Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Charge more for app subscriptions

mronge.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 149 posts

Re: Charge more for app subscriptions

#71

Post by gnicholas »

Valkhyr wrote: post #42

The way to fix app "subscriptions" is not to charge more (or less) but to fix the customer-hostile structure of app "subscriptions". The big issue with app "subscriptions" is that they don't actually work like subscriptions. Before the digital age, "subscription" used to mean (and for physical products it still means) that you get regular delivery of something as long as you pay. If you stop paying, you no longer get…

> Developers like to emphasize how they fund sustained future development of an app, but the reality is that when you cancel you usually lose access even to current features (you arguably already helped pay for).

I make a browser plugin that functions as a productivity/accessibility tool. When I first started charging, I actually did grandfather in all our existing free users and give them perpetual access to the then-existing feature set. But it's not clear what it would mean to freeze people who had a paid subscription and then terminated it.

If someone pays for one month, do they forever get access to the version that they briefly paid for? How do I deal with customers who are upset that certain websites have changed and no longer work with old versions of our plugins? I would expect lots of questions from folks who want to know if this bug or that bug had been fixed by later releases (and then they would briefly subscribe to get perpetual access to the newer version).

Another commenter mentioned giving folks access to the version that existed a year before they stopped paying, but if I release version 1, then 2, then 3, someone might try out 3, stop paying, and then end up on 2. That seems confusing and suboptimal for everyone.

Re: Charge more for app subscriptions

#72

Post by cortesoft »

a13n wrote: post #63
dguo wrote: post #11

Whenever I read "charge more," I think of the implicit assumption that service owners want to maximize total profit. While I can understand that desire, there's no law of nature that says we have to act in a profit-maximizing manner. A SaaS service could have a different goal: running a sustainable business that benefits as many people as possible. So they could choose to charge a deliberately low amount such that mo…

If you charge more, you can make more money, to grow your team, to build a bigger/better product, to serve more people.

The implicit assumption there is that the app will have a good return on investment if you spend more development time on it.

Sometimes, a product is as good as it is going to get, and you are chasing diminishing returns by continuing to add new features. You often see this with mature commercial software, where teams need to justify their expense by redesigning and upgrading things that don’t need to be upgraded.

Maybe we should stop developing that piece of software, and instead put the resources to something new.

Re: Charge more for app subscriptions

#73

Post by d3nj4l »

an_opabinia wrote: post #70
PaulDavisThe1st wrote: post #9

This analysis is very US/Euro-centric. Bumping the price from US$20 to US$100 might indeed allow you to focus more on your most dedicated customers . It also bumps the price way above anything that billions of people around the world can pay for such a thing. At Ardour, we have 3 subscription price levels: Regular: US$10/month Low Cost: US$4/month Developing World: US$1/month We leave it to users to decide which cate…

> Maybe you don't care about people in Senegal or Bangladesh or the Phillipines. This brings to mind a more interesting question: nevermind you, but can Senegalese, Bangladeshi and Phillipino developers make money at $1/mo? If the answer is yes, where are all the local apps taking over the world with their low prices? If the answer is no, are you depriving those locales of local producers?

Disclaimer: I'm Indian, I'm writing from my experience here. I can't speak for any of the three countries you mentioned, but I think you can extrapolate.

In the Indian market most of these apps are just free and ad supported, by which I mean they are filled to the brim with banner ads and every action requires going through an interstitial ad.

As for this, though:

> where are all the local apps taking over the world with their low prices?

There's a ton of shovelware made in developing countries on the Play store, it's just not good. Most of them have bad UI, bad UX and/or the ad problem I mentioned earlier, making them unappealing to anybody who can afford an alternative.

There's also the fact that apps made locally target local customers for region-specific use cases, so you're not likely to find them useful if you're not from the region (and that is, if you can find them at all in the Play store without any marketing targeted at you!) I know of a few decent to good apps that have to do with Indian accounting etc, and they're making good money at low prices but nobody in the US is going to use them because they're made with the Indian GST and accounting principles in mind. An implication is that these apps don't follow US/EU regulations. There was an Indian-made fertility app that was collecting data that was flagrantly in violation of GDPR (https://privacyinternational.org/long-read/3196/no-bodys-bus..., search for "Maya by Plackal Tech".) To them, the additional work required to be GDPR compliant is not worth it, given that the domestic market is big enough for them at the early stage.

Re: Charge more for app subscriptions

#74

Post by [deleted] »

Valkhyr wrote: post #26
valuearb wrote: post #23

The higher revenues for onetime purchase show the weakness of subscriptions vs the old upgrade model, and I wish Apple would understand it. Subscriptions carry the fear of paying for something you won’t be using, or being nickel and dimed for years on end. Upgrades are a much simpler purchase decision. Am I using the app? Is it offering a good value? Does the upgrade provide new features I want or need at a reasonabl…

This. With very few exceptions (content subscriptions (e.g. Netflix) and services that have a server-side component core to its functionality (e.g. Dropbox)), I avoid subscriptions like the plague. With applications, I don't choose between more or less expensive subscription, but I'll chose your competitor who sells upfront.

