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

The Mac App Store’s future of irrelevance

marco.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 249 posts

Re: The Mac App Store’s future of irrelevance

#131

Post by spaghetti »

modernerd wrote: post #70
spaghetti wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why can't you update the app and hide most of the new features behind an in-app-purchase paywall?

New users who purchase the updated app would have to pay again to get the latest features.

I think the following set-up avoids that problem: app is always the same price to download and has a few basic features unlocked. App has an upgrade view or screen where users can unlock additional features via in-app-purchase.

It works like this: developer releases the app for, say, $10. People buy it and use the basic features for a while. So far there's no upgrades available. Developer codes up a premium feature and updates the app in the store. Existing users can use the app as-is with the basic features that came with the $10 price tag. Existing users can also make an in-app-purchase for, say, $5 that unlocks the premium feature. When new users download the app for $10 they just get the basic features. Since another "version" of the app is available the new users can just buy the premium features if they so choose.

Fast forward to version 5 of the app. Now there's 4 upgrades available via in-app-purchase. However users are only prompted to purchase the next version based on their in-app-purchase history.

I don't think there's a problem for new users who purchase the updated app.

Re: The Mac App Store’s future of irrelevance

#132

Post by tg3 »

retr0rocket wrote: post #124
Terretta wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Have you tried purchasing the "latest" version of World of Warcraft? You can't. There is no standalone "latest version". You have to purchase the original, and each version since, and finally the current version. Correlate those game content / game mechanics updates with In-App Purchases, and it's clear how someone could offer "major upgrades" if they stop thinking in terms of version numbers and start thinking in te…

did you just compare a game with a 15$ subscription and 40$ expansion packs for major updates and lvl bumps to a 10 dollar app? do you realize how asinine that is and how dumb you sound? if i want to get to current content in WoW i would of had to get Vanilla(50$ at release) + burning crusade (40$ at release) + wrath of the lich king(40$ at release) + cataclysm(40$ at release) PLUS every month im paying 15$ on subscr…

>do you realize how asinine that is and how dumb you sound?

That was unnecessary and did not add to the conversation.

And I'm not sure that I understand your point. Parent comment is saying that apps can follow the WoW model to create a consistent revenue stream without paid version number upgrades. As you mention, "for any real application that does work or major game that requires constant updates you cant expect support and update for 10$ that's completely unfeasible."

Re: The Mac App Store’s future of irrelevance

#133

Post by jiggy2011 »

bluesnowmonkey wrote: post #128
cletus wrote: post #120

There are two issues that are coming up here: sandboxing and paid upgrades. They are quite different. As a consumer I am completely for sandboxing for myself and for other consumers. In a world where malware is increasingly a problem sandboxed apps will become the norm. That's the reality we live in. Sandboxing being a requirement means that I can fairly safely install anything from the (future) Mac App Store. The OP…

> In a world where malware is increasingly a problem I don't see that as the case. There is malware out there in torrent land, sure. But if you acquire software from reputable sources (like a paid app store, referral from a friend, heard about it on a forum like HN, package repository), malware just isn't a concern. If you put malware on an app store, the world will notice, its rating will tank, and people will stop…

It's funny , for years Apple were all like "Macs can't get viruses!" now they're saying "we need app store lock in too prevent malware!".

I guess there's a distinction to be made between actual malware and software that co-installs crap (Ask toolbar etc) but often end users do not see that difference.

Besides, if something has passed app store verification then surely Apple are happy that it is not malware? Therefor they can be somewhat more lenient with sandboxing restrictions?

Re: The Mac App Store’s future of irrelevance

#134

Post by megablast »

modernerd wrote: post #70
spaghetti wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why can't you update the app and hide most of the new features behind an in-app-purchase paywall?

New users who purchase the updated app would have to pay again to get the latest features.

Nope, you can get around that. Store the version of the app that is first run. Those that have the new version as the first run get the new additions.

Re: The Mac App Store’s future of irrelevance

#135

Post by larrik »

pavel_lishin wrote: post #116
larrik wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I disagree with all of your first sentence. As a full-time Linux/Django and iOS developer, switching over to the Mac from Ubuntu is f'ing painful . Linux's reputation is far worse than it deserves.

What was painful about it?

Installing software has no consistency.

The built-in terminal is basically broken: -page-up and page-down don't work unless you hold shift -It uses CTRL-C instead of Command-C, unlike the rest of the OS. -I still can't find hotkeys to jump to the beginning of end of line, or skip over entire words (home, end, ctrl-arrow in Linux and Windows)

Home and End are COMPLETELY USELESS on OS X. I have never, in decades of computing thought "Oh, I want to scroll to the top or bottom of this document with one keypress, but not even bring the cursor with me." Given how often during programming I want to select an entire line, this is broken.

The mouse acceleration is stupid. I know you can get used to it, but then try to play StarCraft or something on it, and you will be awful (or at least severely handicapped), because the mouse acceleration system just doesn't work for stuff like that. Also, Lion broke all the work arounds.

