What do you think about a lifetime sub where we can pay a much higher fee $100 or something like that but retain a license for life? I feel like you would get customers who you may not have normally gotten because there are a ton of people who just don’t like recurring charges but are ok with a one time fee because they know they’ll be forever customers and see the value. Plus you would get a larger influx of capital which I feel is much more valuable in every scenario.
3 Likes
I would do this and prefer it over monthly fees 
2 Likes
Phill spoke a bit about this a couple months ago. The money is great up front, but it’s not great for long-term sustainability. There are a few apps where I have lifetime subscriptions (or was “grandfathered” in), and I definitely feel a little guilt that they’re essentially stuck providing support / features to me and everyone else in my position many years later.
I miss the days of simply buying my software and owning it, but the landscape is different now. Technology moves quickly, people’s expectations are much higher, everything costs so much more. Everyone has subscription fatigue, but you can flip that on its head by deeply considering what you subscribe to and what/who you want to support now and into the future. “Vote with your dollar”, as the saying goes, rather than just throwing your money at giant corporations, cable companies, etc.
2 Likes
I’m gonna be honest, not to diminish how good this app is, but paying hundreds over years for a very simplistic utility app is offputting for a lot of people especially in the current financial environment.
1 Like
I agree, but spending $100 on it one-time would be off-putting to most people, too. Also remember: Clear is free, and Clear Pro is optional.
5 Likes
As much as a hate dishing out new subscriptions for apps, and boy do I hate it, I’d rather support indie apps that I find supremely useful that makes a difference for me, and Clear is one of them.
Yes it may feel simplistic, but having used it for years I now know what’s worth paying for and what’s not, and I’d rather actively support development than start to see a product I like get possibly nuked due to funding issues in the future. Nor would I expect an indie team to keep improving a product and give me free updates for life for a measly one off payment, that just sounds unrealistic.
5 Likes
Disclaimer: My intention with this post is to contribute to the conversation in a friendly manner, offering a different perspective on the subscription business model idea.
I don’t know what to think about this quote, to be honest. It’s like making the buyer responsible for a developer’s long-term sustainability. In the 90s, I worked with a software company that sold their software once a year only if users wanted to continue using the latest version. If users didn’t want to upgrade, they could keep using their old version as long as their computer supported it. There were many accounting software options back then, and I was part of a small independent one with limited market presence. Twenty families supported their children through that small independent software company, working hard all year to create something people would happily purchase again. It was fun, stressful, and sustainable—without subscriptions, long-term sustainability pressure, or blaming customers who moved on.
Now I run my brand management company serving 10 clients at a time, all subscribed to memberships for essential business services. However, we also accommodate one-time projects. I would never prioritize my perception over someone else’s reality and needs. How much money does a developer truly need to improve their app yearly? What lifestyle do developers expect to maintain at their customers’ expense?
The claim that developers can’t survive on one-time payments is misleading and supported by a generation focused on maximizing profits. Many apps still offer one-time purchases with optional upgrade pricing. I own several apps like this, and while I choose to upgrade annually, I appreciate not being forced to—that’s the beauty of it.
Adobe users often say “it pays for itself” when someone mentions the cost, and there’s a generation that assumes money is always flowing, willing to pay monthly for apps they rarely use. This doesn’t mean subscription models are the only or most logical business approach for software development.
Eventually, how long before AI tools like Cursor or Lovable create local versions of your favorite apps? I suspect within a year someone will introduce “Clone my app AI” where you simply name an app and receive a functional replica. This technology might already exist. Imagine how many people will pay once to clone all their apps and cancel their subscriptions.
Why does this matter? Because ultimately, we pay for relationships. When someone says, “I can’t afford a monthly subscription,” responding with “Sorry, that’s not great for long-term sustainability” damages the core of business: the relationship.
1 Like
Disclaimer: My intention with this post is to contribute to the conversation in a friendly manner, offering a different perspective on the subscription business model idea.
