I just looked at two pomodoro apps on the app store, one had a one-time purchase fee, the other had a subscription only model. It's a freaking pomodoro app! I can't believe I have to pay for that in the first place (why doesn't the countdown app of Apple not have a widget =.=) but a subscription? People are greedy af.
Putting on my Older Person hat for a moment, software from indie publishers used to cost in the ballpark of $40 in the late 1980s (that's ~$100 in 2024 dollars after adjusting for inflation). $100 for a single version of a single app. When the next point release comes out, the publisher might give you a discount of 50%, so it might only cost you $50. A major release was often required for compatibility with a new OS version.
All the software we used back in the day? We spent significant money on it.
Do you think apps like these pomodoro apps would sell in sustainable quantities if it were $100 for major releases and $50 for point releases? What if it were $100 to get the current version every time iOS did a major version upgrade?
Or is it more likely that these apps would simply not exist?
People say they want one-time purchases, but the small $ subscriptions are more consumer-friendly than is immediately apparent. And they support a vastly more comprehensive software ecosystem.
You could almost use this argument to convince me for a complex software like the Adobe products that is constantly getting new, major updates, but for a Pomodoro app? Honestly, $1 seems reasonable.
I should have been clearer. Apps from big publishers were more expensive than the indies in the 1980s. And indie shops that were charging ~$40 ($100 in 2024 dollars) for their titles. This is a direct comparison to the type of pomodoro app mentioned in the upthread comment.
The thing is, all software constantly needs new updates. If not platform-driven, then security, bug fixes, etc.
The more niche (like a pomodoro app), the fewer users over which to amortize the dev costs. A lifetime fee of $1, sold to a huge audience of 100k paid users, will pay for ~1 year of a single dev in the US, perhaps 2-3 years of a developer in a low-cost country. And then where does the money come from for updates in year 4 and beyond?
Subscription payments recognize the realities that a) development never ends for most apps that are in use and b) developers are not going to be free in the future just because the publisher only charged once.
> A lifetime fee of $1, sold to a huge audience of 100k paid users, will pay for ~1 year of a single dev in the US, perhaps 2-3 years of a developer in a low-cost country. And then where does the money come from for updates in year 4 and beyond?
I challenge you to demonstrate the Pomodoro app that has a full time dev effort for a year, and then requires anything more than piecemeal bug fixes or maybe a recompile in that four years of support...
You have already been paid everything you will ever get paid for work you did in 2021. Next year, I want you to do an unpredictable amount of work to support the 2025 iOS. How much will you charge me? Where will I get the money to pay you? Why would I spend it on this instead of something else where I might see a return?
Apple Watch app, widgets, Live Activities, new phone sizes... there are always things Apple wants you to add over time. Do you want meaningful updates or abandoned software? It doesn't take a full time job, but it's significantly more than $1 per install
> Apps from big publishers were more expensive than the indies in the 1980s. And indie shops that were charging ~$40 ($100 in 2024 dollars) for their titles.
Similarly, in the 1990s, things like Myst and Sim City 2000 were $40 each. Shareware at the time (mostly indie) were usually $20 or less; often $5, and sometimes fun/silly things like postcardware or beerware.
> software from indie publishers used to cost in the ballpark of $40 in the late 1980s
Why go that far back? The average computer back then cost thousands of dollars, much more than what an iPhone costs now in inflation-adjusted terms. The App Store is not a new invention, it's been around since 2008, and for year apps were sold for a flat one-time fee.
The reason everything is a subscription now is because accountants decided that recurring revenue was how every startup should be valued, and every vendor adjusted their pricing structure accordingly.
Because this is the era before really any major software was sold by subscription. Even 2008 was a hybrid era where some Web software was already subscription-based. Consumer behavior had already started to shift by 2008.
> for year apps were sold for a flat one-time fee.
This model also makes a lot of assumptions about where user data is stored and who is paying for that storage. Many apps have non-trivial backend requirements to support very normal use cases like "I also would like to access this from a Web browser sometimes." Those requirements cost money on an ongoing basis. One-time purchases are not a good fit for this either. We do not see many one-time purchases of Web software; many mobile apps are essentially parts of a larger whole that includes other modes of access to underlying services.
This is happening with a lot of companies that don't really have to care about "startup value"; they're tiny (sometimes even one-person) shops that aren't likely to ever go public, be bought for millions, or so on. I think you've got the cause and effect reversed for a lot of these -- the App Store pricing model has driven the price people expect to pay for apps down substantially, which made the "buy outright and then buy a new version in a couple years, at a discount, if it appeals to you" model much harder to sustain. I don't love subscriptions for apps that don't have a server-side component, but I get it.
(The example of the Pomodoro app with the subscription is pretty dubious, though.)
Apps at the scale of what GP describes were often freeware with no ads or tracking back in the day. I remember when PC Magazine would send a CD-ROM full of utilities like that with the latest issue (not strictly free but I was already subscribing). Or when I would search download.com for the specific tool I needed. I even made a free tool for timing debate tournaments in high school, which was similarly complex to the timer you need to subscribe to in the app store.
People are so used to the zero interest rate period of tech that everyone expects the pricing model of VC backed startups that can burn money forever and maybe figure out a business model at some point.
Software costs time and money. People complain that they don't want the same uninspired corporate created junk – and then they balk at paying indie developers a reasonable amount for apps.
So much work goes into this stuff! It's so tempting for indie devs to just take the high paying job, and then congrats – no more unique and interesting apps like this.
I’m not sure what your point was. Is this in defense or against IaP?
Most people don’t balk at paying fair prices for an app, but the definition has drifted so far that €7/month (€84/year) is described as “fair” for a simple timer, and that is plain absurd.
Halide goes for €69 one-time purchase, or €12,50/year. For professional software that is really well designed and is actually kept up to date. This should be the benchmark.
I totally agree with you. I don't mind paying for creative devs to build awesome software. I do mind cash grabs. Mobile gaming is the most frustrating category. It's sad that pay-once-no-ads games like Crashlands and 80 Days are the exception. Enterprise software is a close second, but I'm not paying those bills out of my own pocket.
I know right! I run a freemium B2C app and I get users telling me this all the time. It's so ridiculous. No one is forcing anyone to use the software. Go write your own version and give it away for free.
Personally, for smaller developers, I attribute this more to ignorance than malice (greed). Pricing is hard so they just look around and pick what they see happening around them without taking a moment even to think, forget about doing actual research.
These smaller developers go through the trouble of building an app and getting verified for distribution on the App Store but don't give even a moment's thought to pricing? Surely the easiest option is free compared to some arbitrary monthly price and having to set up payments, etc.
I never said "they should do apps for free". I was rebutting the idea that small app developers don't give any thought to pricing and just use a monthly subscription, which sounds like more work than just giving it away for free. If they landed on a subscription model they must have given it _some_ thought.
Software isn't a "thing" so there is nothing to sell. The only way to monetize software is to monetize the labor of writing it directly. When you "sell" "licenses" to software, you're just double, triple, N dipping on monetizing labor that already happened.
The alternative is charging to write software, which is actually how most people (employees) make money writing software. Corporations take advantage of the difference between paying people to write software, and charging people over and over again to use the same software that has already been written.
That doesn't seem odd to me. Pomodoro/focus apps are a category where people start casual, but end up developing very specific desires that narrow their options. Someone catering to that can charge a bit.
Whether it's ethical for developers to cater to that kind of helpless behavior is another question.
