Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
New Mac App Subscription Service 'Setapp' Offers 60 Mac Apps for $9.99 Per Month
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Good list. Also Arq, Dash, Remote Buddy and Affinity Designer. They already have Rapid Waever.
So basically, pay for one month, then purchase the apps that you do want to use separately?
As much as I loathe the costs of these such subscription plans, working out the math... it does seem to make sense.
Biggest example is the iOS App Store
I'm told that when the iOS App Store was first introduced, apps costing $10 to $25 was the norm. But at some point, we got to a "race to the bottom" scenario where both sides... devs and consumers were to blame. The devs were undercutting each other to unsustainability, while the consumers weren't aware what they were getting themselves into. What did they get themselves into, that they're not complaining en force? Freemium/"free to play" games where pay walls for time meters and in-game currency now reign supreme. Yes, there are still plenty of premium games, but they're the minority.
Somebody from a podcast mentioned that there generally isn't a culture for paying for things on iOS. He is of the opinion that if you're going to make an app, it needs to have a subscription model to be able to sustain itself. Free updates and content was just plain bad.
======================
However, these bundles do need to offer value. One example I can think of is one I wrestled with last year... Microsoft Office or alternative?
Alternatives include OpenOffice, WPS Office, or Libre Office.
My minimal experiences with Open Office was it was rather bare bones. I don't write super scripts, but there were still things that felt lacking, but this was over a decade ago, so perhaps it is better now. For WPS Office, it's freeware if you can stand to miss out on saving "x" extension files (e.g. docx vs. doc) and don't care about macros, but $2.9 per month for "premium" features. I'll leave out privacy issues being it's made by a Chinese company. Libre Office probably would've been my choice if I gone done this road given what I've heard and read from reviews and word-of-mouth.
However, I ended up getting M$ Office 2016. The subscription wouldn't have been THAT bad, as the OneDrive access, constant updates, and full suite sounded nice. However, when I found out the M$ Home Use Program allowed me to get Office, Visio, and Project for $10 apiece.... SOLD!! Otherwise, I could stand to do a one time payment of $100 something dollars.
You still didn't answer my question... I want to know what's wrong with using CMM... Genuinely curious as to why I should not be using it.
Comments from Apple's Support Site Forum about CMM: https://discussions.apple.com/thread/5672608?tstart=0
Actually? No, I did a google search for CMM reviews and the first 2 pages were ALL positive. There were notes that at one time, CMM was a little haphazard in the files it was deleting. But within the last year, the newer V2 of CMM and CMM V3 have both gotten very good reviews. These sites included Macworld, Appleinsider, and thehightechsociety. Nothing I have found had a bad review.
I checked it out and installed it during the early release. To me, these all seemed like apps that you can find in $50 or pay-what-you-want bundles. Not that this is bad, but it is for $9.99 where you can get 2 or 3 bundles covering pretty much all of those apps, and more. There is just no long term value in $120 year over year where in the end, you own nothing. There is nothing premium in there to create value: Anything from Omni, MacPhun photo apps (Pro versions), Parallels/VMWare, stuff from Panic, Audio Hijack, Fantastical, etc...
You seem like one of the guys working on this product, so I'd love to understand a few things a little better. Wanted to start out saying that your website is very well done. Clearly a bit of time has gone into it, not to mention the amount of time it must have taken to get each of the current developers on board.
I'm honestly curious what the driving force or inspiration for this service was? Was it simply the plight of the indie developer? A noble cause for sure. The quality of the apps out there for Mac is really impressive. It's kind of a shame that Apple doesn't do more to reward those developers directly, given how much they add to the ecosystem.
Your product (I'm assuming you're a principal in the business) and approach has taken quite a bit of criticism here. I'd love to hear your thoughts on the subscription model of software licensing generally. Why did you go that route? Do you have a sense that it solves a problem that *users* had, as opposed to developers. I mean, I understand how your service helps devs reach more users and generate more reliable revenue but it's hard to see what problem it solves for users. I know you've said you curate the apps, but as a relative newcomer to Macs getting solid info and app recommendations has been incredibly easy for me. So beyond curation, what else does the service do for users? The obvious might be lower their software acquisition, err usage, costs but it's really hard to imagine someone buying enough of these apps to even make a year or two subscription make sense.
I also have one question about the service -- are developers allowed to withdraw their apps from your site? Would paying users of your service lose access to that app in that case? (Of course they could cancel their membership at that point, but might be frustrating for them.)
Kind or ironic Focused is singled out as an example in this story. This app used to be great, when Realmac released it, but it changed ownership twice. They still use the Realmac-screenshots to promote it, but it doesn't look like that anymore. Fonts are different, Markdown symbols aren't greyed out all the time...
Which is quite sad when you think about it. How do we keep up a progress in software development and keep people motivated if people only spend $9.99 on anything in two years?
(I'm not blaming you btw... just pointing out the sad state of affairs. Prehaps no one has made anything you feel is worth buying, which is a fair point).
Contrary to iOS apps where there's a race to the bottom, MacOS apps seem to be racing to the top, with a never-ending supply of "beautiful and distraction-free" writing apps for $49 a piece.
I feel that SetApp or the involved partners kind of know that these apps are nowhere near worth that much in any way, so they're trying to bundle it all up to make it appear cheap.
