored with the app.

> a low-cost subscription sets a clearer expectation that the app will continue to be maintained …

Forgive the bluntness, but it does no such thing. This app just launched. No one has reason to believe the little business behind it will still exist in 12 months. Death rate for products like this is very high. A subscription from me is a bet that you will still be around in a year, and you have zero track record.

I've taken the feedback here and added a perpetual personal license for 2 devices at $40 - it includes 2 years of updates and the app will keep on working after that.

I just hate managing subscriptions.

If you gave me the option to require manual subscription renewal, rather than auto-renewal, I would 100% buy this right now. Basically allow me to purchase for 1 year then click a button to confirm that I'm still getting value out of the product. If I don't click that button then you should assume I'm no longer interested and cancel my subscription.

(I don't like using my mac but sometimes I have to use it for work, and I wish I had this.)

Consumer purchase behavior is highly impulsive and irrational. Businesses are very rational and like subs, but for many people, subscription fatigue is a real thing. Make the lifetime option 3-10x the annual rate; done. People will buy it. In my app I set it at 3x (but my annual sub is quite high; 6/mo, 30/y or 100 lifetime) but other apps, like Halide, have 12/y or 80 lifetime last I checked.

You get guaranteed revenue, and you get it upfront - better for cashflow. And you can always tell customers “if you don’t like subs buy the lifetime option”.

This is correct. It’s quite possible to both satisfy more customers and work within your constraints.

Eg $30 bucks lifetime would be nice. You could put it in small print below the main pricing to avoid decision fatigue and keep things streamlined for subs.

Often those early adopters appreciate and become advocates. Subs fatigue is a real thing

A lot of consumer spending comes from motivation. Purchase intents come in burts, an "alright I'm gonna commit, I'm gonna do this" moment. As a consumer app developer, you really need to understand that. Some of your users might use your annual sub for five years, some only for one, some for two. If your average lifetime is 2.5 years, a lifetime price that's 3x the sub price gives you more revenue - and revenue upfront - than a sub. Subs are fantastic because they give you predictable recurring revenue, which is worth a lot in the long run (which is why Wikipedia prefers monthly donations instead of larger one-time sums, for example), but if you're getting started, cash flow is everything.

Consider how much software and goods you bought that you thought you were gonna use but then never touched. The $1000 music software bundle from Native Instruments you bought because you thought it would finally bring you to make music? That guitar you bought because you really thought you'd play it? The home gym equipment so you'd finally do some sports? These purchases came from a commitment "I'm gonna do it", and statistically speaking, most people don't follow through with this commitment. A monthly payment for these things would've been much, much cheaper for them. "Oh, but if I own it I can always pick it up again", you say? Who's stopping you from resubscribing if you want to? It's purely emotional.

There are tons of books on purchase psychology; this applies all the way to owning vs renting a flat.

The mistake many developers make is not factoring in how highly people value perceived security of one-time purchases. Offer a lifetime option, and price it accordingly. It's much easier to upsell people while they already have a purchase intent than to resell them your app every year when the new subscription bill comes in. Even if, statistically speaking, it would be much cheaper for most of your users to choose the annual subscription, you will end up with happier users if you offer an expensive lifetime option, and you will end up with more cash in your company. Everyone wins.

For a tool people come to depend on for their daily computing needs, this is wildly pessimistic. Look how many people use Unix shell tools on a daily basis. Some of that stuff is 60 years old! Imagine paying a subscription for 60 years to use bash.

Low cost subscriptions as the only options can also give multiple vibes as well. The one you highighlight is, a somewhat optimistic, "the publisher is fair with this price and I only need to pay for however much I actually use".

Another valid takeaway is basically the opposite "It's not clear if the publisher is committed to this software. The price is so low and the best guarantee they want to give is it'll be supported 1 year from now - are they really confident in the product"? Worse yet, you don't give any guarantees about price more than an hour out in your current subscription, so the pessimistic thought could just be "It's fair enough now but do I really want to get used to it for a year and then the price is jacked up by then?" (this can be solved with more than a non-subscription option. E.g. longer term subscriptions, only if you truly are trying to advertise "years of support to come" rather than "support for the next year and then we'll see").

Even in the case one wants to start/stick with the subscription having a lifetime and/or versioned option only adds more to all of the things you listed as reasons for offering a subscription alone. E.g. seeing that "lifetime is equal to at least x years" or "y year term subscription" and then the user going with the 1 year subscription is strictly better signaling to them than just having a 1 year subscription.