I appreciate this, and I’d like to say that I’m coming to this conversation with the same cordiality and kindness in spirit. It’s unfortunately rare to see, but I sincerely appreciate you saying this up front. And I have to add that you gave me a lot to think about. I’m no expert and I find a lot of merit in what you’re saying.
I don’t know what to think about this quote, to be honest. It’s like making the buyer responsible for a developer’s long-term sustainability.
That’s interesting, particularly in this case. Clear is a free app. There are probably thousands of people that use it, and the idea of sustainability (or even the developers’ general financial well-being) never comes into the equation. They will continue to use it, they will expect the developer to implement basic changes over the app’s lifespan (e.g. if iPhone 20 is in a new size or foldable or has a different type of “notch” or “Universal Island”, users will expect that Clear will adjust the app to look right and work in that new size), and money will never factor into the equation. If the app ran exactly the same for ten years (kinda how the first version of Clear did), then they’ll expect this one to, too. And that’s fine. But I think we can agree, if that’s the only way the app functions, we shouldn’t expect a team of developers to continue development of a free app forever.
Why point this out? Clear Pro is different. The developers will rely on its customer base for its success. Otherwise, how would Clear make any money? How would it afford syncing? Or developing apps for other platforms? (I should mention that I’m so glad Clear has never, in its 13-year existence, relied on ads. The day that would have or will happen would be the day that I’m out. I digress.) So, as I see it, the relationship/offering would be one of two options:
- It costs money to develop and maintain an app.
- Both the customer and developer understand this.
- The customer provides money over time.
- The customer receives additional features over that time in return.
- Development continues for the lifespan of the app.
Or:
- It costs money to develop and maintain an app.
- Both the customer and developer understand this.
- The customer provides money once.
- The customer receives permanent additional features in return.
- Development continues until the developer can’t afford to or decides it’s not worth it and either leaves it or sells it off.
Each case could work. There are many examples of each. And it’s worth nothing that there could always be new customers infusing money into the development pot, so-to-speak. But I would imagine that the largest chunk of money a developer could reasonably expect under a one-time payment system is going to come up front. What happens the following year? And the next? And in five years? As their income would probably going down with each year, the expectation of additional features, more development, etc., would only go up because the customer base would grow larger.
(This is assuming Clear made an increasingly desirable product in the first place. At that point, they’d have to constantly be improving/selling/marketing to gain customers as the first wave is gone.
Relatedly: How many financially successful independent apps from, say, 2010 or 2015 are still being actively and significantly developed now without the app being sold or pivoting from a one-time payment to a subscription model? The answer may not be zero, but I’m having a hard time coming up with many.)
In the 90s, I worked with a software company that sold their software once a year only if users wanted to continue using the latest version. If users didn’t want to upgrade, they could keep using their old version as long as their computer supported it. There were many accounting software options back then, and I was part of a small independent one with limited market presence.
Even just going back 10-15 years, I truly miss the days of paying for an app and “owning” it. I remember there were apps I bought for $0.99 or $1.99 or $2.99. If an indie app went much higher than that, though, most of the time they were ridiculed. Imagine, an app that cost $9.99?! Why I never!
(Funny enough and to tell you the truth, when I paid for iA Writer ten years ago, the rhetoric was that no one was going to pay $25 for the app. I’m happy to say that they’re still around today [in fact, I’m typing in it right now!]. So in that sense, you’re right. It’s possible. But that has to be the exception more than the rule. And the company itself has pivoted to have other offerings, like a Powerpoint alternative and - no joke - physical notebooks.)
Twenty families supported their children through that small independent software company, working hard all year to create something people would happily purchase again. It was fun, stressful, and sustainable—without subscriptions, long-term sustainability pressure, or blaming customers who moved on.
