What is the most useless app that you have seen being given as a subscription?
For me, I tried a ‘minimalist’ launcher app for Android that had a 7 day trial or something and they had a yearly subscription based model for it. I was aghast. I would literally expect the app to blow my mind and do everything one can assume to go that way. In a world, where Nova Launcher (Yes, I know it has been acquired by Branch folks but it still is a sturdy one) or Niagara exist plus many alternatives including minimalist ones on F Droid, the dev must be releasing revolutionary stuff to factor in a subscription service.
Second, is a controversial choice, since it’s free tier is quite good and people like it so much. But, Pocketcasts. I checked it’s yearly price the other day, and boy, in my country, I can subscribe to Google Play Pass, YouTube Premium and Spotify and still have money left before I hit the ceiling what Pocketcasts is asking for paid upgrade.
Also, what are your views on one time purchase vs subscriptions? Personally, I find it much easier to purchase, if it’s good enough even if it was piratable, something if it is a one time purchase rather than repetitive.
Adobe CC. They’ve added new features recently to justify a subscription, but it’s still not that good of a pitch. Some editors will have offline PCs so that their software doesn’t get fucked up by anything (SUPER common in music), so having a subscription model works against professional users of their software.
I’m going to go with the unpopular opinion, that all apps should have the subscription support model.
Especially open source apps!
Ideally the code is open, and under GPL or a GPL.
Unless you have a device completely disconnected from the internet, there needs to be constant development, to update libraries, to get security updates, to fix rare but critical bugs. Nobody, and I mean nobody, should be running a binary that never gets updates from 10 years ago, on a device connected to the internet.
I seen a variety of approaches to supporting app development, I think a lot of the pricing is targeted towards the richest people, ignoring the vast majority of the world. For open source apps having the app itself with a nag screen, or a supported version of the app that is just a recurring donation maybe a dollar a month.
All that being said, when the subscription ends, the app should still work at the last version, and the user just assumes the risk of running older software un maintained.
(I’m aware there’s ways to mitigate the risk of unmaintained software, running in a very highly protected VM for example…)
Most users can’t name a single reason why their programs should update.
They don’t see risks in running unmaintained software. The developer does. I could get behind your all-subscriptions ideal, but if the user terminates the subscripition, he should be made unable to keep using the software. Hence why this cannot be the norm with Free software.
If the app doesn’t have network access, though, the OS sandbox should be more than sufficient to keep it secure.
A calculator app should be safe to run without updates at least until the OS APIs undergo a breaking changes (which should take several years at least).
As long as somebody is maintaining the software, it really doesn’t matter if it’s the original developers. If somebody takes the code and rebuilds the software, they are de facto responsible / maintaining it.
Software such as signal, and Molly, mostly because they talk to a central server have minimum version requirements. So if you go too far without updating you can no longer participate.
I think from the internet health perspective, a nag pop up when a software hasn’t been updated in it’s a 6 months, saying this software is out of date and proposes a security risk, should be sufficient. This could be done by the app store, the operating system, or even the app itself
This one guy made a really popular Android Wear watch face that mimicked the Pixel lockscreen. It only cost a few bucks, and people loved it. Due to some personal things in his life, he had to sell the app to a new developer to make ends meet. The new developer then started charging something like $7/WEEK subscription for a watchface that he didn’t even develop in the first place, and runs entirely locally on the device so it’s not like he’s maintaining any servers or anything.
This has to be one of the lamest attempts at getting folks to subscribe. I couldn’t have imagined that watch faces could also be subscription based in the first place.
I too ran into an Android Wear watch face that mimicked the Pixel lockscreen. However, it was priced X INR(Indian Rupee) per year in my country and was decently cheap. However, I soon ran into another app, which was a one time purchase, that did what it did mainly(sync and show phone and watch battery on each other) and worked on most lock screens. So the latter was a proper kind of app design amd atleast not subscription hell.
Beside mentions of Jetbrains license model, I would like to mention the license model of a note taking app called Agenda[1].
It has a subscription wherein the customer retains the software and all of its functionality even after the subscription expires. One may resume the subscription down the line if they see a new feature worth having.
The creators of the app liken it to a magazine subscription wherein the customer retains the magazines even after the subscription lapses.
From my own experience of using it, I purchased the license for a year back in 2021 and let it lapse as I did not find the any of the new features to be worthwhile. I still keep an eye on their updates as it is my daily driver.
I second that this kind of licence seems very reasonable.
I find subscription licences to be frustrating but kind of reasonable, because those let the developers to focus on improving the product rather than making stuff broken on purpose to make the user pay for an upgrade. But that’s really controversial even in my own mind, don’t know if there’s a good solution but “magazine subscription” licence looks really good
There’s only two reasons an app should be a subscription.
