Lemmy

12508 readers

2 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

nutomic@lemmy.ml

Subscription models for an app that’s not hosting anything is just the dev wanting a constant revenue stream, no matter how they try to word it. (sh.itjust.works)

submitted 1 year ago by spiritedpause@sh.itjust.works to c/lemmy@lemmy.ml

80 comments fedilink hide all child comments

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

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] Urbanfox@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I get the distinct impression that everyone bitching about the fees are people that have never had to develop for end users and maintain the fucking thing.

[–] habanhero@lemmy.ca 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Yep, and it's even worse for mobile apps because people are so used to the terrible dollar-per-app model, despite the fact that these mobile apps are actually THE software they use everyday.

Apple and Google don't care, they get 30% cut regardless whether the dev makes $100 / sale or $1 / sale at higher volume. But it was a good strategy to shift the power over to the iOS and Android platforms because the perception is, dollar-per-app devs can't be that important, right? And they'll never get too big.