Audulus now subscription

HotStrange

@wim said:

@HotStrange said:

@wim said:

@Gavinski said:
Taylor, you missed the point of the article entirely, though, because it is not criticising devs. It is also not about the app store or apps specifically, but about a broader issue. It is about platforms, like Apple, and these platforms' motivations for promotibg subscription models. I already provided a summary of the main points from the article, as pertaining to the context of being a critique of platforms, above, btw. Cheers

I'm not sure what is unusual about entities trying new and at times devious ways to extract money from others. That's the basic dynamic that has been going on since men started trading acorns for mammoth steaks. Corporations can drool all they want over the prospect of huge returns by manipulating people in new ways to part with their money, but at the end of the day people will catch on and walk away, or someone else will capture their customers by offering a better alternative. Old news.

That’s simply not always true. Often, maybe, but there are more than a solid chunk of people (in the US anyway) that are not very financially literate and those are the types of people that can’t/don’t walk away because they often don’t realize they’re being had or if they do it’s too late. Its the same reason scam callers are still able to make money. If it was that simple there would be no scammers.

Of course there are people like that - always have been. It's true in a general sense though and it is nothing new, just a variation on an age old theme. If a model doesn't provide enough value markets will dry up or competition will enter with a better alternative. Not something I'm interested in debating though. It simply isn't important to me. I've already "voted with my wallet".

Understood. I don’t think you’re wrong but, imo, it’s a system that need to be fixed rather than hoping voting with our wallets will fix things themselves.

I don’t wanna debate either though so happy to agree to disagree. 🤝

wim

🤙🏼✌🏼

Taylor

@Gavinski said:
Taylor, you missed the point of the article entirely, though, because it is not criticising devs. It is also not about the app store or apps specifically, but about a broader issue.

Oh I get the gist of it. And it seems we agree that the paper has little to do with my app

Carry on!

espiegel123

Can those interested in discussing your thoughts about subscription models in general and theories of economics start a thread elsewhere and discuss to your heart's content there.

knewspeak

@wim said:
Lizard People. Of course! Why did I not see this earlier?

Don’t do this please, by putting out the most extreme nonsense to close down debate or censor, is low move, I know you do it in jest, but repeatedly doing so creates a false ‘fact’.

Ailerom

@espiegel123 said:

@Bruques said:

@espiegel123 said:

The notion that subscription is inherently an evil capital extraction mechanism is over the top. Sometimes it is and sometimes it isn’t that at all.

This is a matter of opinion, a matter of worldview. According to my ethics, my ontology my worldview, subscriptions are exactly rentier capitalism, and mild, normalized, insidiousness. You disagree as is your perogative, but I'm not wrong.

If subscription turns out to be viable for the app for the developer to earn something like a living while the old model wasn’t viable, you’d prefer to see the app abandoned?

Yep. Death to all subs. Just my POV. Please don't respond.

Ailerom

So what does this mean for those who bought it outright?

knewspeak

@espiegel123 said:
Can those interested in discussing your thoughts about subscription models in general and theories of economics start a thread elsewhere and discuss to your heart's content there.

I extremely doubt that would be permissible, possibly leading to bans and so on, I say this because this is the pervading world political-economic trend, certainly under Western Capitalist systems of governance.

Political threads are a no, no.

wim

@espiegel123 said:
Can those interested in discussing your thoughts about subscription models in general and theories of economics start a thread elsewhere and discuss to your heart's content there.

Why? What else is there to discuss in this particular thread that’s being pushed aside by it? Genuine question. I’m not trying to be snarky.

The whole point of the thread was to rant about / discuss just that topic, wasn’t it?

Luxthor

@wim said:

@espiegel123 said:
Taylor has confirmed that even if you aren’t subscribed, you can open and use Audulus patches.

So then, you could subscribe for a month, create patches to you heart's content, unsubscribe, and use all your patches until you needed to edit them or make more then. Interesting.

In my case, that would be a very economic model, as I probably would only develop patches very sporadically. No matter as I have no compatible devices anyway. 😂

This is comforting news because we will not lose our projects.

@Taylor said:
Even if you aren't subscribed you can build entire patches using the modules in the Module Library. So for free you get a very powerful tool. The subscription is mostly for power-users who want to build custom modules.

@Taylor, I usually avoid subscription talk because it's the developer's right to decide whether his app is a service or a product. All this could be avoided if you informed your loyal customers with a little more words and explanation than:

 
The problem is that you have not only changed your mind but are also changing the app you already sold under a different payment method. If you made an Audulus 5 subscription only, some of us would still be upset but not feel left out. We will understand, as we understand right now.

