Source.

Simple Mobile apps have been very popular among FOSS enthusiasts. I’ve personally been using the Gallery, Contacts and the Phone app since a few years now. It’s a shame that it has come to this, will be on the lookout for their forks.

  • @KISSmyOS
    link
    English
    11
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    deleted by creator

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      22
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      you know, I’d really love to get a good app that i pay for and that in turn doesn’t collect or sell my data and has no ads, but there’s so many but’s.

      • one time payment is not sustainable for development
      • i can’t have a subscription for each and every app
      • with free and fairly decent apps from big Corp like Google photos, most people won’t bother

      just to say: I’m not sure there is a good solution where everyone wins :/

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        5
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        In ye old days the reigning model was a pseudo subscription where you paid for a version of a program and that’s all you got, if you wanted the next version of that program you had to buy it again. This made developing updates profitable and people who didn’t care to pay for the update could still use the outdated program. It wasn’t perfect by any means but I feel like it was one of the better compromises compared to everything else.

        Sadly with the advent of mobile apps such a model is heavily discouraged.

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            English
            3
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            Yeah it’s not the perfect model for sure. Usually you did get updates to fix vulnerabilities and bugs, but any major version release would require a new purchase/license.

            But any software that requires connecting to a server anywhere just doesn’t work in this model.

            In the end there’s not much of a choice. Either you pay more for apps to compensate for the time spent on them, subscribe to reduce your costs and assure continuous revenue, or ads.

            Anything that’s perpetually free, unless it has massive communities willing to maintain it, typically ends up like the tools we see here: abandoned/sold.

        • Carighan Maconar
          link
          English
          21 year ago

          Well to be fair, for most software it was the major releases that were paid, and the minor ones were given free, on the understanding that these ~never contained functionality changes, additions or reworks.

          So 3.1 was purely a bugfix for 3.0, for example. Hence you got it free. Often when 4.0 came out (which you had to pay to get) there’s also a be a 3.2 update that served as the “final” rleease of that branch. Any bugs in it now are there to stay.

          And yeah. Although, I feel in a way that’s what we got here, no? If I paid for these I can turn updates off and use the version I bought, so to speak.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        51 year ago

        What could be more sustainable for the development is to make updates with new features paid. People have a one time payment for the app and then pay for new features.

        It’s absolutely ot perfect. But, it’s not a subscription and the dev still earn something.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          31 year ago

          This would cause a maintenance nightmare for the devs though. And from what I hear, the app stores discourage multiple versions of the same app these days.

    • Gogo SempaiOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      121 year ago

      I donated to them directly once and then again opted for the PlayStore versions to buy these apps. Sadly, I will have to move to the FDroid version now because the PlayStore one, the ones I paid for, can get infected with adware any day now.