The app requires constant server connection that is an active cost to the developer.
The app requires constant updates for maintaining functionality/ relevancy.
There are a few subscriptions I pay for (Nabu casa for one). There’s real merit in the subscription model, but it should only be about 1% of things not 80%.
Yeah, paying for content streaming is different than simply paying for an app that runs locally. Spotify proved that people will be willing to pay for music, as long as it is easier than piracy. Netflix’s early days (when it was actually a one stop shop for all of the available content) proved the same with TV/movie streaming. They proved that piracy largely isn’t an issue with cost, but rather convenience and accessibility.
But with a local app, that all goes right out the window. There’s no reason you’d need to pay a subscription for an app that runs everything locally and only gets sporadic updates. There isn’t any licensing to worry about, or third party systems to pay off. The only reason to have the subscription in this instance is pure greed.
Then you’re paying for your user account with the cloud services, not the client apps (which you may not even use, e.g. if there is a Web version or a third party client).
It used to be entirely free and the vast majority of its tablature was uploaded by community members for free.
The app used to be a one-time purchase. Thankfully I did purchase it back then and they grandfathered me in with a lifetime pro membership, but I can’t blame the people who would never want to use the site/app when they’ve effectively paywalled a ton of community content.
Agreed. I bought the lifetime membership back then and I still have to deal with ads and upsells. Unfortunately they are still the most comprehensive tab source.
Its crazy to think of a subscription for something like community sourced tabs. They’re often literal text files. You could host thousands of them off a thumbdrive. :)
What the fuck. I used to go there for tabs all the time when I picked up guitar. Sadly I stopped playing but to hear that that website is all pay walled now is disgusting.
It’s hard to find the right balance. I know I only want to pay once, or heck never, but I want these upgrades and updates too.
I try to use as much FOSS as is reasonable for my daily usage. For things I use a lot I’ll donate to the developers if they allow it, with the exception of Mesa and Proton since Valve fund their development and I buy games on Steam a good portion of the time.
In general I try to support projects that are made in that open and sharing spirit of the early internet rather than getting baited into more disingenuous traps like what happened with UltimateGuitar.
The problem with one time purchases is that you might be investing time in an app that later will go out of business. Keeping an app up to date requires real constant work, before you even think of adding features and fixing bugs. People got used to paying 2 bucks for an app and keep it forever. That’s completely unsustainable.
On the high end, dealing with the Kafkaesque whims of the App and Play stores randomly deciding to nuke your app (and thus business) from orbit as an “oopsie”
It’s not like the entire foundation of software and computing and essentially all of Silicon Valley was built upon a non-subscription model. It’s completely unsustainable.
On the flip side, this is one of the reasons open source projects can be really great. When a community of people can contribute to something to make it better over time and when people can fix their own problems with an app you can get something really great that can get updates sustainably without a subscription model… Everybody just kind of contributes what they can to get what they want. Of course, maintaining an open source project is work and has its own problems and volunteer contributions aren’t necessarily sustainable either and aren’t great for large chunks of work… But there is something nice about the model of “everybody contributes to this thing a little to make something better than we’d be able to make on our own,” even if that’s a bit idealistic in practice, haha.
Might be a slightly unpopular opinion, but Volumio (software for a raspberry pi to run it as a headless audio system). It’s good, it’s relatively well maintained and works. But paying 7,50 a month for this software to get multiroom audio, Tidal integration and some other stuff is ridiculously expensive. That’s nearly 90 euro a year and the only thing that is actually an addition server side is syncing settings across devices and the Tidal integration (requires license fees iirc).
And sure, I can’t buy multiroom speakers for that kind of money, but damn, is it expensive.
I tried Volumio recently, and was prepared to maybe get the paid version if it was as great as it seemed. But the user interface was so god-awful! Absolutely unusable for me. Would never pay for it.
Instead I googled a bit and found Moode - a million times better, and free. Don’t remember if it does multiroom audio, but personally I don’t need that currently.
You are not logged in. However you can subscribe from another Fediverse account, for example Lemmy or Mastodon. To do this, paste the following into the search field of your instance: !piracy@lemmy.dbzer0.com
⚓ Dedicated to the discussion of digital piracy, including ethical problems and legal advancements.
A subscription to a mobile game that gives more gold when buying gold
deleted by creator
All of them
Adobe. Anything Adobe. Fuck Adobe.
Adobe CC. They’ve added new features recently to justify a subscription, but it’s still not that good of a pitch. Some editors will have offline PCs so that their software doesn’t get fucked up by anything (SUPER common in music), so having a subscription model works against professional users of their software.