I say all of this in fun, and because I am younger than you (I couldn’t have worked in the 90s), and simply to make conversation: This sounds like the sort of thing that gets ridiculed on the internet quite a bit, filed under “ok boomer”. In some ways, I think those were simpler times. How much money would it cost to support twenty families with children in 2025 versus 1995? Who was paying those salaries? How was the company financially backed? How long did they last selling just accounting software? Are they still around today? What were the expectations on the employees? How long were those families able to continue working there? How was the cost of living different? What was the customer base like in comparison? (I imagine there were many businesses purchasing accounting software in the 90s, how many businesses are going to pay for Clear Pro?)
I’m not expecting you to answer (or even know the answer) to any/all of these questions, and maybe some of these questions aren’t appropriate for the facts or scope of this conversation, I just think it’s important to consider when comparing so many different circumstances and variables. It’s not an apples-to-apples comparison in some significant ways.
Now I run my brand management company serving 10 clients at a time, all subscribed to memberships for essential business services. However, we also accommodate one-time projects. I would never prioritize my perception over someone else’s reality and needs.
I can’t speak for them, but based on everything I’ve read here and elsewhere over the years, I believe that the people working on Clear have spent a lot of time considering their reality and needs. And I’d be curious to know the various circumstances of the subscription services and one-time projects. Are all of them successful? Do you ever see examples where one model changes or is wrong or (in your determination) would be better served by changing models?
How much money does a developer truly need to improve their app yearly? What lifestyle do developers expect to maintain at their customers’ expense?
Those are excellent questions. What is reasonable? What should the expectations be? Who should determine the answers: The customer or the developer? I believe the Clear team is four or five people. Should the expectation be that this is their only job? Or should we expect them to have to have other jobs to make ends meet? What’s fair, to them, to people who pay them, to the app development space at-large? You spoke of your experience in the 1990s, how will the landscape change as we move through time into the 2050s?
The way I look at it: I use Clear every single day. It’s indispensable for my productivity and mental well-being. Is that worth $25-a-year to me? Absolutely. The alternative is, ok, I pay $100 up front. Well, under what the people developing Clear have determined is reasonable, that would cover four years (assuming they maintained that [legacy] price for the duration and beyond). What happens in year #5? Or #8? Or #15? I think what you’re advocating for is that they make a Quicken 1998-style upgrade every so often. You had the 97 version, and you can keep using it, but if you want new features and compatibility with the new version of Windows, you have to pay again. But why? They’re a small team making a to-do app. I like the idea of making one great product and iterating on it. Plus it’s important to remember that people buy new phones and devices with increased frequency. It’s not the same as a desktop that might sit there for the better part of a decade. There are other factors to consider, too. This is all the sort of thing I was alluding to when I said it’s a different landscape with different expectations.
The claim that developers can’t survive on one-time payments is misleading and supported by a generation focused on maximizing profits.
Clear is a free app. I don’t think the few dudes making Clear are Coca-Cola or Amazon. There’s maximizing profits and then there’s having an optional offering for people who have the means and are willing to pay for extra features.
Many apps still offer one-time purchases with optional upgrade pricing. I own several apps like this, and while I choose to upgrade annually, I appreciate not being forced to—that’s the beauty of it.
Clear doesn’t force you to upgrade, annually or otherwise. Again, you can download and use Clear without spending a single cent.
Adobe users often say “it pays for itself” when someone mentions the cost, and there’s a generation that assumes money is always flowing, willing to pay monthly for apps they rarely use. This doesn’t mean subscription models are the only or most logical business approach for software development.
I can’t speak to Adobe, but I can say that I agree with you: Subscription models are not the only or most logical business approach in every scenario. It depends on what the business/software is. I pay for Acorn on the Mac, which is photo editing software that probably barely registers as a competitor to Photoshop. It’s like $20-30 every few years when a major version comes around, and the app is made by two people: a husband-and-wife. I could, as you’re saying, just buy one version and use it until the OS won’t let me anymore. In fact, I’m not even much of an advanced user, I barely scratch the surface of what the app can do. Financially speaking, that may be the responsible thing to do. But it feels good to support them. One of the major differences with their case versus Clear Pro, however, is that they don’t rely on needing something like sync or supporting multiple platforms that would increase their development time and costs exponentially. If they did, I could see a subscription model becoming increasingly necessary. Just something to consider.
