Wojtek over at Infinite Diaries suggests that:

to alleviate concerns over “renting software” instead of owning a copy, Ulysses (in this example) should still be fully functional when a user ceases paying their subscription

What they wouldn't get, in his scenario, is app updates and new features.

As things stand, when your Ulysses subscription lapses the app drops to read only mode - a common practice.

While it would be nice to retain editing functionality this is not, in my opinion, a viable option. People would be able to get the app on the cheap.

Here's how it would go:

  • sign up for a monthly subscription
  • download the latest version and cancel within the first month
  • use the app as normal with no limitations
  • if an update is released sign up for another month, download the update then cancel again.

The developers would only get a fraction of the subscription fees while incurring the same costs. This wouldn't be workable.

Perhaps, if a minimum subscription term could be introduced, this could be prevented or mitigated but, as far as I am aware, the App Store subscription system doesn't allow for this type of practice.

  1. I agree, that wouldn't work, although I wonder how many truly scuzzy people.e there are that would be prepared to do that. And wouldn't they be trackable, say through the payment they offer? I can't remember exactly how Day One is doing things, but I am very happy with Classic, as they call it, which is not being maintained.
  2. Colin Walker says: #
    But when the subscription system allows you to sign up and cancel whenever you want they're not technically doing anything wrong.
  3. Colin Walker says: #
    Judging by the 1⭐️ reviews on the App Store there are people whose moral judgement is... questionable.