Good as I don't want 100+ subscriptions, I just want an app I can buy outright.
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.
Report: Most Subscription-Based Apps Do Not Make Money
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Absolutely shocking!
Problem is devs are lazy and do not offer upgrades with enough worthwhile features for users to pay for upgrades.
Example: Microsoft Office, while 365 is largely subscription at this point most home and light business users could easily still be using Office 2003. The only worthwhile upgrades since then, IMHO, is security and OS compatibility updates.
Problem is devs are lazy and do not offer upgrades with enough worthwhile features for users to pay for upgrades.
Example: Microsoft Office, while 365 is largely subscription at this point most home and light business users could easily still be using Office 2003. The only worthwhile upgrades since then, IMHO, is security and OS compatibility updates.
Unfortunately, Apple is the only one that holds the keys to the kingdom here. The main problem is the app store search algorithm, that combines downloads/ratings/revenue/keywords to output results. And...is also pay to play, because of Apple Search Ads. Subscription based companies can pay upwards of $10 for single installs, because the lifetime value of a ASA customer on their product is greater than that. So any small players are pushed out of the top results, especially if you are not a subscription, as you don't have consistent future revenue accounted for in your search ranking.
There is a simple solution, and it is for Apple to allow for different download button options. "GET" "In-app Purchases" is displayed on both weekly $10 weather apps, gotcha games with unlimited token purchases, and lifetime $5 todo apps. The weather app benefits greatly from Apple hiding the revenue model. And the $5 lifetime app gets no benefit, users just assume it is a subscription like everything else.
Just let developers be up front at the download button about the pricing model, and other forms of revenue will come about as users can know before downloading that they are about to start a new subscription.
But Apple doesn't want this - they make a boatload of money off of third party app subscriptions, and that is why they tried to prance around the EU regulations.
If Apple's commission is why the app isn't making money then the dev is bad at math, simple as that.
The real question is, how much should that one-time fee be? I've paid $80 for a few apps for lifetime because I believe they are excellent and the developer will honor that for a reasonable definition of "lifetime" in this context.
But that's a big gamble if you're not sure. Pricing has always been an interesting economic problem.
Back when all apps were 99 cents and an expensive one was five bucks, it mattered less.
I generally agree with you, but then how does the developer (who is self employed from this perspective) know what to bill for their work? It's not just about ongoing costs, but about ROI on the sunk cost of the initial development. I agree with you at some point that flips on its head to favor the developer too much, but that's why competition is good. One update a year is reasonable, so how much to charge for that?
Some times subscriptions are necessary when an app depends on licensed technologies to deliver functionality. The problem was and still is there are hundreds of apps that have no license dependencies that would require a subscription. Rarely is a utility app worth a subscription. Paying annually for Text expansion or reverse image search when the major sites do it easily for free?
Another problem is perceived value. A guy once asked a forum "can anyone give me an example of where an app that was formerly a single purchase license went subscription and got demonstrably better?"
I and the others had zero answer. The package tracking app Deliveries didn't get any better when I went subscription it continued on its sad descent into oblivion.
A problem is humans by nature are lazy and many aren't really motivated by capturing money as much as saving money. So when you give some developers more money the output doesn't really change. Why should it change? They probably started computer development for the satisfaction of building something So money really isn't the motivating factor for them doing what they do.
Another problem is perceived value. A guy once asked a forum "can anyone give me an example of where an app that was formerly a single purchase license went subscription and got demonstrably better?"
I and the others had zero answer. The package tracking app Deliveries didn't get any better when I went subscription it continued on its sad descent into oblivion.
A problem is humans by nature are lazy and many aren't really motivated by capturing money as much as saving money. So when you give some developers more money the output doesn't really change. Why should it change? They probably started computer development for the satisfaction of building something So money really isn't the motivating factor for them doing what they do.
Should have went with the alternative title: "most apps suck."
Pay to download, ad supported, IAP, subscription supported: most apps suck.
It's incredibly easy to make an app, and it remains incredibly hard to make one that is truly useful.
Beyond that: to be worthy of a subscription, an app must not just be useful, but continuously more useful than free or one-time-purchase alternatives. This means the app must be continuously adding new content, new features or host functionality that cannot easily be shifted to the local device -- think of a photo backup service (which adds storage beyond what the device could hold), or an advanced AI feature (which adds CPU or memory requirements beyond what a device could hold).
Pay to download, ad supported, IAP, subscription supported: most apps suck.
It's incredibly easy to make an app, and it remains incredibly hard to make one that is truly useful.