Eventually, how long before AI tools like Cursor or Lovable create local versions of your favorite apps? I suspect within a year someone will introduce “Clone my app AI” where you simply name an app and receive a functional replica. This technology might already exist. Imagine how many people will pay once to clone all their apps and cancel their subscriptions.
This ventures into a legal area that I’m totally unqualified to speak on. At the risk of saying something incredibly stupid, here goes nothing: At some point, there’s a human pulling the AI trigger. I imagine anyone making a clone of, say, Google’s software is going to end up in a world of legal trouble. The legal precedent will eventually be set. There’s no way clone apps are going to be the way software is handled or advances within the current landscape. I don’t think Clear - or any app - should run its business as if AI is going to destroy its existence through such means. But again, I’m just speculating and I have no idea what the future will look like. There are many ways that technology and its various markets are way worse these days. And, hey, Skynet may take over and if we’re fortunate enough to be looking back at talking about an iPhone app’s subscription model, it’ll be with laughter and tears in equal measure. 
Why does this matter? Because ultimately, we pay for relationships. When someone says, “I can’t afford a monthly subscription,” responding with “Sorry, that’s not great for long-term sustainability” damages the core of business: the relationship.
I may have misunderstood, but allow me to clarify where I was coming from. I didn’t think someone was saying “I can’t afford a monthly subscription”. In fact, I went back and re-read it just now and I don’t think that’s what they were saying at all. What I do think is that anyone who can afford to offer up paying $100 now can afford to pay $25-a-year into the future. I’m quite sensitive to people who can’t afford a subscription - monthly or otherwise - as I know what that’s like. I am very grateful to have the time and means to be here discussing this at all, and I don’t take that privilege lightly. I want to be very clear about that and what I previously said to the original poster, if nothing else.
In terms of your point that “we pay for relationships”, I would argue that a good relationship is not one where you pay for it once and then reap the benefits in perpetuity. A good relationship is based on a fostering of said relationship. You don’t buy an expensive gift for a friend one Christmas and then expect them to give you gifts every subsequent Christmas while giving nothing further in return. There’s a mutuality to relationships, and when done right, it’s on-going and self-perpetuating.
3 Likes
Yeah, I’d do this to be fair. There are hundreds of apps I’ve now passed over because they’re foisting subs on you.
2 Likes
I am deeply thankful to God for overseeing my business, allowing me to provide for the family I cherish so much. My capacity is limited to managing just 10 clients at a time; that’s the maximum I can effectively attend to, ensuring that I meet their needs daily. Many of my clients have been with me for over 20 years, and to put it into perspective, 7 out of 10 are legacy clients who have supported me since I embarked on this journey of entrepreneurship. Each year, I welcome new clients while some depart, depending on their business’s success.
I offer on-demand projects for those hesitant to commit to a subscription. When they realize the benefits of a subscription model, I provide discounts based on their initial payments to help them transition. Although I’m considering a change in my business model, I can’t ignore the experience I’ve gained over the years, which reminds me that many individuals may struggle to afford higher-priced options. That’s why I continue to offer the lowest possible rates alongside my on-demand services.
It appears that the comment struck a nerve; however, to be fair, my statement was intended to be general, not specifically aimed at Clear.
Same intention. I apologize for the misconception.
I really appreciate the creativity in your wordplay—it’s quite impressive! However, I have some iCloud syncing apps that offer syncing for free, while others only require payment for syncing with iCloud. Therefore, I don’t see syncing as a feature that justifies a subscription fee. That said, I completely understand if others feel differently. Personally, I provide unlimited encrypted cloud storage as part of all my membership options, so I don’t consider it reasonable to raise prices simply by adding cloud storage. Nevertheless, if others choose to do so, that’s perfectly fine.
