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

Pocket Casts, you altered the deal, so I will alter your app

blog.matthewbrunelle.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 150 posts

Re: Pocket Casts, you altered the deal, so I will alter your app

#101

Post by forrestthewoods »

dns_snek wrote: post #92
forrestthewoods wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There’s no universe in which people like this don’t complain. Release Pocket Caste 2 and they’ll complain. Sub and they’ll complain. Don’t update and they’ll complain. HN is highly sympathetic to the plight of the open source dev who rage quits because people demand too much for free. This is basically the same thing. I know this will get downvotes. But I’m not wrong.

There are very obvious, important differences between the options they had available. Both in terms of general user expectations for end of life apps, as well as concrete promises made to their customers to make a sale. Do you apply the same sort of lazy false equivalence to all moral and ethical questions? People will always complain, therefore you can do anything! I don't think I've ever complained about an app goi…

I call bullshit on the claims of “promise”.

When you buy a $3 app on iOS this is not a contractual or moral obligation or promise to provide decades of updates for free.

Just because someone says a promise was broken doesn’t make it true.

Re: Pocket Casts, you altered the deal, so I will alter your app

#102

Post by dns_snek »

forrestthewoods wrote: post #101
dns_snek wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are very obvious, important differences between the options they had available. Both in terms of general user expectations for end of life apps, as well as concrete promises made to their customers to make a sale. Do you apply the same sort of lazy false equivalence to all moral and ethical questions? People will always complain, therefore you can do anything! I don't think I've ever complained about an app goi…

I call bullshit on the claims of “promise”. When you buy a $3 app on iOS this is not a contractual or moral obligation or promise to provide decades of updates for free. Just because someone says a promise was broken doesn’t make it true.

> When you buy a $3 app on iOS this is not a contractual or moral obligation or promise to provide decades of updates for free.

Who asked for free updates? I repeat:

> I don't think I've ever complained about an app going out of business and discontinuing updates

Re: Pocket Casts, you altered the deal, so I will alter your app

#103

Post by forrestthewoods »

dns_snek wrote: post #102
forrestthewoods wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I call bullshit on the claims of “promise”. When you buy a $3 app on iOS this is not a contractual or moral obligation or promise to provide decades of updates for free. Just because someone says a promise was broken doesn’t make it true.

> When you buy a $3 app on iOS this is not a contractual or moral obligation or promise to provide decades of updates for free. Who asked for free updates? I repeat: > I don't think I've ever complained about an app going out of business and discontinuing updates

Rather than the opening paragraph crying about “broken promises” (which weren’t actually ever promised) perhaps the article should complain that Apple won’t let you download old versions of apps you paid for.

Of course Apple forces devs to update their apps every couple of years to support new minimum SDK requirements.

Re: Pocket Casts, you altered the deal, so I will alter your app

#104

Post by brailsafe »

carlosjobim wrote: post #80
jjulius wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>You're demanding more than a decade of free app updates for a small sum you paid ages ago. I mean... that was the agreement between both parties. Really not that hard to grasp.

So how about those free refills at McDonalds? Clearly you have the right to return there every day for the rest of your life and fill up hundreds of cups each time. After all, it is in the agreement between both parties, so go for it!

There's a free refill policy at Starbucks too, but it specifically states the constraints, which I used the hell out of for years, and is just part of the deal. It's advantageous in a number of different ways for them, but if it wasn't they can take that out of the contract. Worth noting that it still remains despite lackluster and varying performance in the market; their milk sales would compensate anyway.

"Free refill(s) of hot or iced brewed coffee and tea. Starbucks Rewards members may receive free refills of hot or iced brewed coffee or tea during the same day in store visit at participating Starbucks stores (excludes Cold Brew and Nitro Cold Brew, Iced Tea Lemonade, Flavored Iced Tea, and Starbucks Refreshers® base). To be eligible for free refill(s) of hot or iced brewed coffee or tea, your initial order must be served in for-here ware or a clean reusable cup."

Re: Pocket Casts, you altered the deal, so I will alter your app

#105

Post by kbelder »

forrestthewoods wrote: post #52
rbits wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think they're complaining about a lack of updates

There’s no universe in which people like this don’t complain. Release Pocket Caste 2 and they’ll complain. Sub and they’ll complain. Don’t update and they’ll complain. HN is highly sympathetic to the plight of the open source dev who rage quits because people demand too much for free. This is basically the same thing. I know this will get downvotes. But I’m not wrong.

