@amxmln I know a lot of developers who say (or used to say) to avoid lifetime options, for a variety of reasons.
So I try to price them high enough to discourage most users from considering it, while the people who are aggressively against subscriptions still have an option
Jun 19, 2026, 10:12 PM@BenRiceM Yeah, I understand the struggle, you have to make it sustainable somehow and subscriptions are the only way to get continued revenue for the work you put in. 😅
But it’s what personally made me not want to use the app. It felt too high a price for what it is.
Anyway, I hope it works out for you! The idea is nice and the app looks good at first glance. 😊
@amxmln I do wish Apple made it easier to support other pricing models like paying for 1 year of updates. But there’s no way for the App Store to serve different versions of the app so that’s kind of a non-starter.
And as you might imagine, I’m not a big fan of the advertising model
Jun 20, 2026, 8:28 AM@BenRiceM From what I know (which is admittedly limited), it’s also not really feasible to have a pay per major upgrade model on mobile operating systems because the underlying APIs could change at any time, breaking non-updated apps—so yeah, I get the conundrum. 😅
@amxmln That’s mostly true, but Apple could support publishing updates to older versions of the app.
It can be a huge pain trying to support multiple operating systems, but imagine if you could have a “legacy” version of your app for iOS 18 and the current version on iOS 26/27 but still be able to publish bug fixes to the 18 version.
And if that were possible you could tie your paid updates to operating system versions.
(Does that make sense?)
Jun 20, 2026, 9:31 AM@BenRiceM Yeah, I get it. 😊
I guess a workaround could be to have an Indigo Classic and then Indigo 1/2/3/4 for releases? Although I don’t know how that would work with maintenance, overhead, user-data, etc. My current Mastodon app, Mona, did something similar with the Liquid Glass update. 🤔