Speaking as a customer, this drive towards subscriptions is killing my interest in looking for new apps for my iOS devices. 

A few days ago, Michael Tsai wrote:

Some apps just don’t need a stream of new features, but all apps need maintenance. How do you fund that? Relying entirely on new customers doesn’t seem like a good plan. In theory, a very cheap subscription would be fair to both sides. But I haven’t seen that done. One issue is how to get your installed base to subscribe if you’ve already delivered the features they want. Another is that even if the subscription is cheap, a lot of customers will search for any non-subscription alternative. So the math no longer works, and you need a much more expensive subscription.

This is something I’ve been mulling over as well. And yes, I’m one of those customers who definitely will search for an alternative when an app I already paid for switches to a subscription model as the sole option henceforward, even if the subscription is cheap.

I explained why in an older article, Subscriptions for apps — The uneasy deal, which continues to express my firm stance on subscriptions (so I suggest you read it in its entirety):

Subscriptions demand a mutual dependence: obviously developers present such dependence as a mutually beneficial pact. But the fact is, there is now a dependence where before there was none. And that makes me uncomfortable, because there is now a new, uncomfortable atmosphere: I’m not simply buying your product, I become regularly involved in your support. I become part of your plan to make a living through the development of a software application. […] 

I become involved in someone else’s business problem, hopefully as the continued solution to such problem. And, in a sense, I’m not even a customer anymore, I become a subscriber, a patron. I’m not sure I want this kind of involvement. [I’m not sure I want] to be more actively involved in solving the sustainability problem of someone else’s business.

And I’m not sure it’s even fair to expect this kind of involvement from customers. One of the main reasons developers constantly bring up to justify their switch to a subscription model is that subscriptions are needed to fund the continued development (or maintenance) of their apps. Okay. Do you know what more than a few regular folks have told me about this? That it sounds like a poor excuse. They have been updating the app so far without subscriptions, what exactly has become so expensive all of a sudden? Or, This app has been updated twice in the past year — it works fine — and they now want me to believe it needs ‘regular’ updates?

I know a lot of developers who are genuine people and don’t want to scam anybody by switching to subscriptions, but those reactions I quoted above are by no means infrequent, and are just one small facet of the many-faceted subscription issue.

In a more recent post, Tsai quotes a piece and some tweets by David Barnard. Barnard’s original piece is titled Subscribers Are Your True Fans, and while he makes some good points here and there, I really disagree with other crucial ones — specifically those quoted by Tsai. I will address them one by one.

1. Paying once for an app really only makes sense if the app provides minimal functionality of limited value and won’t benefit from continued improvement.

I find this to be rather disrespectful towards all the developers who have, in the past years, provided great apps with good functionality and good value to the customer. There have been, there still are, many apps priced fairly (i.e. they’re not too cheap but also not unreasonably expensive for what they offer), with well-made and inviting in-app purchases; and the fact that these apps are still around without needing subscriptions means their developers are probably doing something right.

Barnard’s statement, as it is, sounds like it’s coming from someone who dogmatically thinks subscriptions are the only possible way forward and, from that assumption, starts deconstructing the rest.

2. With paid apps, people often end up buying several apps just to figure out which one best fits their needs. Let’s say they spent $3 each on 4 apps, that’s $12 they were willing to pay for a great app, but that great app they settled on only gets $3. Since most subscription apps have free trials, and many even have ad supported free tiers, people can try multiple apps and then only pay for the one they actually use.

But the fact is that a lot of apps embracing the freemium model already offer free trials or ad-supported free tiers. There are plenty of apps that are offered in separate ‘Lite’ and ‘Pro’ versions. If Barnard is trying to ‘sell’ the benefits of subscription apps here, I find this specific example to be a bit weak and unconvincing. Counterexample: what if, in my search for a good photo editing app, I end up buying two that are equally great for me for different reasons? (i.e. one has extremely refined filter effects, and the other has really professional retouching tools.) I end up paying $5 for one and $5 for the other, maybe I even do some in-app purchasing down the road, and get to support more than one developer. 