I adore Audulus, and I invested lots of time to learn everything about the app. I love the Vger API too, everything you did there was a work of genius. You even inspired me to start a project. My big plans for the future are still there.
 
Keep up the good work and inform your loyal customers in advance.

Gavinski

@Ailerom said:
So what does this mean for those who bought it outright?

They have the same full functionality they always had as paying users, they don't need to subscribe. So they have nothing to worry about really. This was mentioned already several times in the thead btw.

wim

@Luxthor said:
The problem is that you have not only changed your mind but are also changing the app you already sold under a different payment method. If you made an Audulus 5 subscription only, some of us would still be upset but not feel scammed. We will understand, as we understand right now.

Except … he didn’t change a thing for anyone who already bought the app. So, I really don’t understand the problem?

Keep up the good work and inform your loyal customers in advance.

Of what? Nothing changed for existing customers.

Luxthor

@wim said:

@Luxthor said:
The problem is that you have not only changed your mind but are also changing the app you already sold under a different payment method. If you made an Audulus 5 subscription only, some of us would still be upset but not feel scammed. We will understand, as we understand right now.

Except … he didn’t change a thing for anyone who already bought the app. So, I really don’t understand the problem?

Keep up the good work and inform your loyal customers in advance.

Of what? Nothing changed for existing customers.

You need to accept other people's wishes to avoid subscription-based apps, and everything will be clear to you. 😇

wim

@Luxthor said:

@wim said:

@Luxthor said:
The problem is that you have not only changed your mind but are also changing the app you already sold under a different payment method. If you made an Audulus 5 subscription only, some of us would still be upset but not feel scammed. We will understand, as we understand right now.

Except … he didn’t change a thing for anyone who already bought the app. So, I really don’t understand the problem?

Keep up the good work and inform your loyal customers in advance.

Of what? Nothing changed for existing customers.

You need to accept other people's wishes to avoid subscription-based apps, and everything will be clear to you. 😇

Huh? I cant’t follow your logic.
Btw I happen to be a no-subber myself.

You’re complaining that you’ve been cheated. But if you own the app you haven’t been. If you don’t own the app you’ve been warned. You haven’t been cheated.

Ailerom

@Gavinski said:

@Ailerom said:
So what does this mean for those who bought it outright?

They have the same full functionality they always had as paying users, they don't need to subscribe. So they have nothing to worry about really. This was mentioned already several times in the thead btw.

Thanks for clearing that up.

wim

Are you just bummed then that you didn’t buy Audulus 4 earlier and feel cheated that you didn’t get more notice to buy in before the change?

Tryin’ to follow the logic here…

Luxthor

@wim said:

@Luxthor said:

@wim said:

@Luxthor said:
The problem is that you have not only changed your mind but are also changing the app you already sold under a different payment method. If you made an Audulus 5 subscription only, some of us would still be upset but not feel scammed. We will understand, as we understand right now.

Except … he didn’t change a thing for anyone who already bought the app. So, I really don’t understand the problem?

Keep up the good work and inform your loyal customers in advance.

Of what? Nothing changed for existing customers.

You need to accept other people's wishes to avoid subscription-based apps, and everything will be clear to you. 😇

Huh? I cant’t follow your logic.
Btw I happen to be a no-subber myself.

You’re complaining that you’ve been cheated. But if you own the app you haven’t been. If you don’t own the app you’ve been warned. You haven’t been cheated.

My post to Tailor was about how a little more information in advance can only help, at least from my perspective.

It’s fine if you can’t follow my logic, I’m just another random forum poster. 😅

wim

Ahh, it’s that you wish more advance notice of the change had been given so you could have bought in before the change. That’s what I was missing.

Luxthor

@wim said:
Ahh, it’s that you wish more advance notice of the change had been given so you could have bought in before the change. That’s what I was missing.

Nope, more information in advance so we could avoid this forum steer. I thought I was clear in my post. Please don't make strawman from me, it’s not in your character.

wim

@Luxthor said:

@wim said:
Ahh, it’s that you wish more advance notice of the change had been given so you could have bought in before the change. That’s what I was missing.

Nope, more information in advance so we could avoid this forum steer. I thought I was clear in my post. Please don't make strawman from me, it’s not in your character.

I intended no argument at all, much less a straw man argument. That was the farthest thing from my mind. I honestly thought that I had finally understood what you were complaining about. 🤷🏻‍♂️

Ok, we’re just completely misunderstanding each other. No point in trying to close the gap. It’s not important anyway.