I’m a big fan of the way Plex does it. I paid like 100 dollars a decade ago and all my apps stay up to date forever
What’s great about it is that it’s optional and not forced on you. I’m a Plexamp power user so it makes sense to me with my expansive music collection
I’m going to go with the unpopular opinion, that all apps should have the subscription support model.
Especially open source apps!
Ideally the code is open, and under GPL or a GPL.
Unless you have a device completely disconnected from the internet, there needs to be constant development, to update libraries, to get security updates, to fix rare but critical bugs. Nobody, and I mean nobody, should be running a binary that never gets updates from 10 years ago, on a device connected to the internet.
I seen a variety of approaches to supporting app development, I think a lot of the pricing is targeted towards the richest people, ignoring the vast majority of the world. For open source apps having the app itself with a nag screen, or a supported version of the app that is just a recurring donation maybe a dollar a month.
All that being said, when the subscription ends, the app should still work at the last version, and the user just assumes the risk of running older software un maintained.
(I’m aware there’s ways to mitigate the risk of unmaintained software, running in a very highly protected VM for example…)
Most users can’t name a single reason why their programs should update.
They don’t see risks in running unmaintained software. The developer does. I could get behind your all-subscriptions ideal, but if the user terminates the subscripition, he should be made unable to keep using the software. Hence why this cannot be the norm with Free software.
If the app doesn’t have network access, though, the OS sandbox should be more than sufficient to keep it secure.
A calculator app should be safe to run without updates at least until the OS APIs undergo a breaking changes (which should take several years at least).
As long as somebody is maintaining the software, it really doesn’t matter if it’s the original developers. If somebody takes the code and rebuilds the software, they are de facto responsible / maintaining it.
Software such as signal, and Molly, mostly because they talk to a central server have minimum version requirements. So if you go too far without updating you can no longer participate.
I think from the internet health perspective, a nag pop up when a software hasn’t been updated in it’s a 6 months, saying this software is out of date and proposes a security risk, should be sufficient. This could be done by the app store, the operating system, or even the app itself
A watch face for a smart watch.
This one guy made a really popular Android Wear watch face that mimicked the Pixel lockscreen. It only cost a few bucks, and people loved it. Due to some personal things in his life, he had to sell the app to a new developer to make ends meet. The new developer then started charging something like $7/WEEK subscription for a watchface that he didn’t even develop in the first place, and runs entirely locally on the device so it’s not like he’s maintaining any servers or anything.
Absolutely absurd.
This has to be one of the lamest attempts at getting folks to subscribe. I couldn’t have imagined that watch faces could also be subscription based in the first place.
What. If that business model actually works for him, something is wrong with this world.
It’s the business model of build or buy trust and then exploit it until you’re loaded and your former customers all hate you. But you’re loaded.
And yeah, there’s something wrong with this world.
I too ran into an Android Wear watch face that mimicked the Pixel lockscreen. However, it was priced X INR(Indian Rupee) per year in my country and was decently cheap. However, I soon ran into another app, which was a one time purchase, that did what it did mainly(sync and show phone and watch battery on each other) and worked on most lock screens. So the latter was a proper kind of app design amd atleast not subscription hell.
The most useless I’ve ever seen was wallpaper packs for roku for $10/month
Is that why every TV has that god awful purple background photo?
Beside mentions of Jetbrains license model, I would like to mention the license model of a note taking app called Agenda[1].
It has a subscription wherein the customer retains the software and all of its functionality even after the subscription expires. One may resume the subscription down the line if they see a new feature worth having.
The creators of the app liken it to a magazine subscription wherein the customer retains the magazines even after the subscription lapses.
From my own experience of using it, I purchased the license for a year back in 2021 and let it lapse as I did not find the any of the new features to be worthwhile. I still keep an eye on their updates as it is my daily driver.
[1] https://agenda.community/t/get-all-features/21
I second that this kind of licence seems very reasonable.
I find subscription licences to be frustrating but kind of reasonable, because those let the developers to focus on improving the product rather than making stuff broken on purpose to make the user pay for an upgrade. But that’s really controversial even in my own mind, don’t know if there’s a good solution but “magazine subscription” licence looks really good
Indeed, it is very reasonable.
It strikes a balance between subscriptions and perpetual licences.
Wow, I wouldn’t ever expect this, what a great license model
I too was pleasantly surprised when I stumbled upon the app a few years back. The licence model was a major factor in choosing the app over the rest.
There’s only two reasons an app should be a subscription.
The app requires constant server connection that is an active cost to the developer.
The app requires constant updates for maintaining functionality/ relevancy.
There are a few subscriptions I pay for (Nabu casa for one). There’s real merit in the subscription model, but it should only be about 1% of things not 80%.
