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

The Mac App Store Needs Paid Upgrades

blog.wilshipley.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 125 posts

Re: The Mac App Store Needs Paid Upgrades

#111

Post by wil_shipley »

Terretta wrote: post #69

Apple’s not keeping iWork up-to-date despite sitting on one hundred billion dollars. And here I was blissfully unaware that Pages and Keynote had rotted into uselessness simply because of the calendar year.

Have you used Pages recently? It’s got a button in the default toolbar to “Publish on iWork” which has never been out of beta and is now cancelled. It doesn’t work in HiDPI modes of Lion. It doesn’t support Lion’s keyboard macros. I wrote one letter in it last week and ended up filing three different bugs.

So, yes, software does “rot,” if it’s not kept up-to-date with the latest operating systems and, to an extent, the latest user interface metaphors.

Re: The Mac App Store Needs Paid Upgrades

#112

Post by cynix »

tomflack wrote: post #87
cynix wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I build a house for you for $X. You find out that the lights don't work and ask me to fix it. Would you be happy if I told you "Oh, sorry I messed up the electrical connections. It'll cost you $Y though, because I have to spend time fixing them and I need to get paid for that time."?

In perpetuity? When a major OS upgrade breaks the app completely after being in use with no problems for 5 years? Again we find that conflating real-world examples with technology issues is a bad way of understanding them. With a house you typically have a warranty period and afterwards are required to pay for fixes yourself. There is a lot of grey here that paid updates help deal with. The users will vote with their…

But why should the users be responsible for compensating the developer when it is Apple who changed something in the OS? Perhaps the developers should ask Apple to pay for their time.

Re: The Mac App Store Needs Paid Upgrades

#113

Post by kklimonda »

msbarnett wrote: post #102
falcolas wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And yet the new purchaser ends up spending more under this model than they would under a paid upgrades model. New user pays $40 for features X, Y, and Z. User of a previous version, containing X and Y, would pay $10 for the new version. Under the in-app purchase model, both customers have to pay $50 for X, Y and Z, which provides a high barrier to entry, a poor customer experience, and poor reviews for the app. There…

I'm not following. Say the app is originally $10. A year later you push out the "2013 feature pack" for $10 more. Existing customer pays $10 ($20 total over lifetime) for upgrade. New user pays $20 at once ($10 base + 2013 pack). A year passes, 2014 pack comes out, existing user pays $10 ($30 over lifetime), new user pays $20 ($10 base + 2014 pack (which subsumed all features of the 2013 pack)). The existing user is…

Hmm.. this actually looks like developer is going to start making less money the moment they release the first feature pack. To make things fair to users [1] you have to start selling base version for less money at some point to ensure that the full price of the application stays the same, but if you do that you have no guarantees that people will buy "feature packs" - actually it's guaranteed that not everyone will buy those so you will get less money than you would if you could just stop selling version 1.0 and start selling version 2.0 for the same price (and provide an upgrade path for existing users)

EDIT: clarified a bit

Re: The Mac App Store Needs Paid Upgrades

#114

Post by statictype »

tptacek wrote: post #82
kennywinker wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't see them disagreeing. They're both saying "here are some issues I see with the Apple/Developer relationship".

Non sequitor. The comment thread you're on argues that developers on Apple's Mac platform are sharecroppers. Atwood may well think that (it's not totally clear to me), but Shipley clearly does not: he is making more money after adopting the App Store than he was before it, and is content with the control/promotion tradeoff. He says so explicitly in the article we're commenting on.

Maybe the use of the word sharecropper has changed recently with respect to Apple, but as far as I know, it doesn't have anything to do with whether or not you're successful and content with the Land Owner's restrictions. It's meant to signify that you don't have full control over the ecosystem you're living in and that you owe part of the profits you reap from your hard work to the land owner.

In that sense, App Store developers are very much sharecroppers whether they enjoy and accept it or not.

Re: The Mac App Store Needs Paid Upgrades

#115

Post by bwooce »

kennywinker wrote: post #2

The consensus among all the devs I've talked to is that this feature will magically appear the next time Apple does a significant update to one of it's bigger ticket apps... Final Cut, Aperture, Logic, etc. I can't see any way they can get around this problem without adding paid updates. Until then 3rd party developers are high and dry.

It is already there, lurking, in iOS 5(back to 2, friends say)

See http://t.co/EkqWISbS for an example, appears as a bug when you try and upgrade an app you've deleted -- but it shows the capability does exist.

I agree they won't enable it until they have a reason, the current situation is simple to manage from all angles.