Peace.

Luxthor

@wim said:

@Luxthor said:

@wim said:
Ahh, it’s that you wish more advance notice of the change had been given so you could have bought in before the change. That’s what I was missing.

Nope, more information in advance so we could avoid this forum steer. I thought I was clear in my post. Please don't make strawman from me, it’s not in your character.

I intended no argument at all, much less a straw man argument. That was the farthest thing from my mind. I honestly thought that I had finally understood what you were complaining about. 🤷🏻‍♂️

Ok, we’re just completely misunderstanding each other. No point in trying to close the gap. It’s not important anyway.

Peace.

I found the culprit of our misunderstanding; I used the word “scammed” instead of “left out," so yeah. It’s edited out now. I'm a passionate person, using superlatives wherever I can, haha! 🫶

wim

@Luxthor said:

I found the culprit of our misunderstanding; I used the word “scammed” instead of “left out," so yeah. It’s edited out now. I'm a passionate person, using superlatives wherever I can, haha! 🫶

Yeh, that was where I got confused. I couldn’t find anything in the way it was handled that was unfair toward anyone who already owns the app. I’m a hopelessly literal person who doesn’t understand people who use superlatives. 😂

NeuM

@Gavinski said:

@NeuM said:

@Bruques said:

@espiegel123 said:

@michael_m said:

@Bruques said:

@espiegel123 said:

The notion that subscription is inherently an evil capital extraction mechanism is over the top. Sometimes it is and sometimes it isn’t that at all.

This is a matter of opinion, a matter of worldview. According to my ethics, my ontology my worldview, subscriptions are exactly rentier capitalism, and mild, normalized, insidiousness. You disagree as is your perogative, but I'm not wrong.

I know a couple of people who have been in sales their entire lives, and some years ago I was having conversations with both of them about the growth of selling subscriptions rather than outright ownership, as they were both attending seminars and reading literature on it.

So much of the education they received (mostly mandated by their companies) pushed two things:

1. Subscriptions increase profits with the incidental benefit that people are sometimes paying for a product or service that doesn’t have to be delivered

2. Subscription generally benefits the seller with no benefit to the buyer or higher costs passed on to the buyer. Communication strategies that extol false benefits for the buyer were generally part of that education

OK, so two examples don’t prove that subscriptions are ‘evil’, but the fact that there are companies that provided that education (and for all I know maybe they still do) adds to my poor opinion of subscriptions in general.

Some companies abusing subscriptions to squeeze profits out of people doesn't equate to "subscriptions are always evil and done for unscrupulous reasons" any more than price-gouging of one-time sales can be equated with one-time purchases being inherently about price-gouging.

Look, I balk at subscriptions, too, but it is unfair to treat all people adopting subscriptions as having bad motives. Sometimes, it is people with good motives trying to figure out how to get paid reasonably for their work because the current model isn't working.

No one is treating them as having bad motives. Stop mischaracterizing what was said. I already posted exactly why it is rentier capitalism, and it's very easy to show the logic concerning why rentier capitalism is exploitative. When I write that rentier capitalism is evil, or is an evil, and that the logic is insidious I'm not at any point saying that a particular person who doesn't agree with me and sees no problem with it is evil.

You don't agree, fine, stop trying to bludgeon people with a different perspective.

What you earlier did by absolute definition is reply with a straw man argument. You're response to me or in fact anyone with my leaning perspective on rentier capitalism and the connection of that to software on subscription (and everything else in the modern era if we accept this model, water, air, shoes, underpants, feelings, whatever), is, suggest that that leads everyone to not be able to have a livelihood, and they will abandon their enterprises. IE you took an extreme and unreasonable position that by denying subscriptions I deprive the developer of a sustainable model. So you've narrowed all other options, and tried to make it appear that the opposite of subscriptions is abandonware.

Further, and I'll be extremely clear because this irks me, at an underlying level I'm irritated that you think you have to police my beliefs or anyone else's. There's an unacknowledged arrogance that underpins someone wanting to tell anyone else that their views on the world are wrong. Frankly just stop it. You think subscriptions are fine. I do not, fundamentally so, and I provided a very rigorous example of published research that explains this position far better than I can when in an irritated mood on a forum. Really. Stop it. Bef to differ. Disagree. But stop it. I believe that subscriptions impoverish all of us. The developers included. They lock developers in to a logic of being both rentier capitalist landlord of software, and simultaneosly labourer working for the platform that if they don't keep up on new features they lose out on their income, invisibly they work for the platforms, just a step up from an influencer populating social media with UGC in that respect. We are all poorer as a result. Ron Eglash's concept of generative justice would have it that we should be generating value at every turn, and for sure, whomsoever does the work should profit from it. But extraction models are to people like me, just wrong.

