It's surreal, to pay for the internet on a monthly basis, ...

and then pay for parts of your computer to NOT talk to the internet on a monthly basis!

If you buy directly and not from the app store it isn't subscription: https://www.obdev.at/products/littlesnitch/order.html

Isn't that a different product? This thread is about Little Snitch Mini

How much is the subscription fee ? - it is not mentioned on their site.

Subscription is $13.49/yr or $1.49/mo for mini according to Mac Store page.

In all fairness, you can't even buy a cup of black coffee from a 7-Eleven for that much.

Please let’s stop comparing software subscriptions to coffee. It misses the point about the recurring cost and lock in, and not everyone lives in the USA and pays high prices for coffee every day (or ever).

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32738791

I don't like subscriptions either, but what is the sustainable alternative income source for app developers?

I like Jetbrains licensing. Essentially you pay for updates and once you stop paying you’re locked in at that specific version, but you can use it indefinitely.

How does support work for this? Are non-paying customers no longer eligible for support?

App wise would this lock features since developers would have no means of shipping X versions of an app

I wonder , once the EU opens up the App Store will devs have to deal with cracked apps. Probably the full end of offline apps

    Are non-paying customers no longer eligible for support?

Yeah, basically. "If you pay nothing, you get nothing."

The last paragraph is brilliant foresight. I guess apps will need to move towards the AAA gaming market where Internet connection is required to verify license, plus a bunch amazing anti-cheat/-hack stuff. Assuming EU does crack open the app stores (pun intended), it sounds like a great small business to offer some libraries that mobile app devs can use for these new needs.

"Pay once" is sustainable as long as people keep buying your app. Which works out just fine, since you are never going to saturate the market as a small app developer. There's always going to be new people who buy your app.

I've made a living from non-subscription app sales for a decade, and revenue is pretty constant. As long as your app stays useful, people will continue to buy it.

Honest question, and I'm asking because I want to know your take, not because I'm trying to be a dick: why should an app developer have a sustainable income stream from a single app no matter what?

Isn't it possible that an app is simple enough that doesn't justify getting a full salary out of it?

Again, I'm not trying to be a dick here, I'm just trying to figure out what is the reasoning behind the subscription model.

I'm a freelance web developer. When I'm done with a project I have to move to something else. Is it unreasonable to expect app developers to do the same?

And I know, not all apps are created equal, some apps require constant work. I get that. For some apps is reasonable to expect a subscription. But for all apps? I'd say no.

And this developer, from what I can see, is doing the "right thing" by working on multiple products. Which is great.

I completely agree, many apps don’t justify being a subscription. It depends on the complexity, the frequency of expected updates and new features. Also if there is a cloud storage or paid API component to the app, then a subscription model is practically essential to keep an app running due to the developer’s own recurring costs.

I think like many things it’s not one size fits all.

In this particular case, I think that keeping a firewall utility up to date with changes to macOS and emerging threats would require a modest sustainable income source to make it worthwhile for the developer.

Well, I was looking at the change log of the non mini version of this app and the releases are dated

- October 12, 2022 - May 2, 2022 - April 25, 2022 - November 17, 2021

Just to grab the most recent. Reading the change notes a solid % is bug fixes which is expected.

This looks like a “traditional” piece of software. Doesn’t require constant new features that could be eventually bundled in a major paid release and the updates are primarily big fixes.

And in fact the non mini version of little snitch is not a subscription. As it should.

I agree with you that if an app has running costs (cloud storage or other services) or it requires constant work then a subscription is justified. But these days developers are trying to convert everything into a subscription.

Every minor utility app wants to be a subscription. Which is just insane.

But if the developers live in the USA then they are paying high prices for coffee, and thus require a commensurate level of return on their work to survive.

I fall to see the connection. The product is directed to an international market. Besides, is coffee cup subscriptions common to merit the comparison?

+1. I live in India, coffee costs me 10 INR that is 0.12 USD.

In all fairess, you don't go out every morning to buy three dozens of cups of coffee.

Currently everyone and their mother want to sell you a subscription. Netflix, Amazon, Apple, Spotify, $NUM of app developers, Disney, $FORMER_TV_STATIONS

That's the problem with subscriptions. They pile up.

yes, the price is cheap, but the number subscriptions and the total sum of them add up very quickly.

Not disagreeing with you here, but buying full licenses adds up too. And you will likely have to buy "upgrade" licenses when new versions are released.

That being said, I do like the license model that JetBrains uses for their products: if you pay for the subscription for more than 12mo, when you stop, you get to keep a perpetual license for the latest version that was released during the last 12 months of paid subscription (I hope I got it right).

In the UK it's £12.49 per year or £1.29 per month

software is ongoing though, the subscription model makes more sense if you want ongoing maintenance

profits mainly. some software managed to work just fine for years with one time buy..

Yeah some, and a lot of the time you'd be running it with gaping security holes. There's no way little snitch can keep on top of OS and network updates without a decent amount of ongoing maintenance.

Much software still works like that, for free.

The software that can't be released free often has users that require features that need constant maintenance. API integrations, for instance.

These features aren't really optional anymore to be competitive.

You don't understand how modern macOS works.

It's so cheap, why do you care?

Why wouldn't he care? Keeping track of all the subscriptions "forced" upon you is a huge pain in the ass these days – and seemingly getting worse.

Personally, I refuse to use subscription services out of principle. I much prefer to pay once and have it off my mind.

Wouldn't a saner way to live be to judge the value you get out of something to determine how much you're willing to pay for its use?

Just seems needlessly limiting to act like this out of principle.

As far as I am concerned, subscriptions are an unreasonable hassle. You need to keep track of what subscriptions are active and where you can manage them. And when subscriptions are running, a “did I remember cancelling all the stuff I’m currently not using” is always in the back of my mind somewhere. That’s just annoying noise that I can easily avoid by not using subscription services.

I just find caring about any of that to be a waste of mental energy. I prefer to use the tools that make me effective enough to out-earn the problem.

For only $400 per decade, I will handle your Little Snitch Mini subscription.

Longer licensing agreements are also available. ;)

> per decade

So you're selling a more expensive subscription?

Subscriptions add up. And there’s no guarantee they won’t jack up the price at the most inconvenient time and leave you hanging (LastPass, for example, has done that). For users, a subscription mean loss of control.

It's sort of unfriendly to corner customers into having to buy the application over and over each year.