Subscriptions mean I purchase far less software. This is an empirical observation - my personal software spending is down something like 80% over the last couple years, and it is due to the friction of subscriptions.
The main thing is I do not like assigning myself future decisions, especially about money, and I don't like ongoing financial obligations.
I'm not saying this is strictly rational; I'm sure there are times I've paid way more for software than a sub for the duration of my use would have been.
But it is true - the friction of the ongoing obligation means software has to cross a much higher bar before I don't go find a different way to solve my problem.
I realize the switch makes software companies more stable, etc. All true, and it has zero to do to my decision making.
I think the tricky part is how many applications these days are relatively “dumb” clients that rely on a back-end server at least for data storage and potentially even for compute. You can’t really offer something like that as a one-time purchase because the backend requires continuous operation and maintenance for the software to work.
These days a lot of consumers don’t want to deal with file management or having to think about their data, so it’s increasingly the case that “the app magically works via the cloud” is table stakes.
I agree, though, I don’t like it and I buy less software as a result. This especially frustrates me with things like the Adobe creative suite and Creative tools in that category. I used to keep a fairly robust collection of image editors, sound editors, etc. but so many of those things have gone subscription that I just don’t bother anymore.
What is unique to some Apple fans, that it's not enough for to merely deny bugs and criticism, they also often personally attack the messenger. Other companies have bugs which they promise to fix someday; Apple doesn't have any bugs or problematic behaviour and it's your fault if you have any issues.
There isn't a thread on HN about Apple without this behaviour. Either this is an unofficial Apple PR guideline or a symptom of cult membership...
Nobody is saying that openly, but every actual report or complaint is met by derision, which amounts to the same thing. Apple denied it slowed down old phones (it did), it denied butterfly keyboard problem, "you're holding it wrong". Even this comment thread has an example:
What I really don't understand is why Some Random Hacker feels the need to jump into a thread and defend Apple, one of the wealthiest companies in the world.
It’s because without the voice of reason to help balance things out, there would be a strong misleading conception that everything about being a developer on Apple’s platforms is 100 percent negative, but this is certainly far from the truth. There are pros and cons, I don’t think it’s necessarily better or worse than developing on other platforms. The advantages outweigh the negatives much of the time.
That explains one or two comments countering an attack on Apple with arguments. I see those too.
But it does not explain all the anecdotal (I've never had o cancel. For me X is not an issue. I don't know anyone ever coplaining about Y) arguments. Or personal attacks. And so on.
It really reeks like a tribal war. The scorched smell of flamewars.
Actually it feels to me like calming the conversation down. Most “news” on the internet is just outrage these days with very little regard for the context and details of a situation. I appreciate that when things are discussed on HN a lot of people take the time to comment “this doesn’t seem like a big deal to me,” as it helps put in context that this isn’t the end of the universe.
It might just be that a lot of devs here make their entire living on App Store subscriptions. The numbers Apple trumpets mean that there are thousands upon thousands of devs in this position and probably more than a few of them are HN posters.
Whenever you see a company "forcing" someone to do something, it's almost always an exaggeration. Apple has never forced me to do anything, nor are they forcing developers to do things. Their employees aren't holding a gun to anyone's head. A better description would be "As a condition of developing an app with a free trial, Apple requires developers to implement auto-billing." But, that wording doesn't cause enough drama and outrage, so we have "forcing" instead.
When google uses AMP which allows you to read news sites without loading gigabytes of ads, they're "breaking the free internet". When Apple try to become the arbiters of how businesses should bill their customers (or, how they should let users sign up, or dozens of other things), they're just being user-centric. I find this terribly incosistent too.
(Note: I'm not saying I can't see the issues with AMP, too.)
Wealth does not dictate right or wrong nor the need to defend it. Why would someone's income matter anymore then race or religion when it comes to choosing a side in a billing related conversation?
I mentioned "wealthiest" as indication for how powerful the company is. It can very well defend itself. Wealthy people can too.
As opposed to minorities (race religion) or people without any means (poor, non-wealthy).
But why do you bring race or religion in here? I was talking about a company. A company has no race. It has no religion. Well, maybe, seeing people in HN threads defending apple, it does have similarities with religions.
Apple is the highest valued company in the world because it leads its industry in customer satisfaction.
There are things to criticize Apple and the App Store over but trying to reduce subscription scams by making subscription terms consistent doesn’t seem like one of them.
Why are you taking the word of a butthurt yogi instead of hearing Apple's side of the story?
But can you not see that auto-billing without reconfirming that the user actually wants to continue the subscription is also scammy? Why are you taking the side of a trillion dollar company that clearly knows how to extract money from users.
Not the way Apple does it, pricing and cancellation instructions up front.
Some would argue tricking users into a free trial without telling them the subscription price is a scam. Once they start to depend on the app, it’s much harder to not subscribe.
I don't care if they're up front with the info, they should display the price when i start the trial but ask if i want to pay AFTER i evaluated the app not before.
> shill: A person paid to endorse a product favourably, while pretending to be impartial.
> insinuation: That which is insinuated; a hint; a suggestion, innuendo or intimation by distant allusion
"Brand affiliation tribalism" is not an 'insinuation of shilling' as I understand those terms. It's a plainly stated description of 'fanboyism.'
Per the golden rule and principle of charitable assumptions, should I assume it wasn't your intent to mischaracterize my above comment? Should I expect an apology for this presumed misunderstanding? Try as I might, I can't bring myself to believe I'll get one.
My apologies. It was definitely not my intention of mischaracterizing your above comment.
I didn't think a shill necessarily had to be paid. My working definition was more along the lines of;
"an accomplice of a hawker, gambler, or swindler [e.g. Apple] who acts as an enthusiastic customer to entice or encourage others."
Brand affiliation tribalism seems to me closely aligned with that definition. An accomplice acting as an enthusiastic customer. Therefore I read your comment as demeaning the honest support of Apple's policy here as insincere, i.e. shilling. It sounds like you believe that those supportive of Apple's policy are merely disillusioned [fanboys], but not insincere.
But let's not make it about us personally, and again I apologize for taking the first misstep in that direction.
I don't think it's fair to characterize support of Apple's policy here as shilling, or brand affiliation tribalism, or fanboyism.
I think there are valid technical and usability reasons for demanding that all products within a store all conform to the same billing policies. For Apple, providing a consistent user experience is absolutely paramount. They want all apps to act the same and bill the same. If the baseline/standard experience is sub-optimal, then they would say let us fix or improve the baseline experience for everyone, not deal with it piecemeal and leave the user guessing how an app will end up billing them.
However I still believe that if any other corporation were forcing developers wanting to offer free trials to use the "billing details up front, autobilling" scheme, far fewer people here would defend it. I see those sort of schemes as incredibly scummy, similar to the sort of tactics gyms or used car salesmen might use. It's a form of 'dark pattern.'
If this is truly about a consistent user experience, Apple has gone about it in the worst possible way. They should instead forbid collection of payment details when signing up for free trials and require auto-renewals to be opt-in. That would make for a consistently positive user experience, rather than a consistently hostile one.
I think it's Apple that doesn't understand UX anymore. Their insane focus on subscriptions as the go-to model for software sales is going to drive me off the platform eventually.
