298

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.

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] Chozo@kbin.social 149 points 1 year ago

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.

[-] themurphy@lemmy.world 47 points 1 year ago

What. If that business model actually works for him, something is wrong with this world.

[-] andrew@lemmy.stuart.fun 15 points 1 year ago

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.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] kirk782@discuss.tchncs.de 18 points 1 year ago

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.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] Crow@lemmy.world 111 points 1 year ago

There’s only two reasons an app should be a subscription.

  1. The app requires constant server connection that is an active cost to the developer.

  2. 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%.

[-] themurphy@lemmy.world 39 points 1 year ago

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.

[-] PM_Your_Nudes_Please@lemmy.world 23 points 1 year ago

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.

[-] monz@pawb.social 67 points 1 year ago

Any app that doesn’t require any backend to function.

If you ask for a subscription for an app without the need to support a backend… I won’t subscribe. I’ll find something else.

Mostly anything else is fine.

Though, if it’s something like a Note-Taking app where the cloud infrastructure for backups and sharing would cost pennies and you’re asking more than $1 a month, I’m out. Looking at you, Evernote. $64 a year to replace the built-in Notes app? No thanks.

[-] Damage@feddit.it 31 points 1 year ago

Ok so I don't completely agree... The thing is: mobile apps today have this approach where they don't have "releases", there's one entry on the app store, and if you buy that you usually get updates for as long as it exists.

In the past, computer software always had periodic (usually yearly) releases, which meant that if you bought one version, afterwards you'd have maybe updates for bugfixes and such, but no new features. The result was that the development of new features was paid by people replacing the old version with the new one, because they wanted the improved version.

Nowadays you buy the app and you keep getting new features, sometimes for years, and that development is paid solely thanks to new buyers. Which is cool if you are the customer but it's not great long term for the developer.

[-] monz@pawb.social 14 points 1 year ago

That’s true, but it’s also possible to release apps individually on mobile similar to PC releases.

We also currently get the worst of both worlds with stuff like Goodnotes. They had a one-time buy, but currently they’ve injected AI-related nonsense into v6. They allow owners of the previous version to still use v6, but it’s extremely crippled and functionally worse than 4 or 5. Constant nagging about the new version and features. V6 fully replaced v5 on the App Store, so we can’t do anything about it now. Even in my purchase history, my purchase was forcibly “upgraded.”

What I paid for was a digital notebook app that I could write down notes on with my Apple Pencil and iPad. It had a few nice features I didn’t really need, but were nice to have like writing-to-text replacement. It had cloud backups, but they were through iCloud or OneDrive on the user’s individual storage so I’m assuming it didn’t add a monthly cost overhead to the developer.

Now it’s a subscription model app with features I don’t want nor need that completely replaced the app I paid for.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (6 replies)
[-] RanchOnPancakes@lemmy.world 62 points 1 year ago

All of them. You should be able to buy a program and its yours.

[-] Zikeji@programming.dev 106 points 1 year ago

Disagreed. If it requires a server side element, it incurs an ongoing cost and a subscription can be justified. And to clarify, by "requires", I'm referring to the functionality, not having it shoveled in. And the price should be realistic.

Some apps do this well, Sleep for Android is an example that comes to mind. Free with ads, ad-free is an inexpensive one time purchase. You can also purchase additional plugin apps that add functionality that isn't required or even useful for most people. And finally, they have a cloud plugin app to let you backup your data, you can pay for their cloud subscription which is $2.99 a year, but you can also just use other cloud for storage like Google drive.

[-] tsonfeir@lemm.ee 39 points 1 year ago

But if the server side element is just cloud storage, you should be able to supply your own server.

[-] WhatAmLemmy@lemmy.world 15 points 1 year ago

Then the dev needs to build out a range of protocols and API's to enable users to "supply their own server", which can bring a range of additional headaches, like having to provide support for external dependencies outside their control, etc.

What if the users "server" fails? Should the dev waste hours of their life assisting a user with a highly specific Google Drive issue when they spent $5, 3 years ago?

[-] tsonfeir@lemm.ee 24 points 1 year ago

I mean, there are pretty standard protocols for most of the cloud services, like S3 API - the defacto.

Hell, sftp is fine for most stuff. They just want your data.

But the developer doesn’t need to provide support if you opt to use your own data storage and the storage itself fails. And

Google would be the one to contact if Google drive has an issue.

[-] ShrimpsIsBugs@programming.dev 12 points 1 year ago

But the developer doesn’t need to provide support if you opt to use your own data storage and the storage itself fails. Google would be the one to contact if Google drive has an issue.

Well yes, but that's not how your average user thinks and acts. They will either a) contact you as the developer of the app that doesn't seem to work and when your say it's not your fault give you bad reviews or b) directly give you bad reviews.

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (9 replies)
[-] danielquinn@lemmy.ca 23 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

JetBrains ran aground of this years ago when they introduced a subscription model for their (excellent) software. People (rightly) lost their fricking minds when they heard that if they cancelled their subscription, they'd lose the ability to continue using the software they'd already paid for.

