this post was submitted on 03 Aug 2023
25 points (60.5% liked)

Lemmy

12568 readers
26 users here now

Everything about Lemmy; bugs, gripes, praises, and advocacy.

For discussion about the lemmy.ml instance, go to !meta@lemmy.ml.

founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Subscription models only make sense for an app/service that have recurring costs. In the case of Lemmy apps, the instances are the ones with recurring hosting costs, not the apps.

If an app doesn’t have recurring hosting costs, it only makes sense to have one up front payment and then maybe in app purchases to pay for new features going forward

(page 2) 32 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Jmr@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Doesn't the Sync Dev (LJDawson) work on Sync fulltime?

[–] AbsolutelyNotABot@lemm.ee 0 points 1 year ago

Yes And the only reason we had sync for Lemmy so rapidly is that he worked full time on sync for reddit too but he found himself without a stable income from night to day when the API stuff happened.

[–] SWIM@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago
[–] Ertebolle@kbin.social -2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

I blame Apple for not creating a viable system for paid upgrades; it's perfectly reasonable for a developer to expect to be paid for a major app update - even if it was largely to support a new OS - but without a subscription, the only way to do that is to launch a brand new version of your app, which loses you all of your carefully cultivated SEO / links / etc. (doing this via IAP is impractical because you can only build your app against one version of iOS at a time; it either supports the new version or it doesn't)

And I suspect Apple does this because they don't want people to have to pay money to continue using apps on a new version of iOS, or a new phone; if buying a new iPhone meant forking over $50 to upgrade your favorite apps for it, that might mean fewer people buying new phones.

So don't blame developers for this, in other words; a lot of them would be perfectly happy to charge users the occasional upgrade fee instead of a recurring subscription, but Apple doesn't want them to. (they're also very happy to have their 30% cut of all of that lovely subscription revenue)

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] dan1101@lemmy.world -5 points 1 year ago (3 children)

I can see both sides of this. I don't usually update an app unless I'm having problems that are fixed in a later update.

Ongoing development of an app can be for various things. For things like bugfixes to existing code, I don't think we should necessarily pay for that. For brand new features that weren't promised before and didn't exist before there could be a case for paying for that.

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments
view more: ‹ prev next ›