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

  • PupBiru@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    7
    ·
    1 year ago

    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”

    • planish@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      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.