Paid apps — apps you pay up-front, no subscription — allow people to potentially be happy customers of more developers. Those $3 spent here and there in Barnard’s examples may end up being a total of $12 badly spent, but — even if in a small way — have benefited four developers in the process. Subscriptions — exactly because you cannot support every developer out there — push people to choose wisely first and commit later. And not everyone likes that. Sometimes people just like to shop around, even when they occasionally waste a few dollars for a goofy app. Because there are no strings attached. As I said in an older article, I prefer purchasing two good apps each priced at $3.99 rather than investing $7.98 for sustaining a single app with a $0.99/month subscription for approximately 8 months. Your mileage may vary, naturally.

3. Sure, some potential customers (or existing customers if you transition from another business model to subscriptions) are going to complain about the subscription model. It’s hard to hear someone tell you that they don’t value what you’ve built, but the smart thing to do is focus on the people who are subscribing, your true fans. Figure out who they are and look for ways to reach more people like them instead of focusing on the vocal minority that complain.

First, notice that rhetorical conflation: if someone complains about the subscription model, that doesn’t necessarily mean they don’t value what you’ve built. Maybe they just don’t like that you’re pulling the rug from under their feet and switch to subscriptions as the only way to pay for your app when so far you’ve been following the ‘paid up-front’ or ‘paid update’ routes. 

But here comes the point I disagree most with Barnard: the smart thing to do is actually to stop discriminating between ‘customers’ and ‘fans’. The smart thing to do is to focus on the damn product you’re building. You need to make a good app first, not smile at those in the audience who are smiling back at you and ignore the critical voices. ‘Fans’ may come later, but you can’t rely on fans. People are fickle when it comes to these things. The wrong update, the wrong app redesign, the feature you think it’s awesome and needed and groundbreaking but it turns out to be an unwelcome change — and you lose a lot of fans. (Hello, Dropbox.)

In 2017, Oliver Reichenstein wrote a fantastic post in iA’s blog, sharing his musings about the next version of iA Writer. I already quoted this bit in my older article, but I feel it’s still relevant (emphasis in bold type is mine):

The elephant in the room is: Who will pay for this? Will there be a paid upgrade? Do we ask for subscriptions? Talking to other devs you can get tough guy advice like:

“People always complain, they don’t understand technology, you need to live, you have tons of fans, you lose some, win others, who cares?”

Trust is earned in drops and lost in buckets. Yes, we need to live. But that’s our problem. Explaining that dev costs and comparing software to coffee, sandwiches or cars is not convincing. The only ones that will feel you are friends, family and other indie devs. Friends don’t count money. Customers do. To own, we pay more. To rent, we pay less. Strangers don’t genuinely care about our wellbeing — they compare prices and pick the best value. Subscriptions are tough. They are not bad or impossible, but they need to meet real life expectations:

a) Renting is less expensive than buying

b) Expensive products hold longer than cheap products

c) Buying vs renting should be a fair choice 

4. I don’t think most people realize how much most indie developers sacrifice to keep the lights on. In 11 years, I’ve probably only been cash flow positive 48 months. With paid apps, I’d build up a war chest with a big launch/update/sale, then spend it down working on the next.

I’ve even gone into debt to squeak by until the next big update. People seem to think all developers are rich & greedy. But it’s like any other small business. Most struggle, some do well, a few really well.

Well, a lot of people don’t realise how much time and effort and mental energy a writer puts in his work. Especially someone who writes (tech stuff and fiction) in a language that is not even their native language. When I used to complain about this in the past, and about my not-really-successful attempts at ‘monetising’ my efforts, more than one person cheekily suggested, Maybe don’t quit your day job just yet.

Again, businesses small and large have (should have) a business model and a business plan with which to operate. App subscriptions are different from magazine or newspaper subscriptions. They’re not about distributing information and content in an alternative method which can be more convenient for customers. The app subscription model involves, among other things, considering customers as patrons or ‘fans’. As I said, to me this feels awkward. I want to be able to buy your product — or, yes, subscribe to your service when it is, in fact, a service — and that’s it. I don’t want to be involved in the process of you figuring out how to make your business viable and sustainable for yourself. And even if I wanted, it would simply be unsustainable for me as a customer, because I couldn’t afford it, and I couldn’t afford to think this way for every developer that makes an interesting app. In other words, while I can be a customer for multiple parties, I can’t be a patron for everybody.