The XCode debugger doesn't let me inspect anything that even might be out of scope. Most of the inspections are useless anyway. You can't even see a list of what is in an NSArray (isa = Class, puh-lease).

Viewing hidden files in Finder is hard enough to not remember. Viewing hidden files on a remote server seems to be impossible (maybe it isn't, I don't care). Simply typing in the folder you want to go to is a huge project.

OS X is a poor network neighbor. It rarely detects my other machines, and when it does it's after waiting forever, and it still barely works.

And, oh yeah, it cost me as much as my other 3 computers combined and is the worst of the 4, spec-wise.

Re: The Mac App Store’s future of irrelevance

#136

Post by jasomill »

bluesnowmonkey wrote: post #128
cletus wrote: post #120

There are two issues that are coming up here: sandboxing and paid upgrades. They are quite different. As a consumer I am completely for sandboxing for myself and for other consumers. In a world where malware is increasingly a problem sandboxed apps will become the norm. That's the reality we live in. Sandboxing being a requirement means that I can fairly safely install anything from the (future) Mac App Store. The OP…

> In a world where malware is increasingly a problem I don't see that as the case. There is malware out there in torrent land, sure. But if you acquire software from reputable sources (like a paid app store, referral from a friend, heard about it on a forum like HN, package repository), malware just isn't a concern. If you put malware on an app store, the world will notice, its rating will tank, and people will stop…

Right, but if a malicious JPEG exploits a code execution vulnerability in libjpeg, a malicious Web page exploits a WebKit vulnerability, or a malicious certificate exploits a bug in OpenSSL, proper sandboxing can do a great deal to mitigate the damage. Thus if "most" applications on OS X are sandboxed, the platform and its applications become less attractive targets for those exploiting what are often cross-application, cross-platform vulnerabilities.

Sandboxing is not restricted to the App Store, by the way.

Re: The Mac App Store’s future of irrelevance

#137

Post by retr0rocket »

tg3 wrote: post #132
retr0rocket wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

did you just compare a game with a 15$ subscription and 40$ expansion packs for major updates and lvl bumps to a 10 dollar app? do you realize how asinine that is and how dumb you sound? if i want to get to current content in WoW i would of had to get Vanilla(50$ at release) + burning crusade (40$ at release) + wrath of the lich king(40$ at release) + cataclysm(40$ at release) PLUS every month im paying 15$ on subscr…

>do you realize how asinine that is and how dumb you sound? That was unnecessary and did not add to the conversation. And I'm not sure that I understand your point. Parent comment is saying that apps can follow the WoW model to create a consistent revenue stream without paid version number upgrades. As you mention, "for any real application that does work or major game that requires constant updates you cant expect s…

you cant follow the wow model, the wow model requires constant fees every month, thats my whole point, when you play wow you pay blizzard constantly, and anytime there is a major update you pay another large chunk. you cant do that with a video editor, and its not like maps where you can segregate off chunks of content. like i said completely asinine, and unequatable in this circumstance, the fact that so many people agreed with such an obviously flawed argument speaks volumes.

Re: The Mac App Store’s future of irrelevance

#138

Post by dan1234 »

rossjudson wrote: post #96
jawngee wrote: post #26

I'm pulling my video editor Shave ( http://shavevideo.com ) out of the Mac App Store for these reasons, though most specifically the lack of paid upgrades. For a $10 video editor that, quite frankly, beats the pants off a lot of crap out there for day to day editing tasks, I can't afford to devote the time and resources it requires to maintain it without it having a baseline level of income. Not having an upgrade pat…

The App Store sells millions of cookies. You eat the cookie. You don't upgrade the cookie. You're absolutely right about the lack of upgrade path. Wonder how Apple will deal with this when their Keynote/Pages/Numbers sales taper off? At some point they'll want to refresh those designs and finance a fresh major version, and they'll want to charge for it. I bet you'll see the paid upgrade features (or maintenance featu…

Well Mountain Lion was released as a new 'appp' rather than an update to the Lion app, so it seems Apple want people to release their major updates as new releases.

I wouldn't be surprised if they continue to update the iLife products such as as iPhoto as they always came free with the OS and I don't think many people bought the iLife pack separately but I'm really not sure how they'll handle keynote/pages/numbers.

Re: The Mac App Store’s future of irrelevance

#140

Post by spaghetti »

megablast wrote: post #134
modernerd wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

New users who purchase the updated app would have to pay again to get the latest features.

Nope, you can get around that. Store the version of the app that is first run. Those that have the new version as the first run get the new additions.

Is that necessary? For some reason I can't think of any problems with the freemium-like approach. Basic app has a fixed price and basic features. It's what everyone gets initially. "Versions" are really just premium features available via in-app-purchase. Bug-fix updates just affect the basic version of the app. And they're available for free to anyone who has the app just like the iOS store.
Post reply on HN