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
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.
of course nobody is going to commit to supporting a stable API for 10 to 20 years… that’s expensive as heck and not even remotely worth it!
there’s nothing “wrong” with software development, it’s just that consumers demand new features rather than stagnation… i sure don’t want to be using a 20 year old app because we’ve come a long way in 20 years in so many regards
in 2003, windows xp was still microsoft’s dominant OS with vista still being several years off, half life 2 was about to be released, gmail was allllmost ready to release, msn messenger was still in its prime
yeah no, ill stick with rapidly changing technologies rather than sticking to that for some misplaced sense of “stability”
But one would like to be able to still play Half Life 2 today, even if Valve weren’t helpfully around to update it. One would like to be able to read an old Word document or display an old blog post along with its scripts. So either you support the old standards and, for active content, the old APIs, or you lose access to anything that doesn’t emit enough cash to pay a person to keep it current.
I think it started when software stopped being distributed physically. It’s hard to push a bunch of updates to your users when they’ve need to physically have floppies sent to them versus doing it over the network.
I remember a time when software being “Gold Master” meant it was literally written to a gold master disk, from which copies were made. With that kind of release you had to make damn sure things were finished.
The difference is that software nowadays is interconnected. Sync doesn’t exist on its own, nor does Lemmy. And if one of these links changes, chances are, that something else needs to change to keep up. You’re talking about standalone software that that exists entirely on its own. But that’s not what this post is about.
Did you just say progress is what’s wrong with software development? Really. Do you even know how software development works before criticizing how it works?
I think the requirement for constant progress, and the expectation that all software be able to change arbitrarily with a year or so of notice, is in fact a problem with software development.
I do software development all the time, and I find this to be an impediment to my work. I also make the kind of breaking changes that cause this problem.
Technology moves fast. Why would you want to have an app that old, and what app is actually worth running that is that old and unsupported?