You could also argue apps that uses some kind of licensed content the app pays for.
I’m not saying I’m a fan of Netflix and Spotify, but they do use alot of money to keep their content available, and not only for server costs.
They still overcharge tho.
Yeah, paying for content streaming is different than simply paying for an app that runs locally. Spotify proved that people will be willing to pay for music, as long as it is easier than piracy. Netflix’s early days (when it was actually a one stop shop for all of the available content) proved the same with TV/movie streaming. They proved that piracy largely isn’t an issue with cost, but rather convenience and accessibility.
But with a local app, that all goes right out the window. There’s no reason you’d need to pay a subscription for an app that runs everything locally and only gets sporadic updates. There isn’t any licensing to worry about, or third party systems to pay off. The only reason to have the subscription in this instance is pure greed.
No app should be a subscription
Keeping an app up to date takes time and work. Especially if it needs cloud services (e.g. multiplayer games).
Good luck trying to maintain an app forever if people just pay it once.
Then you’re paying for your user account with the cloud services, not the client apps (which you may not even use, e.g. if there is a Web version or a third party client).
A subtle distinction, I know, but it matters.
UltimateGuitar.com
It used to be entirely free and the vast majority of its tablature was uploaded by community members for free.
The app used to be a one-time purchase. Thankfully I did purchase it back then and they grandfathered me in with a lifetime pro membership, but I can’t blame the people who would never want to use the site/app when they’ve effectively paywalled a ton of community content.
Agreed. I bought the lifetime membership back then and I still have to deal with ads and upsells. Unfortunately they are still the most comprehensive tab source.
Its crazy to think of a subscription for something like community sourced tabs. They’re often literal text files. You could host thousands of them off a thumbdrive. :)
What the fuck. I used to go there for tabs all the time when I picked up guitar. Sadly I stopped playing but to hear that that website is all pay walled now is disgusting.
Fuck that site. Going there now is like looking at the desecrated corpse of an old friend.
deleted by creator
I try to use as much FOSS as is reasonable for my daily usage. For things I use a lot I’ll donate to the developers if they allow it, with the exception of Mesa and Proton since Valve fund their development and I buy games on Steam a good portion of the time.
In general I try to support projects that are made in that open and sharing spirit of the early internet rather than getting baited into more disingenuous traps like what happened with UltimateGuitar.
The problem with one time purchases is that you might be investing time in an app that later will go out of business. Keeping an app up to date requires real constant work, before you even think of adding features and fixing bugs. People got used to paying 2 bucks for an app and keep it forever. That’s completely unsustainable.
But yeah, sure, some companies push it.
I don’t know much about app design so what work does it take to keep an app up to date and is it possible just to not update it?
On the low end, yearly OS upgrade compliance.
On the high end, dealing with the Kafkaesque whims of the App and Play stores randomly deciding to nuke your app (and thus business) from orbit as an “oopsie”
Yeah, so many really nice apps that were abandoned since the 99 cent app doesn’t pay the development bills.
It’s not like the entire foundation of software and computing and essentially all of Silicon Valley was built upon a non-subscription model. It’s completely unsustainable.
It was built on yearly releases of software instead, also known as yearly subscriptions.
On the flip side, this is one of the reasons open source projects can be really great. When a community of people can contribute to something to make it better over time and when people can fix their own problems with an app you can get something really great that can get updates sustainably without a subscription model… Everybody just kind of contributes what they can to get what they want. Of course, maintaining an open source project is work and has its own problems and volunteer contributions aren’t necessarily sustainable either and aren’t great for large chunks of work… But there is something nice about the model of “everybody contributes to this thing a little to make something better than we’d be able to make on our own,” even if that’s a bit idealistic in practice, haha.
Might be a slightly unpopular opinion, but Volumio (software for a raspberry pi to run it as a headless audio system). It’s good, it’s relatively well maintained and works. But paying 7,50 a month for this software to get multiroom audio, Tidal integration and some other stuff is ridiculously expensive. That’s nearly 90 euro a year and the only thing that is actually an addition server side is syncing settings across devices and the Tidal integration (requires license fees iirc).
And sure, I can’t buy multiroom speakers for that kind of money, but damn, is it expensive.
I thought about using it a few years ago but their pricing was just too expensive.
I tried Volumio recently, and was prepared to maybe get the paid version if it was as great as it seemed. But the user interface was so god-awful! Absolutely unusable for me. Would never pay for it.
Instead I googled a bit and found Moode - a million times better, and free. Don’t remember if it does multiroom audio, but personally I don’t need that currently.
That’s more than Duolingo costs and Duolingo is constantly adding new languages