So JetBrains went back and reworked their system so that a cancelled subscription would continue to have the rights to install all the software that existed up to the day of cancellation. Effectively meaning that if v3 came out the day before you cancelled, you can still install and use v3 10 years later.

[-] Pechente@feddit.de 31 points 1 year ago

JetBrains comes to mind as one of the fairest subscription services I know. It also get cheaper the longer you’re subscribed, incentivizing you to to stay subscribed. It’s both smart and user friendly.

The worst one is probably Adobe.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (10 replies)
[-] Zink@programming.dev 35 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Mobile games for kids are the worst. Those and any self-help mental health apps.

It’s $10 a month to access the features of a basic game that runs on the local device, or the subscription renews weekly, or you can get a 7-day free trial after which it charges you for the entire year. And in the latter case, you usually have to sign up for the free trial before you are allowed to see ANY content.

A cheap subscription makes sense for some things, especially those using cloud based resources. But so much of that business model seems to rely on making money by screwing people that forgot they were paying you.

[-] entropicdrift@lemmy.sdf.org 34 points 1 year ago

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.

[-] finthechat@kbin.social 19 points 1 year ago

Fuck that site. Going there now is like looking at the desecrated corpse of an old friend.

load more comments (5 replies)
[-] ilinamorato@lemmy.world 32 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Software as a Service is only a value when the service offers you something that the software on its own cannot do; otherwise it's just rent seeking.

Paying for cloud storage, for continuous content updates (especially news), or a server to process or generate content that can't be done on my device, all fine. Paying for a messaging service to pass my messages to others, or for a game to maintain servers for multiplayer play? No problem.

But a subscription to remove ads? Your app doesn't need an external server to do that. That's rent-seeking. Same with a subscription to unlock widgets or some third-party connection.

A subscription for regular software updates are right on the line for me. In a sane world, the software package you purchase would be provided with some amount of security updates, but you wouldn't have to pay any extra until you decided to purchase the next version for new features. You know, like it was until Adobe decided to upend the industry. (Incidentally, it's weird that Adobe has gone from being the poster child for rent seeking in software to one of the more reasonable companies that's doing software as a service. I still hate that there's no way to get their software without a subscription, but at least they are providing some form of continuous value in the form of continuous updates, as well as fonts and stock images and such.)

On the other end of the spectrum you have something like Minecraft, where my ($20? I don't remember) purchase from over a decade ago is still receiving regular content updates for free, multiple times a year, with no subscription needed. I can pay a subscription fee to get an online realm for myself and my family, but I don't have to because I can also just set up and operate a server myself. More than reasonable.

load more comments (3 replies)
[-] Rosco@sh.itjust.works 32 points 1 year ago

One-time purchase. If I'm buying something, I want to own it. No compromises. Luckily basically every software that I use is free and open-source so I don't have to worry about that. If I can't find a particular software for a niche usage, I make it.

[-] Lucidlethargy@sh.itjust.works 31 points 1 year ago

Adobe. Anything Adobe. Fuck Adobe.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] AVengefulAxolotl@lemmy.world 30 points 1 year ago

The best subscription model I have seen so far is for the JetBrains products. They call it the perpetual fallback license.

Quote: "A perpetual fallback license is a license that allows you to use a specific version of software without an active subscription for it. The license also includes all bugfix updates, more specifically in X.Y.Z version all Z releases are included."

load more comments (6 replies)
[-] 520@kbin.social 27 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Microsoft Office.

The subscription service is actually alright for businesses, but for retail users there is no compelling reason for it to be a subscription.

[-] ares35@kbin.social 30 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

the pricing of '365' is essentially a subscription to cloud storage, whether you use it or not, and getting office 'free' with that sub.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] purple@lemm.ee 26 points 1 year ago

A subscription to a mobile game that gives more gold when buying gold

[-] AusatKeyboardPremi@lemmy.world 26 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

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

load more comments (5 replies)
[-] mindbleach@sh.itjust.works 22 points 1 year ago

Products aren't services.

So much bullshit has come from pretending otherwise.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] thesmokingman@programming.dev 21 points 1 year ago

In all fairness to Pocket Casts, the yearly cost in the US is $40, which is about the monthly cost of the three things you mentioned together. If your country gives you yearly Google Play Pass, YouTube Premium, and Spotify Premium for less than $40 US, that’s a fucking steal.

In all fuck you to Pocket Casts, Basic App functionality like folders shouldn’t be behind a subscription. I can understand a one-time unlock fee for app functionality or ongoing subscription costs to cover cloud storage and sync capabilities. I cannot fucking understand why folders would cost me $40 US a year.

[-] kirk782@discuss.tchncs.de 12 points 1 year ago

Apparently it used to be one time payment for Pocketcasts back in the day. They then switched to subscription model. The old users were grandfathered in into the new version, so from today's point of view, they got a steal deal.

