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. - eviltoast

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

    • sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      I guess, but they’re a lot less optional and more useful.

      I own my house, so I don’t pay rent. My mortgage is below inflation and expected investment returns (it’s even below risk free investments like CDs), so I actually make money by not paying it down.

      Replacing gas/water/electricity/food with fixed cost items is more expensive. Electricity is the easiest, and going off-grid would cost $20-30k initially with a really good deal (assuming I DIY a lot of it; a lot of this is the battery backup), which if invested in the market would yield $1200-1600 the first year @ 6%. I only pay $50-100/month for electricity, so I’d pay more to generate it myself vs investing that money. The same goes for gas, water, and food, mostly because of the land requirement (need trees for heat, large plots for growing for, well access, etc). These items benefit from economies of scale, so it’s absolutely worth paying based on use.

      So it goes both ways. Some subscription-type things are cheaper long term, such as a Costco subscription or natural gas delivery, and some are likely more expensive, like paying for heated seats or many streaming subscriptions.