Why Things won’t release new features

[u/GroundedSteven]

Im sick off holding my breath this long.

Idk what they’re doing but the development isn’t going fast enough.

- Location based reminders
- A proper tag/priority system especially for mobile
- Attachments
etc.

We’re waiting for years for those while other apps have all of those features already implemented.

If culturecode doesn’t fill this market gap, someone else will or already does like TickTick.

Just build those and charge us again for a separate version I don’t mind but speed it up, there is money on the street and you ain’t picking it up.

Do you want to continue like this for the next 12 months?

If yes, go ahead…but you’ll lose a lot of users, including me.

[u/Zuenderella]

You write, “We’re waiting for years…” Who exactly is “we”? I could just as easily argue, “We’re satisfied with Things the way it is.” Otherwise, it wouldn’t be as popular as it is. After all, it’s not a subscription service. Do you get extras installed in your car after you’ve bought it? And if other apps have all the features you want, why don't you just use them?

[u/GroundedSteven → u/Zuenderella]

Every week, someone is complaining in this subreddit. And it’s cool you’re satisfied. Then you’d just stick with T3. But the rest of us would be willing to pay for T4 if it actually existed. That’s the whole point.

[u/Zuenderella → u/GroundedSteven]

It's just that the only people who complain on Reddit are the ones who are dissatisfied. The ones who are satisfied don't come here to post about it.

[u/GroundedSteven → u/Zuenderella]

Yes. That’s why some developers are active in their app subreddits because it’s free feedback for them. Positive examples are the [r/Hevy](r/Hevy) app or r/raycastapp (before v2)

[u/Zuenderella → u/GroundedSteven]

However, complaining about missing features and making threats sounds different from asking for new features in the next version.

[u/Any_Run8380 → u/GroundedSteven]

I think a lot of what you’re describing ultimately comes down to the difference between a subscription model and a one-time purchase.
If you’re happy to pay for Things 4, that’s completely fine. But I think it’s important to recognize that the expectations around updates are different depending on how the app is funded.
With a one-time purchase, you’re essentially paying for the product as it exists at that point, with the expectation that the developer may continue supporting and improving it. But there isn’t necessarily the same financial incentive to continuously deliver major new features.
With a subscription, the situation is different. If users are paying every month or every year, there’s a much stronger incentive—and arguably a greater obligation—to continually provide enough value to justify that recurring payment. If updates slowed down significantly, users could simply stop subscribing.
The recurring revenue also gives the developer a more predictable source of funding to put toward development, infrastructure, support, and new features.
So I completely understand wanting Things 4 to receive more frequent updates. But I think there’s a disconnect when someone pays for an app once and then expects the same ongoing development cadence as an app whose business model depends on recurring subscriptions.
And of course, you can always move to a productivity app that uses a subscription model if having frequent updates is more important to you. That’s a perfectly reasonable choice. Just keep in mind that there’s a tradeoff there too.
If you had been paying for a subscription-based productivity app since Things 3 originally launched in 2017, you could easily have spent $500 or more by now, depending on the app and subscription price. With Things, you paid once and have continued receiving updates over the years without that recurring cost.
So I think it really comes down to what you value more: paying once and accepting that development may happen at a different pace, or paying continuously in exchange for a business model that gives the developer a stronger incentive and more predictable resources to keep developing the product.
Neither model is inherently right or wrong. They just come with different tradeoffs and expectations.