Understanding the strategic, technical, and pricing rationale behind the annual subscription model

[fguisso]

Hi team,

First of all — thank you for the amazing work on Blink. I really value the project, both technically and philosophically, for being open source and pushing what’s possible on iOS.

I’ve gone through the FAQ, the paywall/entitlements discussions (like #2158 / #1683 ), and various community threads to understand the transition from the older freemium model to the current trial + annual subscription structure. Still, I find myself wanting to better understand why this specific model was chosen.

To be clear:
I’m not asking for a free version — I completely understand the need for sustainable development. My goal here is to understand the strategic and technical reasoning behind the current choices, because I’d genuinely like to contribute and possibly join the community more actively.

Specifically:
• Business/UX rationale: What drove the decision to offer only an annual subscription (without a one-time or monthly option)?
• Pricing: How was the current price point determined? From the outside, it seems high compared to typical open-source or indie developer tooling apps — but maybe there are specific costs (infra, Apple fees, or sustainability goals) that justify it.
• Community / Sponsorship: Has the team considered alternatives such as GitHub Sponsors, OpenCollective, or other contribution models where supporters can choose their level of support and maybe unlock extra perks — instead of a mandatory subscription?

I’m asking this purely out of curiosity and a desire to understand the project’s long-term philosophy — not to criticize.
If the reasoning and transparency make more sense to me, I might actually feel more comfortable subscribing and becoming an active community member/supporter.

Thanks so much for your time and openness — I truly admire what you’ve built here and hope this discussion helps other users and contributors understand the “why” behind Blink’s current model. 🙏

(Context: I’ve read the FAQ and the paywall-related issues, bring all in this document; I just want to understand the strategic and technical rationale, including pricing decisions, not to request free access.)

[carloscabanero]

Thanks! I want to answer this, but I have done it too many times in my head, it is going to take time to put it in writing, I am working on the next version of Blink, and the numbers are really not good.

So I want to propose you we do it a different way, kinda like in "the Profit Zone" book. Instead of me giving you the answers, how about you tell me what you think the numbers are. Starting with back in the day with a "one-time" price, the downloads we used to have with a "one-time" price, the total addressable market, how that played out over a period of 5-7 years (again, total addressable market on "one-time" price is important). Then apply a similar reasoning to the current model where obviously subscription mechanics work (as the user-base "grows" and is motivated to get updates and a better project instead of a "one-time" thing). And then obviously on the other side, the expenses of keeping a project like this going, with engineering expenses through the year, etc... etc... Other models to try, maybe something like Panic with Prompt doing version 1, 2, 3, (4, 5...)? But I think it is better to be honest with people. The app is Open Source, we need stable support, and I think the subscription to access the app is a good way to support this. I wished I had more leverage to play with pricing and doing more experiments, but it is what it is.

I'm going to give you one. GitHub sponsors, Koffee, Beer, etc... do not work. On any project I have seen, the numbers are incredibly low (think about paying an engineer for a month). The only "resonable" way is to get some kind of company sponsorship (think something along browsers and the search-bar). Maybe a Kickstarter of some kind would work too? But it is really unclear.

But please, do the exercise, it would really help me get someone else do the numbers too and maybe we can find new opportunities along the way.

[fguisso]

Thanks again — I really appreciate you taking the time to open this discussion.

I also want to be honest on my side:
the current model doesn’t fully make sense to me today.
That’s exactly why I’m here spending time thinking through this instead of simply walking away or silently accepting it. Blink is a great project, and I genuinely want to understand the reasoning so that I can support it in a way that feels aligned and sustainable.

And I imagine I’m not the only one in this position.
Some people like me — who actually care about Blink and would be willing to support it — probably end up not subscribing, not contributing, and maybe even losing trust in the project simply because the reasoning isn’t clear. Not everyone will have the patience (or the mindset) to come and ask the way I’m doing now. So I think it’s really valuable that we can document these ideas and perspectives here for the future.

I did the exercise you suggested, and the more I modeled it, the clearer it became that the current subscription model naturally provides more stability and a smoother revenue curve over time. Even if another strategy might outperform it in theory, it would likely create an initial dip and require much more cash-flow management discipline in the long term. From that perspective, it makes sense why subscriptions are the “safest” option for sustaining a niche professional app.

The Numbers (rough estimates, just to visualize)

Obviously I don’t have your real numbers, so these are purely illustrative — and I’d be very glad if you could share corrections or better assumptions.

