I was just checking out the comments on the "new" Ulysses on the App Store. Seems evenly split between users eager to support Ulysses and those who hate the move to subscription. What I found odd is the "To In-App Purchases" listing:

1. Annual Subscription: $29.99
2. Annual Subscription: $39.99
3. Six Months $10.99
4. Monthly: $4.99

There's no $20 there. And how is six months only $10.99? Weird.

Steve Z.

Charlie wrote:

what alternative do you use for textExpander?

I use Keyboard Maestro...works perfectly once you have it set up

I was just reading Max's take on the change to subscription for Ulysses:

https://medium.com/building-ulysses/why-were-switching-ulysses-to-subscription-47f80b07a9cd

Interesting but he never acknowledges something that I think is pretty important: Developers have out-sourced the job of bug-hunting onto their users. In the old days, bugs had to be exterminated before the product was shipped, because there was no way to simply update with fixes. Max makes it sound like fixing bugs is a benefit to the user, that the user should pay for. In fact, releasing software with bugs is a benefit to the developer.

Just two more cents...

Steve Z.

You may remember that in 2012 Mindjet tried to move their leading product Mindmanager to subscription model; reaction from their users were so bad that they decided to move back to perpetual licences. Mindmanager was (and still is) an expensive product and the subscription would cost ~U$190/year. After 5 years, the development is so slow as it was in the past and Mac version in far behind the Windows version.

And talking about subscription model, another problem is that we have no control over the price after we subscribe; see Lastpass, for instance, doubling the price from US$12 to US$24/year; if you have build your workflow around a product, it may not be easy to move away and so you have to close your eyes and accept the price increase.

Marcos D.

There is no $20 (the supposed 50% for existing customers) because they spoofed the numbers. The 50% discount applies to the *monthly* fee -- so in-app the purchase screen says $2.50/month (roughly 50% of the $4.99 monthly fee) -- and that is grossed up to the $29.99 that you see in the AppStore. So existing customer *save* 50% on monthly fees but on an annual basis paying $29.99 is actually 25% off the standard $39.99 fee. It's fun with numbers, and very sleazy in my opinion. If you read the Ulysses blog post you'll never see the truth.

Stephen Zeoli wrote:

I was just checking out the comments on the "new" Ulysses on the App
Store. Seems evenly split between users eager to support Ulysses and
those who hate the move to subscription. What I found odd is the "To
In-App Purchases" listing:

1. Annual Subscription: $29.99
2. Annual Subscription: $39.99
3. Six Months $10.99
4. Monthly: $4.99

There's no $20 there. And how is six months only $10.99? Weird.

Steve Z.

That's about 30 posts on this Ulyssees thread so far. Curious.
Yup, it's apparently rent-seeking by the Ulysses developers, alright - as someone has already pointed out - but then, so what?

I have been involved in software beta-testing and software selection for corporate and personal use for years now.
I generally advocate using a PIM that meets most of the user's peculiar requirements for a PIM (whatever they may be at the time).
In my case, if my requirements change, or if I subsequently don't like (say) the general development direction, or if I don't like the new pricing or a new pricing model applied by the developers, for a piece of software that I use, then I would generally gradually retire it in whatever version I had last retained/purchased, whilst I looked for a better (for my purposes) alternative. I would then progressively migrate to the better alternative - e.g., that's what I did with EverNote and InfoSelect, settling so far on what I called a "21st-century Zettelkasten PIM" in the shape of Microsoft OneNote (still in a now 9-year long experimental trial, for me).

But I don't really look back (excepting, perhaps, with a sense of disappointment in the case of InfoSelect) and I probably wouldn't invest further cognitive surplus in flogging those dead horses, however good they may have been or however bad they may have become, unless I thought it might be useful in (say) encouraging the developers to get back on what I thought was the "right" development track, or get back to a "better" (e.g., less greedy) pricing model.
At the same time, I keep checking those other PIMs out there, in the hope of finding something that overcomes the limitations that I perceive in OneNote. I maintain notes on a list of "also-rans" - PIMs that had potential, but just never seem to make the grade (for my requirements), and a list of "potential candidates" - PIMs that, frustratingly, could probably meet or even exceed my requirements, if only they would get out of their development rut and expand their relatively constrained/narrow or "specialised" development focus (e.g., including, Zoot, ConnectedText, Wezinc, Zotero, WizNote).
Ulyssees isn't on either list, though it looks like an interesting product.