Re: The Mac App Store Needs Paid Upgrades

#116

Post by demallien »

wil_shipley wrote: post #108
deedubaya wrote: post #6

As a developer with Apps in the MAS, I can see where this makes sense from the developer's perspective. But I think it is a mater of laziness on the dev's part. Let me explain: From a users perspective, this would suck. It is an antiquated system. "I have to pay for an upgrade just so it works on the new OS?" Think of how many times you've had to do this in the past, and how you felt. Apple will act in the best inter…

We generally don’t charge to update our apps to a new operating system. In fact, that’s been a lot of what we’ve done to version 2 over the last couple years – it now runs on an OS TWO major versions beyond what we wrote it for. And that was a free upgrade for all users. But if I rewrite an app and improve the art and the flow and the interaction and every little part of it, there’s no way to say, “Hey, pay and we’ll…

Wil, have you looked at lowering the upfront price of new versions - You would get more customers(but probably less revenue), but you would make back the money on upgrades to a larger user base.

Actually, I'm not really asking if you have looked at it - you probably have. But I'd be interested in hearing your analysis, particularly as this seems to be the route that Apple has taken themselves - cheaper software but you pay full price for each new version.

Re: The Mac App Store Needs Paid Upgrades

#117

Post by tomflack »

cynix wrote: post #112
tomflack wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In perpetuity? When a major OS upgrade breaks the app completely after being in use with no problems for 5 years? Again we find that conflating real-world examples with technology issues is a bad way of understanding them. With a house you typically have a warranty period and afterwards are required to pay for fixes yourself. There is a lot of grey here that paid updates help deal with. The users will vote with their…

But why should the users be responsible for compensating the developer when it is Apple who changed something in the OS? Perhaps the developers should ask Apple to pay for their time.

The way I see software (excluding SAAS and software that comes with an explicit service contract) is the moment you pay your money, and the software is "fit for the purpose" that you were sold it for, you might be stuck with that version forever.

If there is a massive OS upgrade on the horizon that might break it - don't spend the money on it. Don't expect anyone to pay for it but the end user.

Expecting developers to support the product until the heat death of the universe without ongoing compensation is ridiculous.

Now of course there are variations on this that developers can be nice and provide if they feel like it, but I never expect anything I buy to have any more support than was explicitly outlined to me when I laid down the money.

Re: The Mac App Store Needs Paid Upgrades

#118

Post by deong »

MatthewPhillips wrote: post #48
hammersend wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"The alternative is Google, who doesn't release any top-tier paid apps on Android or Chrome Web Store." Google's business model isn't to release paid apps on their stores. They have many free apps that are downloaded by the 50's of millions and have 4.5-5 stars almost across the board so, yes, they do release top tier apps.

> Google's business model isn't to release paid apps This differs from every OS vendor I'm aware of in the past. Just noting. > they do release top tier apps. Could you point out to me some of these apps where the alternatives are sold for top-tier prices?

That's a bit disingenuous. The fact that Google's offerings are both good and free significantly reduces the likelihood of their being expensive alternatives. It's a self-fulfilling prophecy.

There are companies that sell software that competes with things like Google Docs, Navigation, and other services. And yes, you can always point to things they do differently, but that's guaranteed. No one is going to pay $50 for something that exactly duplicates a free service that has more name recognition, so you by definition have to do something to differentiate yourself.

Re: The Mac App Store Needs Paid Upgrades

#119

Post by deong »

duxup wrote: post #25
seanalltogether wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Which honestly underscores one of my biggest complaints when working inside Apples ecosystem. I always get the feeling that they're building solutions for themselves first, and developers second, they don't take an agnostic approach to creating a platform. A good example of this is when you look at their UIKit and Appkit frameworks, all of the components were designed to the specific behavior that Apples engineers wa…

Thus the downside of eat your own dog food.

It's not a downside of using your own tools. It's a downside of the Apple way where you use your own tools without a fleeting thought to how anyone else might need to use them.

Apple's development system appears to be optimized for the scenario that if you need some new method added, you can walk down the hall in your building at Apple and get someone to add it. But then they sell that API to paying customers who don't have that option.

Re: The Mac App Store Needs Paid Upgrades

#120

Post by freiervogel »

Considered charging less for the full product (say $10), and simply having multiple versions available as you post major new releases?

That way, users always have a way to downgrade to previous versions as needed, you probably get more customers due to the entry price, and everyone just understands that the latest version is available for $10 more.

That seems to be the whole app store model: lower prices, more sales -- no "upgrades" in the classic sense. And, with a low enough entry price, I think users would be accepting.

If they don't buy the latest, as a developer you're no worse off than you are today (where they get the latest for free).

Post reply on HN