One-time model example

Price: ~$20 one-time

Total addressable market over ~7 years (just estimating): ~30k–50k people

Revenue is heavily front-loaded: most income in years 1–3, then a long tail

Meanwhile, engineering + design + infra + support is a recurring yearly cost

Subscription model example

$20/year

Even with fewer paying users, the recurring nature creates a more predictable baseline

After a few years, the revenue curve stabilizes instead of declining

Much easier to plan staffing and updates since cash flow is smoother

In my rough models, both scenarios end up in a similar total revenue range over 5–7 years — but only the subscription model gives you the stability to actually operate without taking big risks or launching “Blink 2 / 3 / 4” every few years.

Again, these are just hypothetical numbers. If you share more realistic ranges, I (and others) could help refine them much better.

About Other Funding Models

Thinking about alternatives (sponsors, Ko-fi, GitHub Sponsors, multiple tiers, hybrid schemes, etc.):
they all increase the complexity of managing finances. If Blink grows, you’d actually need someone with a finance/operations mindset to manage that. Not because the models are bad, but because each new option increases planning/forecasting overhead.

I’m not — and have never been — a financial manager for a large OSS project, but I have worked for one, and I volunteer as treasurer in non-tech organizations. But this is what I see. Maybe a professional app needs a professional financtial manager?

What I Still Don’t Fully Understand

Without knowing the real numbers or the internal decision-making process, it’s hard to fully grasp the constraints you’re facing. I don’t know what “the numbers are really not good” means in concrete terms — revenue drop? plateau? infra costs? personal burnout? unexpected expenses?

Maybe if you shared more context — even if just rough ranges — the community (including me) could help brainstorm better ways to support Blink, or at least understand and accept the current approach more easily.

My intention here isn’t to argue against the subscription.
It’s simply to understand the situation well enough to support the project in a way that feels aligned and transparent.

Thanks again for opening this conversation. I genuinely want Blink to succeed, and I’m happy to continue thinking through these scenarios with you.

[carloscabanero]

Ok, so I think we are being really vague and abstract and we need to be more specific. Here is what would be really useful for me:

• You are saying multiple times, on the first and second message, things like:
  • "The current model doesn’t fully make sense to me today.", or "why the current model was chosen". What would be useful to know is "why doesn't it make sense to you today?", are you afraid that the project is too successful and you would not support it in that case? are you afraid the project is going to disappear despite me having maintained it for already 10 years? Are there other models that you think would support the project better?
  • "I’m not asking for a free version", "From the outside, it seems high compared to typical open-source or indie developer tooling apps" - What would be useful for me is, is there another price that you would consider more fair to you? is there another model that you would consider more fair? what are those other apps? Be specific.
  • "People who actually care about Blink", "we end up not subscribing, not contributing". There is a mismatch in there. What would be useful for me is if instead of making it "we", make it "you". Why don't you contribute? Why wouldn't you subscribe? Do you think the price is too expensive? Again, are you afraid that you subscribe and then nothing will happen? Are there no other clear ways to contribute to the project? Is it about money or is it about what the project is trying to do?
• You have not finished the numbers, and again instead of being abstract, be more specific. You say $20, 5 years, 50K people, but what numbers do you see per year? What percentages do you think you can target? You are saying that both models end up in "the same ballpark", but they actually shouldn't. You also missed an important part which is the other side, consider an engineer working full-time over the year on the project. How much do you think that person should make? Then to make it easy, add to that a 30% to cover expenses, Apple tax, etc...
• And then based on those numbers, let me ask you. Which model would you choose if your livelihood depended on it?

On other models:

• GH sponsors, etc... don't just increment the complexity, they have not been proved to work at the scale needed to support an engineer. I have asked this to GH itself. But show me what you are thinking about.
• On other OSS projects. You may know the "Business of OSS" podcast https://www.emilyomier.com/podcast. Emily is fantastic, met her at a conference, learnt a ton. A lesson there is that instead of supporters, you should have customers. What do you think is a better way to draft that relation, a one-time purchase or a subscription?
• "If Blink grows..." - well, that would be a nice problem to have. Right now the whole issue is easy and transparent, this can either support an engineer and grow or it doesn't. And we will see that and the alternatives from the numbers.

Don't take the "be specific" as aggressive, it is just part of a healthy conversation. Let's put everything out there.