[deleted]

Re: Charge more for app subscriptions

#75

Post by jimkleiber »

judge2020 wrote: post #69
jimkleiber wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Oh goodness, I have no idea. I was doing it through a web page, but I could imagine if I turned it into an app, the app stores might charge for it. They may even charge for it for accessing the website, but I doubt it.

Based on the saga from Epic and Floatplane[0], if your product is digital or mostly digital, Apple will enforce IAP purchasing which is a 30% cut to Apple. If it's something mostly physical, like packages or food delivery, you are allowed to implement your own CC processing screen. You also can't link to your website via any means if you can subscribe via the website. Even support articles can't link to the main webs…

Just to clarify, what you're saying above applies to apps that are distributed through the iOS App Store, correct? In other words, all of that does not apply to websites that have no presence in the App Store and are just accessed through browsers, right?

I mean, I sure hope so :-D

Re: Charge more for app subscriptions

#76

Post by judge2020 »

jimkleiber wrote: post #75
judge2020 wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Based on the saga from Epic and Floatplane[0], if your product is digital or mostly digital, Apple will enforce IAP purchasing which is a 30% cut to Apple. If it's something mostly physical, like packages or food delivery, you are allowed to implement your own CC processing screen. You also can't link to your website via any means if you can subscribe via the website. Even support articles can't link to the main webs…

Just to clarify, what you're saying above applies to apps that are distributed through the iOS App Store, correct? In other words, all of that does not apply to websites that have no presence in the App Store and are just accessed through browsers, right? I mean, I sure hope so :-D

Ya, this only affects distributing an app via the App Store.

Re: Charge more for app subscriptions

#77

Post by sudhirj »

PaulDavisThe1st wrote: post #9

This analysis is very US/Euro-centric. Bumping the price from US$20 to US$100 might indeed allow you to focus more on your most dedicated customers . It also bumps the price way above anything that billions of people around the world can pay for such a thing. At Ardour, we have 3 subscription price levels: Regular: US$10/month Low Cost: US$4/month Developing World: US$1/month We leave it to users to decide which cate…

I wrote a tool to calculate product or service prices for different parts of the world based on the Big Mac Index (the price of a local mcdonalds lunch burger). That method makes more sense to me because all your customers have a similar point of reference.

McD is thought of as a premium product in some very poor areas, but on the whole they aim for mass market affordability, which makes it a fair comparison.

https://bigmacpricing.com/

Re: Charge more for app subscriptions

#78

Post by semireg »

I’m an indie dev that wrote a useful Electron app for designing and printing labels (both rolls and sheets), data import, rendering batches of images, etc. My competition is either free (DYMO/Brother) or $500 commercial software for expensive printers.

So how do I price? For a year I had my price at $47.99 one-time and did OK. A month ago I segmented my licenses/users into Personal (same price of $47.99) and Business ($147.99) licenses. Business license has the ability to print barcodes. Revenue increased w a slight decrease of units sold.

Then last week I launched a Business subscription at $14.99/month. Everyone is still buying the one-time licenses. I don’t blame them... I generally avoid subscriptions.

Soon I’ll be releasing a Shopify app/integration and I’m really curious how that user group will respond. As far as I know, merchants are already used to monthly costs so it just becomes the cost of operating their store.

I need a pricing consultant. Check out my pricing page at https://label.live/download

Re: Charge more for app subscriptions

#79

Post by Shared404 »

zepto wrote: post #64
Kaze404 wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If people don't use your product if they don't have the pressure of sunken cost, then maybe they're not really benefitting either way.

The whole point of subscriptions is that they aren’t sunken cost.

If I subscribe to something for a month, and then feel compelled to use it that month instead of some better tool because I paid for it, I would say that's a sunken cost.

A time limited one, but still there.

Re: Charge more for app subscriptions

#80

Post by chrisdirkis »

Valkhyr wrote: post #42

The way to fix app "subscriptions" is not to charge more (or less) but to fix the customer-hostile structure of app "subscriptions". The big issue with app "subscriptions" is that they don't actually work like subscriptions. Before the digital age, "subscription" used to mean (and for physical products it still means) that you get regular delivery of something as long as you pay. If you stop paying, you no longer get…

Works the other way too, though. When I subscribe to a magazine, I don't get shipped their entire back catalogue. This causes the problems that gnicholas describes. If I did, why subscribe for a year, when I can subscribe for a month at the end of the year?
Post reply on HN