You don't agree. Cool. Carry on not agreeing.

The opening statement that approximates to, subscriptions are evil, is obviously my personal view on the subject. You think it's over the top. I don't. And then?

I hate to reply to a wall of text, but "rentier capitalism" is defined as "the economic practice of gaining large profits without contributing to society. A rentier is someone who earns income from capital without working."

Is this what you honestly think? You think these developers are trying to earn their income without working?

That's not what he's saying, if I understood correctly. In the academic article he linked to above by Sadowski, which is what lays out the thesis of subscription models as a form of rentier capitalism, the focus is on the way the platforms extract value from their position in the digital ecosystem. Developers who opt for the subscription route are participants within the platform's structure, it is mainly Apple which is doing the exploiting and which has the most to gain. The article is worth a skim, imo, even if people don't have time for a deep read. I'll take a deeper look at it, this topic is interesting to me and I think there is likely at least some truth to it.

Also, just to pre-empt one possible reply, he is not saying that Apple engaging in rentier capitalist practises means that Apple is contributing nothing to society as a whole, as a company. The rentier accusation is only directed at the appstore aspect of Apple's business, from what I understand.

I understand the criticism and I completely disagree with it. None of this stuff exists without someone expending time, energy and lots of money to develop it. Capitalism works because no one is forced to own an iPad, no one is forced to subscribe to an app and certainly no one is forced to expend countless hours on a privately owned and run web site arguing for or against privately owned things. Capitalism means you spend your time, attention and money the way you want. Everything in life has a cost and it's exceedingly naive to presume any of it should be "free".

Having said that, wishing everyone a relaxing and peaceful conclusion to this weekend.

Taylor

@Luxthor said:
@Taylor, I usually avoid subscription talk because it's the developer's right to decide whether his app is a service or a product. All this could be avoided if you informed your loyal customers with a little more words and explanation than:

Sorry about that! Unfortunately Apple won't let me change that text.

Luxthor

@Taylor said:

@Luxthor said:
@Taylor, I usually avoid subscription talk because it's the developer's right to decide whether his app is a service or a product. All this could be avoided if you informed your loyal customers with a little more words and explanation than:

Sorry about that! Unfortunately Apple won't let me change that text.

No worries, I’m fine now. I will spread goodwill and try to help in any way I can, as always. Thanks for the response. 🫶

[Deleted User]

The user and all related content has been deleted.

MrSmileZ

I have a 3 subscription limit, in order to gain a new one, one must be lost.

1. Reason 12 plus
2. Logic Pro for IPad
3. (nothing)

The type two aren’t going anywhere, at least not now.
And I’m in no hurry to fill the last spot, and mostly feel like I never will be.

Carnbot

Yes, people can only affford to focus on a few things at a time, which is one reason why iOS subs don't work unless it's something you are totally committed to or make money from to justify it. The ipad is also not really a pro platform to work with compared to desktop either.
Maybe there is a committed Audulus community to make it work for the developer, I hope so, as I completely understand the developer trying it out as we are in diffficult times where people will be spending less on apps etc.

One of the reasons I think that VCV rack, miRack etc works (and I use them both a lot on iOS/desktop) is because it's a combination of open source development and paid options but no subscription.

mifki

Since miRack has been mentioned a few times, I'll chime in and mention that I hope (as in never say never) I will never use subscriptions to unlock any functionality in miRack or other software I develop. I'm very saddened by the fact more and more existing software is moving to subscription-based model and I feel like it's more of a trend rather than there's a genuine economical reason why that suddenly has to be done now for survival of those software products.

Mr_Fox

@mifki said:
Since miRack has been mentioned a few times, I'll chime in and mention that I hope (as in never say never) I will never use subscriptions to unlock any functionality in miRack or other software I develop. I'm very saddened by the fact more and more existing software is moving to subscription-based model and I feel like it's more of a trend rather than there's a genuine economical reason why that suddenly has to be done now for survival of those software products.

I am very interested to see how miRack will stack up against Audulus from now on. Let this be a competition to see whether subscription actually helps to improve a product's quality or not.

My guess is Audulus will have more resources to out compete others in the long run, but I hope you can prove me wrong.