296

Apps that shouldn't be Subscriptions (discuss.tchncs.de)

submitted 2 years ago by kirk782@discuss.tchncs.de to c/piracy@lemmy.dbzer0.com

167 comments fedilink hide all child comments

What is the most useless app that you have seen being given as a subscription?

For me, I tried a 'minimalist' launcher app for Android that had a 7 day trial or something and they had a yearly subscription based model for it. I was aghast. I would literally expect the app to blow my mind and do everything one can assume to go that way. In a world, where Nova Launcher (Yes, I know it has been acquired by Branch folks but it still is a sturdy one) or Niagara exist plus many alternatives including minimalist ones on F Droid, the dev must be releasing revolutionary stuff to factor in a subscription service.

Second, is a controversial choice, since it's free tier is quite good and people like it so much. But, Pocketcasts. I checked it's yearly price the other day, and boy, in my country, I can subscribe to Google Play Pass, YouTube Premium and Spotify and still have money left before I hit the ceiling what Pocketcasts is asking for paid upgrade.

Also, what are your views on one time purchase vs subscriptions? Personally, I find it much easier to purchase, if it's good enough even if it was piratable, something if it is a one time purchase rather than repetitive.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[-] Zikeji@programming.dev 115 points 2 years ago

Disagreed. If it requires a server side element, it incurs an ongoing cost and a subscription can be justified. And to clarify, by "requires", I'm referring to the functionality, not having it shoveled in. And the price should be realistic.

Some apps do this well, Sleep for Android is an example that comes to mind. Free with ads, ad-free is an inexpensive one time purchase. You can also purchase additional plugin apps that add functionality that isn't required or even useful for most people. And finally, they have a cloud plugin app to let you backup your data, you can pay for their cloud subscription which is $2.99 a year, but you can also just use other cloud for storage like Google drive.

[-] tsonfeir@lemm.ee 43 points 2 years ago

But if the server side element is just cloud storage, you should be able to supply your own server.

[-] WhatAmLemmy@lemmy.world 24 points 2 years ago

Then the dev needs to build out a range of protocols and API's to enable users to "supply their own server", which can bring a range of additional headaches, like having to provide support for external dependencies outside their control, etc.

What if the users "server" fails? Should the dev waste hours of their life assisting a user with a highly specific Google Drive issue when they spent $5, 3 years ago?

[-] tsonfeir@lemm.ee 26 points 2 years ago

I mean, there are pretty standard protocols for most of the cloud services, like S3 API - the defacto.

Hell, sftp is fine for most stuff. They just want your data.

But the developer doesn’t need to provide support if you opt to use your own data storage and the storage itself fails. And

Google would be the one to contact if Google drive has an issue.

[-] ShrimpsIsBugs@programming.dev 13 points 2 years ago

But the developer doesn’t need to provide support if you opt to use your own data storage and the storage itself fails. Google would be the one to contact if Google drive has an issue.

Well yes, but that's not how your average user thinks and acts. They will either a) contact you as the developer of the app that doesn't seem to work and when your say it's not your fault give you bad reviews or b) directly give you bad reviews.

[-] Chriswild@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago

If you're developing an app that has you provide your own backend then I don't think you'll be getting many average users.

You could also hide it in advanced settings to weed out those unwilling to learn and offer users a fee to use your server.

Ultimately the only reason I can think of not wanting people to self host is because you want to make money off having people's data.

[-] operetingushisutemu@feddit.de 6 points 2 years ago

The average user doesn't work like that, also an average user does not always think he is average. There are many people thinking they are advanced, because they know where settings in Windows or Android are located. You will probably get bad reviews then emails, because quote "your app doesn't work". This comment is based on real experiences with Google Play Store and its users, thinking they know what they do.

[-] iopq@lemmy.world 4 points 2 years ago

I'm not putting my data up some random server run by some dev

[-] WhatAmLemmy@lemmy.world 11 points 2 years ago

Your commenting here is evidence to the contrary

[-] iopq@lemmy.world 5 points 2 years ago

That's my public posts, not my private data.

[-] MonkderZweite@feddit.ch 4 points 2 years ago

If it requires a server side element, it incurs an ongoing cost and a subscription can be justified.

But why do that?

[-] MonkderZweite@feddit.ch 3 points 2 years ago

Downvote instead of answer, nice.

[-] operetingushisutemu@feddit.de 4 points 2 years ago

I think people don't understand your question, or think it might be sarcastic. So to answer your question: server storage and computation power costs money. Depending on how your app's backend works, this can be cheap or very, very expensive, paid monthly or yearly. It also needs to scale with the number of your clients actively using the backend. Some of us just sit on the costs to give its users a free and ad-less experience with more functions without taking any money (by the thought "I pay for this server anyways, so why not share it"). But it costs me more, if I have more active users and I have to actively compensate this.

But there are also some greedy bastards, taking much more thinking to get rich with a single app (actually met one of this devs)