New Mac App Subscription Service 'Setapp' Offers 60 Mac Apps for $9.99 Per Month

[ackmondual]

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.

I've never really delved into PS, but I was told that people "had to update" their copies even though they were happy w/the current version? While I don't think they rendered it useless, did they play some other trick to nudge users in that direction?

On a related note, PS was quite heavily pirated when I was in school, and still was afterwards. I wonder if some of these subscription only changes (not just PS) were due to help combat that.

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.

I heard M$ was going this route with Office, but I'm pleased to see (at least last I checked months back) that you can still buy a license for a one time cost for various packages (e.g. just the bare bones, or also with PPT, or also with Access, etc.). To echo what you say, some folks find one or the other to be preferable, so good to know this is still an option.

 

[JamesPDX]

TextEdit. Watch that go to subscription.

 

[Bjango]

I've never really delved into PS, but I was told that people "had to update" their copies even though they were happy w/the current version?

Photoshop CS6 (the last version before CC) still runs today, and there’s no need to update for those who are happy with it.

I am glad Adobe has added a single app subscription price (and photography bundle).

 

[mixel]

I've never really delved into PS, but I was told that people "had to update" their copies even though they were happy w/the current version? While I don't think they rendered it useless, did they play some other trick to nudge users in that direction?

On a related note, PS was quite heavily pirated when I was in school, and still was afterwards. I wonder if some of these subscription only changes (not just PS) were due to help combat that.

I'm pretty sure it's largely an anti piracy measure, but their subs are the only way to get new features.. and now they aren't tied into a massive update a year a lot more interesting stuff is rolled in gradually.

I'm actually really happy with my adobe subscription now, as i previously ended up upgrading every year or two anyway for extra features and that was much more expensive than the sub.

The adobe sub also subsidises (and gives you access to) their mobile apps, which are often impressive. And you get cloud storage. It's a much better deal than picking and choosing - if you plan on using the various features.

 

[iMaven]

Stop with all the subscriptions! $9.99/month is too much for apps, unless it's like iTunes and all the apps are available for download and usage for as long as I want.

 

[rob_saunders]

Hmmm yeah maybe don't install this garbage. I poked around at the DRM system they're using.

This app installs a permanently-running launchd service to police its DRM, which silently chews a fair bit of CPU. Especially on my macbook 12, where I've vigilantly disabled unnecessary launchd processes, having something quietly chew 10% of cpu in the background even when I'm not even RUNNING the setapp apps, is just not good enough and never will be.

It also installs FOUR finder extensions and a finder toolbar extension, which I suppose is okay, but what's it for? Just to have a 'quicklook' feature on the app before you install it. Why add bloat to your finder, which is a workhorse you use every day?

It strikes me that the kind of user wanting to install something like this is the kind of user wanting to get away from the app store and its bloat and DRM and control. This app goes the other way, even app store apps don't do this, having some god process run just to police you and your app usage.

Please, someone follow GOG's footsteps and release actual, DRM free apps for a reasonable price, take a reasonable cut, and just be REASONABLE. Apps aren't something you want to 'rent', when they fail because you don't have internet some time you really want to do some work, you suddenly realise what a terrible situation and waste of your own time and money that this DRM nightmare we are in, is.

 

[slimothy]

The desperation is palpable. The money is not in desktop or mobile apps. It's in the enterprise. Start writing software for people who write million dollar checks, not people who want to pay $2 per app per year.
[doublepost=1485372093][/doublepost]

How are you "out 600 bucks" in that scenario? The only way you could lose that "investment" would be if you never listened to any music during the period where you spent that $600.

Not accurate. In subscription models for Spotify for example, if you stop paying, you leave with nothing. Sure you got to listen to the music "ad free" a few times. But if you buy the music you get it forever. Or just use Spotify Free forever, and mute the ads lol. Subscription models like that are huge wastes. Just like this Mac App Store sub model.

 

[bcrissey]

A good idea I think, at a reasonable price.

Not for me as I usually buy the apps I like, but I would probably try them all out should I subscribe. Probably a few hidden (and not so hidden) gems in there.

Agree. And SetApp may be an unintentional Trojan Horse. I had paid for Clean My Mac 3, and tried a free trial of SetApp. It proceeded to disable Clean My Mac 3 and then altered required system boot files so the iMac had to get a full system reinstall to proceed. Bad form.

 

[Michaelgtrusa]

Agree. And SetApp may be an unintentional Trojan Horse. I had paid for Clean My Mac 3, and tried a free trial of SetApp. It proceeded to disable Clean My Mac 3 and then altered required system boot files so the iMac had to get a full system reinstall to proceed. Bad form.

I have never heard of this one! I would contact both dev and let them know.