Lemmy

12641 readers

5 users here now

Everything about Lemmy; bugs, gripes, praises, and advocacy.

For discussion about the lemmy.ml instance, go to !meta@lemmy.ml.

founded 4 years ago

MODERATORS

nutomic@lemmy.ml

Subscription models for an app that’s not hosting anything is just the dev wanting a constant revenue stream, no matter how they try to word it. (sh.itjust.works)

submitted 1 year ago by spiritedpause@sh.itjust.works to c/lemmy@lemmy.ml

81 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Subscription models only make sense for an app/service that have recurring costs. In the case of Lemmy apps, the instances are the ones with recurring hosting costs, not the apps.

If an app doesn’t have recurring hosting costs, it only makes sense to have one up front payment and then maybe in app purchases to pay for new features going forward

(page 2) 32 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] VelociCatTurd@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

I assume you’re talking about Sync? You’re in luck because you could do a one time payment if you wanted to.

[–] dan1101@lemmy.world -2 points 1 year ago (3 children)

I can see both sides of this. I don't usually update an app unless I'm having problems that are fixed in a later update.

Ongoing development of an app can be for various things. For things like bugfixes to existing code, I don't think we should necessarily pay for that. For brand new features that weren't promised before and didn't exist before there could be a case for paying for that.

load more comments (3 replies)

load more comments