New Subscription Service 'Setapp' Will Offer 40+ Popular Mac Apps for $9.99 Per Month

[sdf]

It's killed the educational software market. My organization spends much less on software than we used to, back when we could purchase it outright.

When was that? Educational software (especially administration) is such a small market and requires such extra expense (mostly yearly reporting changes) that it's been software + maintenance contract since the 1980s at least.

We tried selling software outright for a few years and found mot districts actually preferred maintenance contracts. It made costs more predictable for them vs. optional upgrades they may or may not want (and may or may not need).

 

[briloronmacrumo]

…I think sub-based software might lead to infrequent improvements and a lack of major updates that used to have to pay for, usually at an upgrade price.

I could be totally wrong though.

Apple's Mac App Store has already influenced app upgrades by not allowing developers to charge for updates. It is good to see someone else challenge Apple's model. However, ArtOfWarfare's important relevant question, as far as I know, isn't addressed in the announcement:

How will they decide how to distribute the revenue to all the developers?

Since each app has a different retail price and different value to each customer, it would seem they need some kind of usage based model but that would be a tad difficult to implement and is potentially too intrusive for the user.

 

[ignatius345]

Why do you feel the need to own them permanently? I'm not watching the same movies, playing the same games, listening to the same songs, or using the same apps as I was just a few years ago.

It's essentially "wasted money" unless you have some sort of collector mania.

I'm using a lot of the same apps I used a few years ago, and because I own them outright, I get the privilege of doing that instead of renting them forever. This "subscription everything" model is just death by 1000 cuts if you don't manage it carefully.

 

[SvP]

How are apps anything like a movie?

You never truly "own it" as the copyright stays with the author; you get a license to use, not a property as such; they're digital (as in copyable without problems).

The difference is that a movie tends to stay the same over time, and that a movie isn't used as often: paying to watch it "renting" makes more sense because of that.

"renting" software makes sense if you use it often(value) and it could make the software builders an incentive to: stay ahead of the competition, update end tweak regularly, and switch from a "sell and forget" to a "continuous customer relationship" view.
[doublepost=1479565059][/doublepost]

Apple's Mac App Store has already influenced app upgrades by not allowing developers to charge for updates. It is good to see someone else challenge Apple's model. However, ArtOfWarfare's important relevant question, as far as I know, isn't addressed in the announcement:
Since each app has a different retail price and different value to each customer, it would seem they need some kind of usage based model but that would be a tad difficult to implement and is potentially too intrusive for the user.

Downloads and updates are good markers of usage; especially if deleting an app saves instant space and is easily downloaded again if you need it.

 

[RCAFBrat]

I actually don't mind this ... Especially if new apps are added all the time. That would be nice if a lot of Adobe alternatives were bundled with this

And how would you feel about apps that you do use being removed from the subscription?

Netflix does this all the time; while its true that they are adding new content each month, they're also removing content as well.

This is the biggest concern I have with subscription, that I will have to pay exorbitant prices in the future to open or modify my own files either through more costly subscription or having to buy the software outright if it is no longer available through the subscription model.

Cheers

 

[GGJstudios]

I don't have to read the whole thread to know that I'd never buy, subscribe to or even accept anything free from MacPaw. In my opinion, their reputation is permanently ruined by scamming so many over the years with CleanMyMac.

 

[flottenheimer]

Kind of like the way Netflix focuses on the main shows/movies everyone watches and ignores the fact that the majority of their available titles are garbage.

Subscriptions within music and movies make way more sense than within software.

 

[chr1s60]

Subscriptions within music and movies make way more sense than within software.

I agree, but they use the same concept on a smaller scale when you ignore the variables like updated versions and whatnot. Give you a few things you want, bundled with a bunch of garbage you don't want and won't use and charge a monthly price. Random Joe's photo editor won't make much money alone, but bundle it with 1Password and some people will try it and maybe like it but even if they don't the money is coming in. No different than the number of people that are gonna pay to rent or download one of the hundreds of awful D-list movies that are on Netflix. Package it with the entire series of the Office and the same applies. In my opinion, music makes more sense than any of them.

 

[shpankey]

I like this idea. Honestly, most times I only need an app for a short time... maybe even just once. Now I can pay 10 bucks and get what I need. Maybe take advantage of some others that month and let it expire. 11 months later I may need it again and I can just do it for a single month again. I hate paying $60 for something I only need to use a few times. This is a great idea imo.

This also distributes the cost into something that has little effect on my monthly financials.

 

[ErikGrim]

Yeah and Adobe's decision to go to subscription was so popular.

Grumblings there may have been, but it has worked out quite spectacular for them.