buskbrand

joined 1 year ago
[–] buskbrand@lemm.ee 2 points 11 months ago

Ok, yeah, upon reflection I think I agree with you.

[–] buskbrand@lemm.ee 4 points 11 months ago (2 children)

But a subscription to remove ads? Your app doesn't need an external server to do that.

This is kind of a bad example because the value proposition is different but still very clear - the default version of the app provides a regular income stream to the developers. If you don't like that, you can choose to provide an alternative income stream instead.

It is still unfair because the subscription cost is usually many times more than what the ads will earn for a single user - but it's a matter of quantity at that point, not quality.

The Adobe case is still a much better example, IMO. Yes, they may offer regular content updates worth subscribing for, but their products could still work perfectly well as one-time purchases without access to the content stream. The only reason they didn't is that they don't have enough competition to be worried about customers moving away.

[–] buskbrand@lemm.ee 3 points 11 months ago

If the app doesn't have network access, though, the OS sandbox should be more than sufficient to keep it secure.

A calculator app should be safe to run without updates at least until the OS APIs undergo a breaking changes (which should take several years at least).

[–] buskbrand@lemm.ee 1 points 11 months ago

Then you're paying for your user account with the cloud services, not the client apps (which you may not even use, e.g. if there is a Web version or a third party client).

A subtle distinction, I know, but it matters.