Beyond that: to be worthy of a subscription, an app must not just be useful, but continuously more useful than free or one-time-purchase alternatives. This means the app must be continuously adding new content, new features or host functionality that cannot easily be shifted to the local device -- think of a photo backup service (which adds storage beyond what the device could hold), or an advanced AI feature (which adds CPU or memory requirements beyond what a device could hold).
Last edited:
It's not Apple's cut. That's only 15% for most of the apps and will make essentially no difference whether or not an app is making any money; developers need to price in the cost of doing business into their business and 15%, even 30% should be factored in up front.
Also, take everything in this analysis with a grain of salt. The analysis is done by a company selling subscriptions to help developers make money from subscriptions. From the company's website: "The world’s most comprehensive subscription platform built specifically for app businesses." This doesn't mean their data are incorrect, but they do have incentive to prod people towards paying them a subscription.
The real issue is a lot of apps don't make money from subscriptions because the vast majority of apps not making much money don't do anything useful. Developers need to demonstrate utility and demand before building in a subscription.
Last edited:
I am not a fan of any subscription-based system. Any of them. I understand why companies like them, and how some make more sense like video streaming, but I still don't like them. lol
Inflation is terrible, and companies think people have all this disposable income still to waste on stuff every month. Will I spend 2-4 on an app here and there that is useful? Sure. Will I pay $1 a month indefinitely for one? Nope.
Help add to the value of society. Don't just try to milk it more.
Inflation is terrible, and companies think people have all this disposable income still to waste on stuff every month. Will I spend 2-4 on an app here and there that is useful? Sure. Will I pay $1 a month indefinitely for one? Nope.
Help add to the value of society. Don't just try to milk it more.
I much rather pay for an App and pay for upgrades rather than be continually drained via subscription. I can't think of any mobile app/iPad app that I pay for on a subscription basis (not counting news apps which I see differently because I'm not really paying for the app, but I'm paying for the service of journalism).
In 2022, Apple paid a total of 60 billion U.S. dollars to iOS app developers...
They should stop making them then. I will never subscribe to an app (with the exception of media content).
I have happily in the past paid upwards of £50 for an app that's good. I remember paying £70 for TomTom before there were good alternatives available.
I have happily in the past paid upwards of £50 for an app that's good. I remember paying £70 for TomTom before there were good alternatives available.
1Password (yes, bad example, but people are using their servers to connect other devices)
This is actually a _perfect_ example. Even something as "easy" and trivial as sync passwords requires a backend, and when you have hundreds of thousands or millions of users, that costs _a lot of money_.
This is actually a _perfect_ example. Even something as "easy" and trivial as sync passwords requires a backend, and when you have hundreds of thousands or millions of users, that costs _a lot of money_.
Good. Let them go out of business then. I want the good old days of buying an app once and it's yours.
My favourite use of subscriptions is Due. There’s a yearly subscription to get new features, but you can cancel the subscription at any time and keep the features you “paid for” during that time. If they add a feature you really want later, you can resubscribe for a year and get it and all the other features they added in the meantime.
In 2008 I started selling simple apps for $3 and I made a few thousand dollars. The market dropped out so I started selling at 99cents and made a few hundred dollars. Many apps started an ad model but I didn't bother as I heard it wasn't doing much for a small app like mine. Now, all these apps want monthly subscriptions. I think they count on those who forget to unsubscribe. I gladly pay a small one-time amount for a small utility app that I find useful but I don't annually subscribe to many.
It appears this revenue report is only reporting consumer retail revenue. It does not include revenue from the commercial sale of data generated by the subscribers and collected by the app developers or through 3rd-party app conglomerates. Apps are often created simply to monetize a user's data (locations, site visits, etc) in exchange for playing/using re-imagined code that has been used elsewhere by hundreds of other apps.
I bought Infuse 5 for the iPad years ago because I had few other options at the time. I think I even gritted my teeth and begrudgingly paid for the 'upgrade' to Infuse 6. but now they only offer a subscription or a £100 'lifetime' purchase.
...and don't even get me started on Duet Air.
They're taking the piss.
...and don't even get me started on Duet Air.
They're taking the piss.
Beautiful news. This trend can’t die soon enough
I really disagree on this one
They are running a cloud sync service with cross platform Apps to support ... and maintain strict security as things evolve.
I'm happy to pay for this subscription, as the data being stored is literally as important as it gets
It's bad enough that I was dumb enough to pay for it, but it was the last straw when they literally removed all the old versions from the App Store so you couldn't buy it anymore.
If I don't laugh, I'll cry.
Your nefarious plans to take over the world via pay-to-play-per-annum cattepoasts, foiled again. The nerve!