Stephen Zeoli wrote:

The author David Hewson, one of Ulysses's biggest fans, offers a
perspective opposite of mine:

https://davidhewson.com/2017/08/11/the-new-ulysses-subscription-plan-is-a-wonderful-idea/

Steve Z.

I think I agree with David Hewson.

I want app developers who show a degree of innovation and professional competence to be able to thrive, and, yes, to be well-rewarded for the skills and the imagination they display. That's because I want to be able to benefit from their creativity and their professionalism not just now but in the future. I include the Soulmen, the developers of Ulysses, in that category; Ulysses is a relatively innovative and certainly well-designed app, better for certain purposes in my experience than numbers of its rivals.

This is against a background where the software market is maturing. The app stores have no doubt had the effect of driving down prices by making it very easy for customers to compare software value across the board; remember the days when, say, Lotus Agenda cost at least $120, and Wordperfect something similar? And the options for break-out Scrivener-style successes appear to have been mostly filled. I don't hear of any developers retiring to live in Monte Carlo; I do see once-valued apps becoming abandonware as, presumably, their developers withdraw from the market-place. But squeezed developers won't be good for the future of software.

Now different routes to possible profitability and future survival have opened up: sticking with one-off fees till upgrade (e.g. Scrivener), pure subscription (e.g. Ulysses) and subscription as an option (e.g. Setapp, and, perhaps, DevonThink in the future). There will be errors of execution (see, perhaps, Day One, and Paul's comments above about Ulysses pricing). But in general a diversity of pricing models can only be healthy in the long-term, for developers and for customers. And if the Soulmen judge that their survival is best guaranteed by a subscription-pricing model, I'm ready to pay for that, at least for the time being.

@slartibartfest I don't have an issue with renting software, or SaaS, or whatever one wants to call the model. I rent lots of software. Essentially, upgrades are rents -- merely paid infrequently. I have a problem with rent-seeking, which is not "renting" in the colloquial sense. Ulysses, Smile, DayOne -- each of these firms have promised future improvements in return for current rents. Too early to tell for Ulysses, but the others have not yet made good on that promise. Time will tell.

The model used by Bear and Outlinely makes more sense than Ulysses' -- the fee is for incremental features.

But you're right -- McKinsey and others have repeatedly demonstrated that SaaS suppliers have significant increased revenues. The genie is out of the bottle -- I expect most of the developers operating in the space this forum is concerned with will very likely move to the rental model.

In a few years someone will start a thread here "Ulysses abandons subscriptions -- changes to one-time fee" and all the comments will be "whoa, why would anyone want to do that?"

A couple of arguments in favour of the subscription model, from blogger Dr Drang: http://leancrew.com/all-this/2017/08/subscriptions/ (credit MacSparky: https://www.macsparky.com

Paul Korm wrote:

But you're right -- McKinsey and others have repeatedly demonstrated
that SaaS suppliers have significant increased revenues. The genie is
out of the bottle -- I expect most of the developers operating in the
space this forum is concerned with will very likely move to the rental
model.

... Adobe is the poster child for a successful transition from perpetual to subscription. They saw significant push back with enthusiast buyers initially, but were smart enough to price Creative Cloud at a 5-6 year pay back.

Soulmen/Ulysses are too greedy with their 1-year (to 1.5-year, if you had bought cross-platform) pay back period.
For a price like Bear, $15 a year (maybe a high $19.95), their transition could have been much smoother.

I guess they're going to figure this out after the initial spike of subscribers attracted by the 25% lifetime discount and make and adjustment towards the end of the year/early next year. Or go out of business.