What truly resonated with me was your point about “feeling good to support them.” That sentiment captures my reasoning for purchasing icons or sounds from your store. I may not actually need those items, but it’s my way of expressing gratitude for your work. It’s a completely different experience compared to subscribing to a service. I hope you understand where I’m coming from!
Haha, you crack me up!
You don’t need to explain your perspective; you have the right to express your views on your business model however you see fit. That’s why I was upfront and transparent from the start of my post. Imagine if I reacted to being called a “boomer” by starting a virtual fight—does that really make sense? It feels a bit like Reddit, doesn’t it? I realized that when I began posting here, I inadvertently combined all my thoughts on subscriptions into a single discussion. Perhaps this was just my way of pouring out all the ideas I hadn’t previously shared online. That certainly wasn’t my intention. At the end of the day, I’m not planning to subscribe, and you’re not going to provide a one-time payment option. It’s just two guys sitting on a park bench, tossing crumbs to the ducks while enjoying this lovely day.
I have a way with words as well!
Why are people saying this is a binary option why cant BOTH be options and see what the customer thinks. Ive seen no good logic for this. Those that will not subscribe to a fee never will. Its money on the table.
I don’t think anyone is necessarily saying it’s a binary option. The original viewpoint from Clear, as I understood it, was that having someone pay once for a lifetime’s worth of updates wasn’t sustainable. I could be wrong, but I believe a huge reason why is what it costs for sync (as well as expected perpetual development). As it stands, people who do not pay for Clear Pro do not get sync, so anyone who will never pay either way - to your point - isn’t factored in to Clear’s long-term future costs. You say that it’s “money on the table”, and I get why someone would think that, but you have to consider the long-term. What happens 10-or-15-or-20-years down the line and Clear is losing money on all the people that paid once for Pro way back in 2025? What once was an exciting burst of cash is now a lifelong burden. And I’ll reiterate what I said earlier: I think anyone who is willing and can afford to pay $100 now can afford to pay $25-a-year.
Having said that and at the risk of countering my own last point: For what it’s worth, I disagree with the notion that “those that will not subscribe to a fee never will.” Financial situations change, priorities change, what people are or are not willing to pay for will change. I wouldn’t have been able to afford Clear Pro when I was younger, for example, and I’m not sure I would have thought it was worth it even if I could have. Now I can afford to and look at things completely differently. I understand I’m responding to someone named “KillAllSubscriptions”, and to be honest, I have tried to largely cancel many of the services I’ve subscribed to. But Clear is important to me, and it’s developed by a small indie team, and I’m willing to vote with my dollar for what I want to see in the world. Your mileage may vary.
I am telling you point blank id pay 100$ over a subscription at any cost and i wont change my stance. There are other posts on this forum about the same. The feature im upset about most isnt cloud sync but a widget on my home screen and lockscreen notification which were features that used to exist at least widgets, and they dont require cloud subscription. They are bundled in with a cloud subscription to make it more attractive.
Most people forget they subscribed a year later on some random date they subscribed and when they see that they cancel. So 1 year of 25$ being charged a second year being angry and cancelling is less than the 100$ id send.
And if in 10 years clear is still around and they have just been maintaining the cloud and updating - thats a pretty cushy life and more power to em!
I love clear too. My username is a political statement but im not here to troll but get a very CLEAR message out that seems to still fall on deaf ears with rose tinted glasses. Im not the only one who feels this way and comments in this forum elsewhere confirm it. Believe people when they say their truths
I love the assumption that what im saying about not ever wanting to do a subscription is unbelievable. Thats the whole point of my posting to get that message across and it still isnt working even with the username LOL
I am telling you point blank id pay 100$ over a subscription at any cost and i wont change my stance.
That’s fine. I never thought you wouldn’t pay. Your decision is your decision. I recommend messaging Phill personally and letting him know how you feel. He has always been willing to have discussions with users and he’s transparent about Clear’s direction.
