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.

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%.

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.

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

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.

UltimateGuitar.com

It used to be entirely free and the vast majority of its tablature was uploaded by community members for free.

The app used to be a one-time purchase. Thankfully I did purchase it back then and they grandfathered me in with a lifetime pro membership, but I can't blame the people who would never want to use the site/app when they've effectively paywalled a ton of community content.

One-time purchase. If I'm buying something, I want to own it. No compromises. Luckily basically every software that I use is free and open-source so I don't have to worry about that. If I can't find a particular software for a niche usage, I make it.

Mobile games for kids are the worst. Those and any self-help mental health apps.

It’s $10 a month to access the features of a basic game that runs on the local device, or the subscription renews weekly, or you can get a 7-day free trial after which it charges you for the entire year. And in the latter case, you usually have to sign up for the free trial before you are allowed to see ANY content.

A cheap subscription makes sense for some things, especially those using cloud based resources. But so much of that business model seems to rely on making money by screwing people that forgot they were paying you.

Adobe. Anything Adobe. Fuck Adobe.

The best subscription model I have seen so far is for the JetBrains products. They call it the perpetual fallback license.

Quote: "A perpetual fallback license is a license that allows you to use a specific version of software without an active subscription for it. The license also includes all bugfix updates, more specifically in X.Y.Z version all Z releases are included."

Beside mentions of Jetbrains license model, I would like to mention the license model of a note taking app called Agenda[1].

It has a subscription wherein the customer retains the software and all of its functionality even after the subscription expires. One may resume the subscription down the line if they see a new feature worth having.

The creators of the app liken it to a magazine subscription wherein the customer retains the magazines even after the subscription lapses.

From my own experience of using it, I purchased the license for a year back in 2021 and let it lapse as I did not find the any of the new features to be worthwhile. I still keep an eye on their updates as it is my daily driver.

[1] https://agenda.community/t/get-all-features/21

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.

A subscription to a mobile game that gives more gold when buying gold

Products aren't services.

So much bullshit has come from pretending otherwise.

Geocaching. Like come on.

In all fairness to Pocket Casts, the yearly cost in the US is $40, which is about the monthly cost of the three things you mentioned together. If your country gives you yearly Google Play Pass, YouTube Premium, and Spotify Premium for less than $40 US, that’s a fucking steal.

In all fuck you to Pocket Casts, Basic App functionality like folders shouldn’t be behind a subscription. I can understand a one-time unlock fee for app functionality or ongoing subscription costs to cover cloud storage and sync capabilities. I cannot fucking understand why folders would cost me $40 US a year.

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

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.

Subscription only makes sense if there's an ongoing service, e.g. processing in the cloud, cloud data storage, etc.

Apps that don't need to be subscription:

• Camera apps like Halide or Filmic Pro, wtf
• Any todo / habit apps, the 'cloud' part is usually iCloud / Google Drive
• Notetaking apps, e.g. GoodNotes, wtf
• Duolingo, mainly because the contents of some lessons are outdated (missing audio, etc).

YouTube is a weird one, personally. Why shouldn't it have a subscription based service like any other streaming network? Because the content is not created by, funded by, or even necessarily supported by YouTube.

It would make more sense for the subscription to be put upon uploaders to host the content, since their business is hosting the files, not really the content itself.

Now, if they had a better or at least more transparent way of giving the creators a truly fair cut of the monetary gains earned through their videos I would have nothing against YouTube Premium aside from hating that a completely free service has to move to a paid service.

Filebot, I like and use the app but it shouldn't be a subscription. You can buy a lifetime license for $48 but it's too expensive for what it is.

Only subscriptions that make sense to me a cloud based ones that can't function at all without access to the internet due to not being able to retrieve content needed to function. Examples that come to mind are netflix and spotify, since even though you can download content to watch or hear offline you need internet to retrieve new content. Means there are hosting costs, and I'm basically paying to not host all that content myself.

But, anything else doesn't make sense to me. If app wants to charge again then they can do another version release, and let people keep using the old version if they want while stopping updates for it. I don't do subscriptions.

Pocket Casts has a server component that makes sense you have to pay for, and for the most part the only things you don't get with the free version are the server stuff and a little bit of cosmetic stuff. $40/year for 20GB is a little steep, but the fact that they charge for it doesn't bother me.

With the exception of the folders; that doesn't make sense to me being a Plus-only thing.

All that being said, I bought the app before it went free, so I am grandfathered in to a lifetime Plus plan; but if that hadn't been the case I would not be paying for a subscription today.

The problem with one time purchases is that you might be investing time in an app that later will go out of business. Keeping an app up to date requires real constant work, before you even think of adding features and fixing bugs. People got used to paying 2 bucks for an app and keep it forever. That's completely unsustainable.

But yeah, sure, some companies push it.

Duolingo. Why can't I just pay $100 or whatever one time? Languages don't change to the extent that it needs to be a subscription.