>I know this will get downvotes. But I’m not wrong.

Well, that statement was half wrong.

Re: Pocket Casts, you altered the deal, so I will alter your app

#106

Post by forrestthewoods »

kbelder wrote: post #105
forrestthewoods wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There’s no universe in which people like this don’t complain. Release Pocket Caste 2 and they’ll complain. Sub and they’ll complain. Don’t update and they’ll complain. HN is highly sympathetic to the plight of the open source dev who rage quits because people demand too much for free. This is basically the same thing. I know this will get downvotes. But I’m not wrong.

>I know this will get downvotes. But I’m not wrong. Well, that statement was half wrong.

Rude: yes

Value Added: no

Re: Pocket Casts, you altered the deal, so I will alter your app

#107

Post by tylergetsay »

mgrandl wrote: post #38
donatj wrote: post #32

$800,000 net loss? What in the mismanaged business world are you even doing? I've built feed aggregators in the past... I just can't understand where the costs ar. Are they rehosting all the audio and that's bandwidth costs? Even then it seemed high.

They are definitely not rehosting. I can tell that certain podcasts are streaming with much more latency compared to others hosted closer to where I live.

There is also podcasts with dynamic ad slots that give me local ads in Pocket Casts

Re: Pocket Casts, you altered the deal, so I will alter your app

#108

Post by photomatt »

Howdy! There might be a misunderstanding: Anyone who has ever paid for Pocket Casts, even before Automattic acquired it, should not see ads. If you did, that's a bug and we'll fix it.

Longer context: At Automattic, we take very seriously the sustainability of the promises we make to users of our products, including serving trillions of free requests to WP.com, Tumblr, Pocket Casts, and many other services over the years.

We want every product to be self-sustaining, so it doesn't rely on my benevolence, but instead has an engine of value creation and capture that can be something we continue to maintain and support for decades to come. We really do think long-term, as evidenced by our 100-year plan on WP.com.

The Pocket Casts business model is similar to that of many other products, featuring a free version with ads and a paid upgrade with additional features and no ads, much like Spotify, YouTube, and others.

As a matter of engineering ethics, I don't believe in "lifetime" purchases, and we don't create new ones at Automattic, but we have honored the legacy people who paid a one-time fee to Pocket Casts when they were a startup with basically what we call a "Champions" account, which is a lifetime you-get-the-best-of-whatever-we-sell deal. There are only a few thousand of these folks, so it seemed better to try and make it more of a gift than attempt to migrate people to what is actually a sustainable business model, which is a recurring subscription.

We open-sourced Pocket Casts after acquiring it because I believe that in the podcasting world, it's vital to have an open-source alternative to proprietary distribution networks.

Re: Pocket Casts, you altered the deal, so I will alter your app

#109

Post by photomatt »

bathtub365 wrote: post #56
carlosjobim wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I hope you never hear about free refills that they have in some restaurants. You're demanding more than a decade of free app updates for a small sum you paid ages ago. Why can't you instead be happy with all the value you got from the app? We aren't born to be small minded and stingy, look up to greater goals and a greater attitude in life. We only have so many years before it is cut from us.

The app updates aren’t free, I paid for them with my lifetime subscription. They could do what other apps have done and release a new SKU for a new business model or with a new feature set that justifies asking for more money. Reeder has done this, for example. I think JetBrains has one of the most fair and honest subscription schemes where you pay for a subscription but when you stop paying you’re free to keep using…

Anyone who paid shouldn't see ads.

Re: Pocket Casts, you altered the deal, so I will alter your app

#110

Post by db48x »

mcv wrote: post #61
mrheosuper wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Back in the day, Pepsi had an ads that claim you can win a Jet fighter if you do xxx. A guy did xxx and tried to get the Jet, but of course he couldn't and sue them. The court let Pepsi win. So, "a place where a business is held to their word" has never been existed.

But it should exist. This is blatantly false advertising. Of course a jet fighter is a ridiculous thing to promise, but it's still a promise they chose to make. Why make a promise they never intend to keep? That sort of thing should be struck down hard by the courts. But a life time membership is not an unreasonable promise.

People employ hyperbole all the time, so why can’t a company?

But you’re right, a lifetime membership should really be for a lifetime. But since nobody is suing over it, then it’ll continue to be abused.

Post reply on HN