I'm guessing - I do not know - that the McKinsey studies that have produced these results are based largely, if not entirely, on the business software market, especially SaaS (Software as a Service), where the revenues are potentially far greater, paying by subscription is more familiar for users, users' data may customarily reside on the developer's hardware, and any decision that the user or the developer takes can be informed and massaged by numbers of consultants and advisers. In the last few days, a somewhat similar statistic has become current: that a switch to subscription can lose the developer up to 80 per cent of his or her users, but he or she can stilll remain profitable. I suspect that is similarly based.

It seems to me that for most developers (except for the obvious "1,000-lb gorillas") in the markets that serve users like us, switching to subscription is going to be something of a shot in the dark, with few certainties.

This Ulysses deal is still bothering me. It feels like a huge obfuscation on the part of the "Soulmen." First, of course, is the misleading pricing issue -- clearly intentional. In his Medium article Max makes a big case for how this price change is for the benefit of their current users, that they don't want to rely on new users or "expanding market share" as he puts it. But when you read the list of the benefits of the subscription model, it is all about how it is useful for new users. To quote:

- We can finally offer a free, cross-platform trial. Ulysses can now be downloaded and fully tested for 14 days, on all devices, including sync, no price or strings attached. After 14 days, the app will switch into read-only mode, with export still enabled.
- A single purchase will now unlock Ulysses for the use on all devices. Ulysses has always been a single product, with the availability of all texts on all devices being one of its major features. Still, we had to sell Ulysses separately for Mac and for iOS, and we’re really happy that this barrier could be lifted.
- Ulysses is a premium app, and its price tag will always reflect that. The new model now offers a low entry threshold combined with high flexibility and the option of minimal commitment. The monthly subscription comes at only $4.99 – that’s pretty much a coffee to go. You can subscribe for as long as you need, and you will always have the latest version, with the newest features and bugfixes.
- Plus, we are now much more flexible when it comes to pricing. As an example, we now grant a dedicated discount for students: If this applies to you, you can get Ulysses for only $11.99 per six months.

I bought Ulysses II before I bought Ulysses III (which morphed into just Ulysses). I bought the iOS version. So I've already paid over $100 to the Soulmen for their products. That's not insubstantial. And I now feel like my reward for this is being lied to about how much it will cost to keep on using Ulysses.

I can no longer support a company that would treat its loyal customers this way.

I'm sorry for continuing to beat this dead horse, but I had to get this off my chest.

Steve Z.

good analysis.
they are miscalculating on several aspects, even if subscription is fundamentally the way to go:
- not enough give for installed base
- price miscalculated - for enthusiast market, has to be at a minimum 4-5 yrs. payback vs. perpetual (e.g. set at 1.5x single platform purchase - can't assume everybody uses everything)
- upcoming major competitive distraction with Scrivener 3, which could hit them hard right as they're struggling with the licensing transition
- not tied to major innovative release to stimulate a switch
- no concurrent alternative licensing (customer choice seems to never have entered the equation)
...

Stephen Zeoli wrote:

But when you read the list of
the benefits of the subscription model, it is all about how it is useful
for new users.

...

I can no longer support a company that would treat its loyal customers
this way.

I've always despised subscriptions, in just about everything. Well, I used to subscibe to (print) newspapers and magazines... gee, I wonder why I don't anymore... and I used to subscribe to a few apps and web services (e.g. workflowy) but I've long since cancelled all of them.

This is just me. I do sympathize with developers, and I kinda believe that they are moving to subscriptions because they "have no choice".. but... tough. I don't like subscriptions and I don't want to support something I hate.

I have nothing against folks trying to make money, quite the contrary. And certainly nothing against folks who do like subscriptions.

I'll gladly pay, quite a bit if I like it, for a "permanent" license for software.

I think it'd be great if platforms allowed, and developers offered, lots of options. Meaning:

1. free, brief, trials.
2. cheap, extended trials.
3. discounts for upgrades.
4. lots of different rates.
5. example: $1 a day, $2/week, $5/month, $30/year,
6. always have a "permanent" tier. Maybe it's expensive, fine.

I put the "blame" for the terrible situation where good developers can't get justly rewarded, such as it is, firstly, on Apple. Secondly, maybe there are just too many developers. Probably because of the whole app store model. Again, Apple's fault. :-)