fully agreed. The subscription model works for something we need regularly and constantly, like gas, electricity, water, mobile services. For some utility apps like notes taking, vector graphic design apps, we only use it once a while, it's hard to justify the monthly subscription.
The app won't need to be updated if they finished it before launch. The problem is most apps aren't finished before launch. Eventually, they get tired of fixing their app and either lock future updates behind version upgrades or they tack on a subscription.
I see no issue here. You sell a license, you do bugfixes and minor features for as long as the cash collected allows and then come up with major features and sell the upgrade to stay alive. The user does not want those features? All right, user stays on the old version, it will still work for a couple of years. Then repeat again.
Printer companies make money selling you toner or ink cartridges for years and years.
Well... farmers have been able to manage these fluctuations in cash/value flow for millennia!
Are you kidding me? Farmers operate in a protected and subsidized markets. Look at milk as an example. The price of milk is set by Governments and closer to the farms by the region's dairy board. The dairy board even tells farmers to throw their milk away because the board cannot get the highest price if there is too much coming to market. No wonder the cows are happy, they have a monopoly! And this monopoly is protected by the Government.
No I’m not... Of course I can see from their (and the shareholders) point of view that a continuous cashflow is more fun, but they got by with the previous business model for decades. And wasn't talking about cows. I was talking about farmers who for millennia have had to save and eat the yearly harvest slowly, knowing that it should last for a whole year. It's called making a budget.
Good point. I took the first example out of the blue. But let's say a smartphone. A smartphone maker is just selling you the gadget and supports its updates for next 2-3 years. You want news OS features - you have to buy new one or if you are fine you just continue using your own thing for free.
Ummm... nope? Runs just fine.
That shows a fundamental misunderstanding of how software works in a modern ecosystem. It's never "done". It can be rendered inoperable at any moment by an operating system change. Updates are a necessity. And frankly, you should want developers to be successful and motivated.
Actually its the other way around. Microsoft Office or Photoshop, for example, used to be really expensive. Now you can use it when you need it and drop it... saving a ton of money.
And that shows a fundamental misunderstanding of how society works in a modern ecosystem. People want what they paid for. They should do the job because the work is rewarding, not because they can milk more revenue out of it. That’s what people tell other professions, so what makes people who play on their computers all day any different? Maybe an OS update rendered it inoperable. Or maybe they added a little line of code that intentionally adds issues as the OS version number increases. There is no oversight to be sure the code isn’t sabotaged so what, we should take the word of someone who couldn’t even perform a normal transaction that it’s not? Shesh. Let’s not pretend software programmers have some sort of intrinsic moral code. Especially not the ones asking you to subscribe to an app that draws lines.
As both a developer and an end user: I can honestly say that both points are utter BS invented by marketers. Developers (like producers in most other industries) should price their products fairly, and end users should not expect to receive updates beyond any version they've purchased. If 1.0 meets my needs, I'm under no obligation to fund a developer's dreams of a 2.0 release. If 2.0 looks good, though, I'll probably pay for it, too.
Well a very old sight of things ... what’s wrong giving people who produce products you like in a more stable manner.