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.

  • Chozo
    arrow-up
    10
    arrow-down
    0
    ·
    10 months ago
    link
    fedilink

    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.

    • kirk782OPEnglish
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      0
      ·
      10 months ago
      link
      fedilink

      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.

    • doors_3English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      0
      ·
      8 months ago
      link
      fedilink

      I too ran into an Android Wear watch face that mimicked the Pixel lockscreen. However, it was priced X INR(Indian Rupee) per year in my country and was decently cheap. However, I soon ran into another app, which was a one time purchase, that did what it did mainly(sync and show phone and watch battery on each other) and worked on most lock screens. So the latter was a proper kind of app design amd atleast not subscription hell.

  • discussededEnglish
    arrow-up
    5
    arrow-down
    0
    ·
    10 months ago
    link
    fedilink

    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.

  • Anders429English
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    0
    ·
    10 months ago
    link
    fedilink

    Companies are using subscription models because it has proven to be far more profitable than a one-time purchase. Why sell the product to each person just once when you can sell it to them over and over again? You no longer have to constantly develop new products and versions, and you now only have to maintain your existing product.

    And it works because people buy it.

  • SprouxEnglish
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    0
    ·
    10 months ago
    link
    fedilink

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

  • CrowEnglish
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    0
    ·
    10 months ago
    link
    fedilink

    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%.

  • ilcoEnglish
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    0
    ·
    10 months ago
    link
    fedilink

    id rather pay a webhost a monthly fee and host most things i need myself your better of donating/buying a opensorce project /app than pay for a licensen to a company whom enforces always online apps . if possible sadly its not always an option as not all things have an alternative or a lacking

  • speeding_slugEnglish
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    0
    ·
    10 months ago
    link
    fedilink

    Might be a slightly unpopular opinion, but Volumio (software for a raspberry pi to run it as a headless audio system). It’s good, it’s relatively well maintained and works. But paying 7,50 a month for this software to get multiroom audio, Tidal integration and some other stuff is ridiculously expensive. That’s nearly 90 euro a year and the only thing that is actually an addition server side is syncing settings across devices and the Tidal integration (requires license fees iirc).

    And sure, I can’t buy multiroom speakers for that kind of money, but damn, is it expensive.

    • ghenEnglish
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      0
      ·
      10 months ago
      link
      fedilink

      That’s more than Duolingo costs and Duolingo is constantly adding new languages

  • 520
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    0
    ·
    10 months ago
    link
    fedilink

    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.

    • people_are_cuteEnglish
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      0
      ·
      10 months ago
      link
      fedilink

      Microsoft only tolerates retail users, it has always intended its products to be for commercial entities.

  • MonzEnglish
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    0
    ·
    10 months ago
    link
    fedilink

    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.

    • DamageEnglish
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      0
      ·
      10 months ago
      link
      fedilink

      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.

  • ilinamoratoEnglish
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    0
    ·
    10 months ago
    edit-2
    10 months ago
    link
    fedilink

    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.

  • RatzChatsuboEnglish
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    0
    ·
    10 months ago
    edit-2
    10 months ago
    link
    fedilink

    I’m a big fan of the way Plex does it. I paid like 100 dollars a decade ago and all my apps stay up to date forever

    What’s great about it is that it’s optional and not forced on you. I’m a Plexamp power user so it makes sense to me with my expansive music collection

  • WashedOverEnglish
    arrow-up
    0
    arrow-down
    0
    ·
    10 months ago
    edit-2
    10 months ago
    link
    fedilink

    This seems to be the model I’ve witnessed with many apps over the years. Free at first to get traction and users, then ads, then pay one time fee to get rid of ads, then subscription to keep using the app.

    Then there are those that wouldn’t even pay a single fee and get upset at the thought as everything should be free.

    The part that is upsetting is the contributions the early community made is monetized when they were they there for the benefit of the community.

    I do see there are costs to maintaining and updating these apps so I can understand a need to keep revenue flowing for these future costs. The one time payment is a hell of a deal for years with updates to accommodate the revisions needed for each system update let alone functionality improvements.

    In the old days we would buy software for our PC and that was it. There wasn’t really any updates or further support for newer versions of Windows. The software would become very insecure or just stop functioning altogether with enough changes to windows.

    It’s hard to find the right balance. I know I only want to pay once, or heck never, but I want these upgrades and updates too.

  • spyd4rEnglish
    arrow-up
    0
    arrow-down
    0
    ·
    10 months ago
    link
    fedilink

    Geocaching. Like come on.

  • RanchOnPancakesEnglish
    arrow-up
    0
    arrow-down
    0
    ·
    10 months ago
    link
    fedilink

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

    • ZikejiEnglish
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      0
      ·
      10 months ago
      link
      fedilink

      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.