Lifecraft for Mac

so, again (and again) - why is this listed as FREE? This BS by MacUpdate has to stop somehow. If there is ANY price on an app - it has to say so, before we download it and get disappointed to find out we do have to pay to use it.

I'm a long-time journaler. Prior to viJournal shutting down I journaled in that, pretty much daily, for over 8 years. Since it's untimely demise, I've struggled to find a journalling app that fits my usage as well. Even though I own outright several competing journal applications (Day One, MacJournal, Capture 365), at the moment my loyalties are divided between two subscription-based services - this app (Lifecraft) and Dyrii. Dyrii has many useful features, such as templates, that I find useful. However, for simply sitting down and writing about my day, I'm increasingly finding myself using Lifecraft. As for the subscription model, I could use this software for four years for the same price that I paid for Day One on all my devices. And the thing is, Day One, at least on the Mac, has a terrible UI for just writing. From memory, Lifecraft has many features that can be used without a subscription, so give it a go. All of your entries can be exported as rich text documents if, after a while, you find you no longer want to use it.

This is a subscription based product that costs $15/yr. and uses iCloud to sync platforms. Given it also handles photos the potential for requiring more iCloud space is present as photos can take up a lot of space. Developers claim that a subscription model is the only way developers can make money and reduces bloatware and they need this model due to the need to release bug fixes and updates. Like most other developers that use subscription models, the actual cost of the product requires research on their website to find it instead of being upfront about it in the description and features page that the website lands you on. Additionally their is no information regarding subscription price increases for existing customers in the future. As such their is no reason that the developer cannot double or triple the price of the subscription to existing customers a few years down the road after they have committed years of data to it. So before purchase, potential buyers need to ask themselves, Is the app useful enough that would you be still willing to continue with a subscription if the cost doubled or tripled 3 years from now? My opinion differs as I am of the opinion that if a developer charged a fair price for an app after spending the time, money, and effort to do a proper QA before release, their would be little need to release constant bug fixes and patches. Additionally a released product should be self sustaining to the point of continuing to attract new customers for its features if it is worth its cost. The developer claims that no data will be lost if a subscription is not renewed. However some functionality will be. So if you paid for a subscription to get this functionality and the company goes out of business or sunsets the App, you then lose that functionality which may be why you paid for the product in the first place. If you feel I am overly concerned about this, ask yourself just how many companies that released less than 5 products are around after 10 years? One of the critical factors in such a subscription model is how easy it is to export the data into a popular format in order to migrate to a different app if the company goes under or you become dissatisfied with the product. That factor does not seem to be addressed anywhere on their website. When faced with subscription models the above comment contains many of the issues that concern me about such paradigms. I believe that when entering into such a contract, a prospective customer should be made aware of all these concerns up front so that they can make a fully informed decision. My perspective on subscription based software is that they may benefit the developer by insuring a continuing revenue stream whether or not the developer enhances, fixes, the product or provides support, their is little benefit to the customer from this business model. Supporters of such a product need to ask themselves: would you purchase a mop that required you to pay a fee for a new mop head every month you owned it for the rest of your life in order to to clean your floors with it, and if you didn't, given that the mop head disintegrates after 45 days, would you be satisfied by just owning the handle?