I feel that SetApp or the involved partners kind of know that these apps are nowhere near worth that much in any way, so they're trying to bundle it all up to make it appear cheap.
Some of the apps they offer haven't been updated in years. Some of them are so techy that the average consumer won't use them, but they aren't techy enough for pro users either.
And finally, unless you are a pro user who can justify the cost with an ROI, you simply aren't going to pay subscription fees for apps (barring any music/video services). Especially 2nd-tier apps like the ones offered.
This looks like a cool service, and I wish them all the luck. But I see this getting sunsetted in as little as 18-24 months.
And finally, unless you are a pro user who can justify the cost with an ROI, you simply aren't going to pay subscription fees for apps (barring any music/video services). Especially 2nd-tier apps like the ones offered.
This looks like a cool service, and I wish them all the luck. But I see this getting sunsetted in as little as 18-24 months.
That's one of the challenges in a subscription model - how do you get the really popular offerings included in your product. The problem is popular apps are probably already drawing enough buyers so the developers see no reason to cut into purchases by offering it up as part of a subscription bundle; meanwhile developers whose apps are no longer selling well may be willing to try a subscription models to open up a new revenue stream.
I would not call all of their apps second rate. Capto is nice and Rapidweaver a decent web site tool; some of the others such as Pagico I have used but found not what I needed. Most of the apps seem to appear in bundles as well so it's not so hard to get them relatively cheap anyway; others are not that expensive to buy outright. In other cases I have alternative apps that I find more useful, such as Scrivener for writing. As a result, SetApp is not a product I find appealing.
Last edited:
Its an interesting concept but when Adobe or Microsoft gives you a $10 subscription its on apps that cost like $400 which get major upgrades like every 3 years. You also use those apps to create professional work which makes you thousands of dollars.
Apps like FTP, CleanMyMac, and picture viewers you can buy them all outright for like $20.
I understand that developers keep working and want a continuos stream of income and therefor I believe that a $5 upgrade yearly per app is reasonable. If you have 50k paying customers * $5 yearly =$250,000 . Not bad, is it?
Apps like FTP, CleanMyMac, and picture viewers you can buy them all outright for like $20.
I understand that developers keep working and want a continuos stream of income and therefor I believe that a $5 upgrade yearly per app is reasonable. If you have 50k paying customers * $5 yearly =$250,000 . Not bad, is it?
That's simply not true: Ulysses, Marked, TaskPaper, Aeon Timeline are all highly respected programs and are good candidates for best in their class.
I won't be subscribing, because I already have licences for three of these, but if I didn't, I'd be considering it.
If they can add Scrivener, Tinderbox and Devonthink, then I'd be really interested - a single small subscription to keep perpetually up to date in the 7 programs I use most strikes me as a good deal.
Well, another issue is if they CAN get them on board, they're either going to want a larger cut, SetUp will have to up their monthly subscription fee (e.g. I've had folks at an all-you-can-eat buffet say that for $10, it's nice, but they'd like to have better selection of sushi, and have stuff like lobster and steak. I've said they could do that, but I'm sure they couldn't keep the $10 price, and would have to up it to $15, $20, or even beyond, to which they say.. "never mind").
They probably may not appreciate that they're subsidizing all the other developers!
People keep saying "the number of apps" is too low. I too would look at the "quality of apps", and generally what's useful to you. Hopefully people here don't just look at quantity, as if they did, I'd wonder why they switched to Mac OS in the first place when Windows clearly has far more apps :what:
I was less than pleased when Adobe decided to use the subscription scheme. Even less so now that Apple is venturing into it.
There are those who can benefit in paying for use through subscription. In example, Adobe Photoshop is an expensive program and proved all the more so for those who wished to keep always up to date with it. Thus paying for it or other related Adobe products through subscription could make sense for them.
However there were more than a few professionals who were more than content with the version they had bought and paid for in full, seeing no need to upgrade except perhaps occasionally. Adobe didn't like that, but we did. For those the only thing subscription meant was either forking over more money they saw no need to expend to Adobe, or look for lesser alternatives.
That is the difference. If as now with Apple one has the choice of what works best for oneself, subscription or full payment and done, then the option is a benefit. But the moment it becomes subscription or nothing then you know where their priorities lie—and they are not with you the customer.
There are those who can benefit in paying for use through subscription. In example, Adobe Photoshop is an expensive program and proved all the more so for those who wished to keep always up to date with it. Thus paying for it or other related Adobe products through subscription could make sense for them.
However there were more than a few professionals who were more than content with the version they had bought and paid for in full, seeing no need to upgrade except perhaps occasionally. Adobe didn't like that, but we did. For those the only thing subscription meant was either forking over more money they saw no need to expend to Adobe, or look for lesser alternatives.
That is the difference. If as now with Apple one has the choice of what works best for oneself, subscription or full payment and done, then the option is a benefit. But the moment it becomes subscription or nothing then you know where their priorities lie—and they are not with you the customer.
They haven't los anything - if it was doing what they needed when they bought it then it should still meet those need. Keep using the same configuration and you retain the same functionality. Now if their needs change then they have to make a choice.
While I like having two options going subscription is not necessarily anti-consumer. What we are seeing is a resistance to change rather than looking at the net impact of the change; a natural human reaction. Ultimately, consumers have the choice of buying a subscription product or a competing one purchased outright. What they chose will ultimately decide how products are sold.