[-] Rizoid@programming.dev 11 points 1 year ago

I was one of those old purchasers. There was a huge uproar on the subreddit back in the day cause they said everyone who purchased the app before the subscription model would only get like 1 or 2 years of subscription access instead of lifetime. People got so pissed they changed it to lifetime.

load more comments (3 replies)
[-] spyd4r@lemmy.world 21 points 1 year ago
load more comments (5 replies)
[-] Sproux@lemmy.dbzer0.com 20 points 1 year ago

The most useless I've ever seen was wallpaper packs for roku for $10/month

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] discusseded@programming.dev 18 points 1 year ago

Microsoft Solitaire on Android. The ads were driving me nuts so I went to pay for the app. If I recall they wanted almost 10 bucks a month for that shit. Deleted, forgotten, until now.

[-] sub_@beehaw.org 18 points 1 year ago

Subscription only makes sense if there's an ongoing service, e.g. processing in the cloud, cloud data storage, etc.

Apps that don't need to be subscription:

  • Camera apps like Halide or Filmic Pro, wtf
  • Any todo / habit apps, the 'cloud' part is usually iCloud / Google Drive
  • Notetaking apps, e.g. GoodNotes, wtf
  • Duolingo, mainly because the contents of some lessons are outdated (missing audio, etc).
load more comments (2 replies)
[-] Kolanaki@yiffit.net 17 points 1 year ago

YouTube is a weird one, personally. Why shouldn't it have a subscription based service like any other streaming network? Because the content is not created by, funded by, or even necessarily supported by YouTube.

It would make more sense for the subscription to be put upon uploaders to host the content, since their business is hosting the files, not really the content itself.

Now, if they had a better or at least more transparent way of giving the creators a truly fair cut of the monetary gains earned through their videos I would have nothing against YouTube Premium aside from hating that a completely free service has to move to a paid service.

[-] r_se_random@sh.itjust.works 14 points 1 year ago

Nope, that would be horrible.

One of the biggest draws of YouTube is that anyone can go and upload their stuff. We literally have youtubers who started out in their rooms with a webcam, and became big because of the quality of their stuff. This would put a barrier of entry for new youtubers to enter.

load more comments (3 replies)
[-] Drewski@kbin.social 15 points 1 year ago

Filebot, I like and use the app but it shouldn't be a subscription. You can buy a lifetime license for $48 but it's too expensive for what it is.

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] stardust@lemmy.ca 15 points 1 year ago

Only subscriptions that make sense to me a cloud based ones that can't function at all without access to the internet due to not being able to retrieve content needed to function. Examples that come to mind are netflix and spotify, since even though you can download content to watch or hear offline you need internet to retrieve new content. Means there are hosting costs, and I'm basically paying to not host all that content myself.

But, anything else doesn't make sense to me. If app wants to charge again then they can do another version release, and let people keep using the old version if they want while stopping updates for it. I don't do subscriptions.

[-] jol@discuss.tchncs.de 14 points 1 year ago

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.

[-] Chobbes@lemmy.world 11 points 1 year ago

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.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (9 replies)
[-] ilinamorato@lemmy.world 13 points 1 year ago

Pocket Casts has a server component that makes sense you have to pay for, and for the most part the only things you don't get with the free version are the server stuff and a little bit of cosmetic stuff. $40/year for 20GB is a little steep, but the fact that they charge for it doesn't bother me.

With the exception of the folders; that doesn't make sense to me being a Plus-only thing.

All that being said, I bought the app before it went free, so I am grandfathered in to a lifetime Plus plan; but if that hadn't been the case I would not be paying for a subscription today.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] Kit@lemmy.blahaj.zone 12 points 1 year ago

Duolingo. Why can't I just pay $100 or whatever one time? Languages don't change to the extent that it needs to be a subscription.

[-] thoughts3rased@sopuli.xyz 26 points 1 year ago

They do update the learning material over time as recommendations for teaching the languages changes, plus they do have server costs to keep in mind.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[-] kratoz29@lemm.ee 11 points 1 year ago

Well, there are too many to name, but one that called my attention recently was Battery Guru.... I thought you could buy the app, but it seems that it has only a subscription model? Yeah I'd rather buy it once than having to pay each day, month or year.

load more comments (4 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 15 Dec 2023
298 points (97.2% liked)

Piracy: ꜱᴀɪʟ ᴛʜᴇ ʜɪɢʜ ꜱᴇᴀꜱ

55056 readers
109 users here now

⚓ Dedicated to the discussion of digital piracy, including ethical problems and legal advancements.

Rules • Full Version

1. Posts must be related to the discussion of digital piracy

2. Don't request invites, trade, sell, or self-promote

3. Don't request or link to specific pirated titles, including DMs

4. Don't submit low-quality posts, be entitled, or harass others



Loot, Pillage, & Plunder

📜 c/Piracy Wiki (Community Edition):


💰 Please help cover server costs.

Ko-Fi Liberapay
Ko-fi Liberapay

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS