For the subscription model to be palatable to your consumer, they need to perceive you as providing some kind of meaningful ongoing value.
In the case of Netflix that's obvious - new shows. Dropbox is a little more annoying, but there's still the premise the cloud component is fundamental to how their service works.
"Daily admission to the software I installed" doesn't feel like much in the way of value, even if you are continuously investing into the product behind the scenes. The equation can even become negative (e.g. forced UI revamp, user hates it, now they feel like you're charging them to make their life worse).
I get the cashflow appeal and business arguments, but I disagree it's the only way. I sold software online with a small bootstrapped team for over a decade under the plain old "buy it once" model, resisting the subscription fad even when the MBA's pushed to go that route, and made it work. My customers were always happy to buy the major version upgrades (every couple years or so) because it was really clear what new value they were getting.
Agree. Pay once and make well defined versions. Versions can definitely be done as in app purchases. Knowing I’m creating content I could lose access to if i cancel the subscription is a great reason to not purchase in the first place.
Disagree. This puts pressure on the app developer to release versions with new features whether it makes sense for the app or not.
I balk at yearly subscriptions to software too for the exact reason you state. But, I also realize that one time purchases don't keep the doors open indefinitely. I wish I had a magic solution for this conundrum, but I don't.
The subscribe-for-continous-updates, and stuck at last-paid update (as long as you pay, you update; if you stop paying, you keep the app, with no further updates) seems like a pretty good model, as far as incentives go
I know I've seen it a couple times, but can't find the search terms to find them now; jetbrains model is a bit wonkier though (key term: perpetual fallback license) -- you subscribe annually, and if you stop the subscription, you roll back to the version available at the time you last paid. So you're basically buying the software as it is today, and then getting a 12-month trial of the updates happening from there.
This doesn't seem to be any better incentive-wise than the model I described (stopping payment stop further updates, so you keep whatever you have today), but comes with the user-backlash of losing what they thought they had (no one feels good about rolling back)
Ah, thank you! It looks like Agenda[0] does use that model. Here's a blog post with details[1] in which they mention that Sketch[2] also uses the same business model (with some minor variations).
tl;dr: you buy the app and 1 year of updates. You keep what you pay for.
I wonder if it would be viable for an app like photoshop to have a feature marketplace. You start with a very basic version of the app and you buy the features you want piecemeal. You then have a separate service contract for ongoing support (ie: bug fixes).
Oracle is famous for this, and it basically amounts to anything you want to do leads you to another sales rep with an upsell -- everything useful becomes feature-gated.
It might work better with consumers, where such a strategy isn't cost-effective, but I also imagine its a difficult system to tech support -- you get a combinatorial explosion of possible "features" that may be in play. Anyways, it incentivizes bad behavior even consumer side, encouraging results like 200 $1 features and communities/tutorials/discussion becomes strangled
In the case of Netflix that's obvious - new shows. Dropbox is a little more annoying, but there's still the premise the cloud component is fundamental to how their service works.
"Daily admission to the software I installed" doesn't feel like much in the way of value, even if you are continuously investing into the product behind the scenes. The equation can even become negative (e.g. forced UI revamp, user hates it, now they feel like you're charging them to make their life worse).
I get the cashflow appeal and business arguments, but I disagree it's the only way. I sold software online with a small bootstrapped team for over a decade under the plain old "buy it once" model, resisting the subscription fad even when the MBA's pushed to go that route, and made it work. My customers were always happy to buy the major version upgrades (every couple years or so) because it was really clear what new value they were getting.