Revel Roots

what apps actually cost

Replacing Four With One

Once an audit reveals eleven subscriptions, consolidation becomes attractive: one product that does four jobs, one bill, one place to look.

It sometimes works well and it is not automatically cheaper or simpler. The trade is worth stating before the migration weekend rather than during it. A useful contrast from the workplace-software market is workforce optimization software; it shows how similar feature and buying decisions change when the purchaser is a team.

When it works

When the jobs are genuinely adjacent. Notes, tasks and a calendar belong together — they reference each other, and splitting them creates work at the boundaries.

When you use each of the four lightly. An all-in-one is usually adequate at everything and best at nothing. If none of the four is central to your work, adequate is sufficient. For an independent software-selection perspective, ZDNET productivity coverage is another useful reference.

When the four were bought separately over years rather than chosen as a set. Accumulated subscriptions frequently overlap already, and the consolidation is recognising that.

And when one of the four is already inside something you pay for. Check the bundles first — the consolidation may have happened without you.

When four specialists win

When one job is central. If you live in one of the four, the all-in-one's version of it will be the compromise you notice daily, and the annoyance outweighs the saving.

When the tools have different lifespans. A note archive should outlive a task manager. Merging them means the notes leave when the tasks do.

When they serve different people. Something shared with a team and something private do not belong in one account.

And when the all-in-one is a young product covering four categories. Breadth at that stage usually means depth nowhere, and the pricing reflects ambition rather than maturity.

The concentration risk

The part that does not appear in the arithmetic.

One product holding four jobs is one outage affecting four jobs, one price rise affecting all of them, one export to get wrong, and one company whose future you are now dependent on.

Four specialists fail independently. That is genuinely worth something, and it is why consolidation is not simply optimisation.

Weight it by how much you would lose. Four lightweight tools consolidating is low risk. Notes, finances, records and passwords in one product is a different proposition.

The arithmetic, honestly

Four subscriptions at $6 against one at $15 is $288 against $180 a year. Real, and not transformative.

Add the migration. A weekend of moving data, plus the period of working in a less familiar tool. That is a one-off cost against a recurring saving, so it pays back — usually within the first year.

And add what you lose. If one of the four does something the all-in-one does not, the saving is buying a downgrade, and you should be able to name what it is before starting.

Before migrating

Export from all four first. Before cancelling anything, and check the exports actually open.

Run parallel for a month. Keep the old subscriptions live while using the new one. It costs one extra month and it is the difference between discovering a gap and being trapped by it.

Migrate one job at a time, not all four in a weekend. If something is wrong, you know which move caused it.

And cancel only after the parallel month, with the cancellations confirmed and screenshotted.

The version that usually wins

Consolidate two, keep two.

The two that are adjacent and lightly used go together; the one that is central and the one with the long-lived data stay separate.

That captures most of the saving, avoids the concentration risk on the things that matter, and takes an afternoon rather than a weekend. It is less satisfying than a clean sweep, and it is the arrangement people still have a year later.

The short version