Lemmy

Isn't app development a recurring cost? It's not like you just work on it for a bit and just forget about it once you got a version out. Especially if it's using a service (lemmy) that is still in development and is constantly changing.

Ongoing development IS an recurring cost.

I have zero problem with people trying to get paid for their work, often it is the only feasible way to dedicate enough time to the project.

I'd prefer open source sure, but I'm not all that opposed to small/individual projects not going that route. Especially when it's not a critical service and there's an abundance of FOSS choices

Personally, I don't need yet another subscription service.

That being said, I've used Sync for years (Pro, so just ad removal, one time fee.), and just paid again for ad removal. I did this because I enjoy the app, and appreciate the effort that goes into creating and maintaining it.

I have no qualms about paying a person for quality work.

If I understand correctly, every sync feature that requires the subscription (and cannot be purchased by a one time fee) requires the sync dev to run a constantly online server. Translation makes calls to translation services that cost money, push notifications require a push server since Lemmy servers don't include support for it, etc. Removing ads doesn't cost sync ongoing cash which is why you can get it for a one time fee.

Seems reasonable to me.

All apps have a recurring cost if the dev is continuing to develop the app. At the scale these apps are working the labor the dev puts in in the most expensive part. Plus Lemmy is continually updating so to keep the app working the dev will need to continually update.

As much as I support the developers’ right to profit off their work, I also cannot afford to have everything in my life turn into a reoccurring payment model.

Everyone wants a constant revenue stream, app devs aint unique. And also like everyone else, they charge what people are willing to pay. Price is never about cost.

I don't really get how everyone focuses on the ad-free feature as if it's the only thing that Sync Ultra provides. It also provides text recognition in images, translation in-app, (both requiring constant server work) and will eventually support push notifications (again requiring server work). On top of that, LJ has stated he wants to work on this app full-time, which is only possible if he earns a living from it.

If those features aren't interesting to a user, there's always the one-time ad removal option (I'll admit which is a bit pricey but per OP's post, is a one time fee and not a subscription).

Yeah how dare them try to make a salary out of their labour. OUTRAGEOUS!

I mean, if you want updates or fixes for bugs that's on work that occurred after you paid? Or are you suggesting we go back to the old model of super expensive software that gets sunsetted in a few years anyway?

Development costs money. When you buy an app, development doesn't stop. What kind of nonsense are you peddling here? How do you have such a rudimentary understanding of work and effort and how they all cost money?

Something has gone wrong in software development where software can never be finished.

If you release an app on Google Play and never touch it again, eventually Google will pull it from the store and customers will complain that it no longer runs on new devices. Android 16 will require that all applications now do something, and refuse to run any that do not.

This is the real structural source of the constant subscription demands. Nobody is willing to commit to supporting a stable API for 10 or 20 years, and nobody will keep coming in to bump dependency versions and rewrite systems to Google or Apple's new whims every year unless they get paid for this apparently useless work.

There's one thing you're forgetting; most applications aren't just code-and-forget anymore. Updates need to be made to fix security issues, adapt to newer versions of the API, etc.

Much as I liked Sync for Reddit I'm not willing to participate in subscription pricing for something like this, nor am I willing to pay a breathtaking $100 for a lifetime license or a still high $20 for ad removal. Keeping it in perspective, Sync is an Android app that provides nothing more than a nice UI for lemmy.

It will take some time for the number of Lemmy users and Sync customers to ramp up. IMO the dev is trying to quickly replace his lost Sync for Reddit revenue by charging excessively high prices for Sync for Lemmy. He's lucky so many of you want to pay him but I, for one, will pass on Sync and use other apps with more reasonable pricing.

This comment was written on Infinity for Lemmy which is working just fine.

Not the best take. The apps still need to continue to be developed, adding new features and improvements along the way. That's the cost of development. Not everything is just the cost of infrastructure. By that logic, McDonald's workers shouldn't be paid because it's not their buns and patties, etc.

Well, there are recurring costs, such as:

• App/Play store developer license - like $100/year, so not huge
• development efforts to fix bugs, implement features; even just keeping up with Lemmy backend changes is a fair amount of work since it's constantly changing
• many development tools require hosting, such as CI/CD, so even if it's 100% outside contributor driven, there are still costs

But those costs are pretty fixed.

Hosting an instance, however, is an order of magnitude or two more expensive. Instead of costing up to hundreds per year (not counting dev time), hosting tends to cost hundreds per month for larger instances.

So if people are continually coming to an app, I could see a fixed purchase price being different, and ads are probably enough to support it entirely on a free tier. An instance requires ongoing donations instead.

It's no win scenario for developers. While you're ok with "one up front payment and then maybe in app purchases to pay for new features going forward" there's a whole other slew of voices who are going to complain about being nickled and dimed.

Given those choices (and other factors), as a consumer I prefer the subscription model. If nothing else, it lets me forecast my expenditure and continually re-assess the cost/value proposition of the application in question.

Of course they want a constant revenue stream. I want a constant revenue stream as well, isn't it normal?

Whether the price is worth paying for you is a different matter but wanting to profit off your hard and good work is completely natural to me.

What does this have to do with Lemmy as a platform?

I generally agree, though I could be convinced of recurring payment in the case of high speed APIs that need a lot of updates to keep working. Chasing an API can be a lot of work.

Of course, a solution to that is having an up-front payment and letting people update as they wish--if there's new value in the new releases presumably they will.

Yes, and?

Doesn't the Sync Dev (LJDawson) work on Sync fulltime?

33$ !

Having settings, viewed posts etc sync between devices requires expenses through a server or service

This just seems like a Patreon with extra steps. If you like what he does, chip in a bit for it. If not, find something else.

I blame Apple for not creating a viable system for paid upgrades; it's perfectly reasonable for a developer to expect to be paid for a major app update - even if it was largely to support a new OS - but without a subscription, the only way to do that is to launch a brand new version of your app, which loses you all of your carefully cultivated SEO / links / etc. (doing this via IAP is impractical because you can only build your app against one version of iOS at a time; it either supports the new version or it doesn't)

And I suspect Apple does this because they don't want people to have to pay money to continue using apps on a new version of iOS, or a new phone; if buying a new iPhone meant forking over $50 to upgrade your favorite apps for it, that might mean fewer people buying new phones.

So don't blame developers for this, in other words; a lot of them would be perfectly happy to charge users the occasional upgrade fee instead of a recurring subscription, but Apple doesn't want them to. (they're also very happy to have their 30% cut of all of that lovely subscription revenue)