The feature im upset about most isnt cloud sync but a widget on my home screen and lockscreen notification which were features that used to exist at least widgets, and they dont require cloud subscription.
I imagine Clear wants to incentivize people to pay for Pro, and one of the ways to do that is moving certain features over to it. It sounds like you have $100 ready to spend on Clear Pro, you’re welcome to do it. You’ll get four years out of the features you want and then you can reassess at the end of it whether you want to continue to do so. It’ll nearly be the 2030s at that point, and it sounds you’ll have received a lot of value for your dollar during that long period of time.
And if in 10 years clear is still around and they have just been maintaining the cloud and updating - thats a pretty cushy life and more power to em!
Businesses have costs. This includes paying salaries and for servers. I think you misunderstood the argument regarding long-term considerations.
My username is a political statement but im not here to troll but get a very CLEAR message out that seems to still fall on deaf ears with rose tinted glasses.
I think we understand your message just fine. Just because people have counterpoints or don’t agree with what you’re saying doesn’t mean your words are falling on deaf ears. And I know that there are other people who agree with you, but there are also arguments against, too. It may be important to note here that at the end of the day, you don’t have to convince a bunch of people on an internet message board anyway, you would have to convince Clear’s developers.
Believe people when they say their truths
And remember that other people have truths and opinions and beliefs, too.
I love the assumption that what im saying about not ever wanting to do a subscription is unbelievable.
Where is this assumption? Who is saying your words are unbelievable?
Thats the whole point of my posting to get that message across and it still isnt working even with the username LOL
Getting a message across is not the same as people agreeing with you. You think the problem is that you haven’t got your point across. It’s not, you have made your point, you do not have to try any further. If the choice is that you either get to pay a one-time subscription or you don’t use/recommend the app, that’s fine, that’s your choice.
1 Like
Solid responses overall. I am a man of principle though. My 100$ is ready but never in the form of a subscription even if it costs less. I and others are adamant about that.
And yes i am probably being obnoxious- thats partly the point to be a loud person for once - normally i internalize. But more companies need to hear this aggressively.
I would reach out directly but that also defeats the purpose. Public loud discourse is more important than PMs so i can understand.
I also do respect others oppinions my appologies for probably definitely coming off as though i didnt i just feel like most of what ive seen here is constant justification rather than a single “why not both” option is out there.
While i get the million reasons why not to do this for long term health, 100% of this is speculation as to long term profits because a one time large fee was never implemented for this particular app/service.
Just like the devs not knowing if they will have funds in 10 years i dont either. Everyone looses jobs and situations change. I have 100$ now and may have 0 in 3 years. Want my business this is how you get it. Dont? Totally fine but id feel stupid for not loudly asking to take my money for a really good product . I just think that a lot of people get passionately turned off like me the way this is done. Just because the world is trending this way doesnt mean it should. We should advocate for the changes we want.
Despite my tone i do indeed respect all the counter points i just really want to advocate for those likeminded to my principles personally because 99.99% of the time i just leave and noone hears why i left as a customer. And having run my own small businesses if this discussion stays internal nobody grows. Those DMs get lost with no accountability or self reflection on the company side. But raise a stink even if painful and truth and appropriate response come out.
I welcome being shut down here because i believe my words need to be heard and i am willing to still be wrong as far as general consensus. But i dont currently see a definitive agreement from potential customers that want to give clear money that subscriptions alone are a good practice.
I think we both have share our valid and honest perspectives, i for one would like to be shut down by clear themselves in these public comments.
I appreciate the debate in general and hope that genuine reconsideration of strategy is a regularly occuring. I wish all the success to the team here and users of the software with or without me being a part of it.
This was the assumption i was referencing btw. Not meant as a combative statement, but truly being able to afford to do something and actually doing it are very different. I wont use Klarna to schedule payments for a sandwich or subscribe to a vacation package , ill save up or i wont get those items. Same here. So no way to subscriptions. How people handle finances is VERY different from the simple do i have enough money paradigm.