141–150 of 294 posts
They need to make cancelling subscriptions easier
Almost exactly one year ago, we switched Zombies, Run! - a fitness game - from being a paid app ($4-8) to a free-to-play app with subscriptions ($4/month, $20/year). Unsurprisingly, I'm delighted by this announcement, because it rewards apps like ours that provide long-term value and entertainment for our users. Clearly a subscription model isn't for many apps - probably most apps. But it was right for us, as we've b…
I do think that Zombies, Run! is an example of an app that justifiably fits the subscription model. The continued added content makes that make sense. (I am a fan!)
I just hope subscription doesn't become the norm - I'd hate to see a calculator on a subscription model.
Bleh, subscriptions. I'm fine with them if your app is offering features that require use of your servers, but it seems many indie developers are interested instead in charging for the "privilege" of running local code on your device (as with Photoshop). I'll pass.
How about the 'privilege' of getting new features? Major app updates? Ongoing tech support and bug fixes? One could argue that those should be included in the purchase price, but today's app store economy often doesn't allow that.
A text expander is not a "service", nor is a password manager, nor is an audio looper or a to-do lister. To suggest otherwise would be disingenuous. Of course, we don't know what's going to happen in response to this change yet, but statements like Gruber's "win-win-win"[1] and Brent Simmons' request for clarification[2] indicate to me that indie developers will be more than happy to adopt this model with their decidedly non-service software.
[1]: http://daringfireball.net/2016/06/the_new_app_store
[2]: http://inessential.com/2016/06/08/seeking_clarification
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Throughout the history of computing, a ton of software has been licensed under a service/subscription model. There's nothing special about the web in this respect.
Throughout the history of the iPhone, iOS apps have been replacing activities that were done on webpages.
As someone who buys a lot of apps this is very disappointing. Things that would make me buy MORE apps (demos, upgrade pricing, better support) are still not in the app store, meanwhile the one pricing model I detest (subscriptions) is being added. I suspect I'll be buying far fewer apps if there's a mass movement from a purchase model to a subscription model among app developers. I'm perfectly happy to pay $20-30 for…
> I'm perfectly happy to pay $20-30 for an app That's where you diverge from the population. Apple needs a solution for the general problem of people not wanting to pay much for iOS apps. It may disappoint those of us who prefer spending more up front for quality, but Apple has surely determined that more people will buy more apps this way. (By the way, you compared paying $X upfront to paying $X per year which of co…
Yes! And thanks to missing app store features Apple has provided developers no way to set expectations for things like upgrade pricing. Not to mention in-app purchases which were another way to maintain the illusion of "free" apps among users.
The fact that subscription pricing is now seen as the solution is really sad because subscribing to an App is fundamentally different than buying one. In particular, transactions that used to be atomic - like buying an app or gifting an App to a friend - are now transient and come with all kinds of strings and commitments attached.
Today I could go home, fire up my 5 year old iPod touch, and still access all of its apps - and the data therein. In a subscription-based app economy I wouldn't be able to do the same after the first month!
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How does it help you if your potential customers avoid your software like a plague? Subscriptions border on restricting somebody's financial freedom. Imagine your plumber was forcing you to pay yearly for once/here and there using their services?
"How does it help you if your potential customers avoid your software like a plague?" You're gonna have to show that would be the result. You'd also have to show that whatever your alternative idea is. You said you want to "break natural constraints on availability." How are you going to do that without charging per copy, or charing a subscription model? And how does your idea make more money that previous, or at lea…
I have a plenty of money I want to spend on software but only if it empowers me and not if it treats me as an ATM. For example, the old JetBrains model of buying a new major release (and keeping it forever) and then getting free updates for a year was simply perfect, both for allowing developers to love the company that treats them properly and financing ongoing development; not sure why they regressed.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's not nonsense, it's useful . Right now you get problems like Tweetbot. It costs money to maintain Tweetbot and keep it working, and to add new features. I use it every day, I'd be happy to 'subscribe' to it. As it is now they only get paid when I buy the app. If I keep using it for 4 years I may still expect support but they're not getting additional income. If you don't have enough growth to sustain you, what pe…
If I buy Tweetbot today, and it works today, it should keep working tomorrow. If I want new features I will pay for those features, update the app or make them an in app purchase, or create a new version number and charge for it. This is like leasing vs buying, the only difference is with your example you'll get one choice, pay the lease, or pound dirt. I'd rather buy the app once and be done, and have the choice to…
If Twitter changes the API on Monday, how many versions back should Tweetbot have to support based on a single $2 (or whatever) a few years ago?
That's the issue. People get pissed there isn't perma-support for apps that need constant updates. This is a way to make that more feasible.
Bleh, subscriptions. I'm fine with them if your app is offering features that require use of your servers, but it seems many indie developers are interested instead in charging for the "privilege" of running local code on your device (as with Photoshop). I'll pass.
How about the 'privilege' of getting new features? Major app updates? Ongoing tech support and bug fixes? One could argue that those should be included in the purchase price, but today's app store economy often doesn't allow that.
I seldom accept any upgrades and keep old versions of apps backed-up in case I rashly do click 'yes'. I know I'm not unique; if an app works, why tempt fate by upgrading it?
Unfortunately with this subscription model everyone will have to pay regardless of whether they want those new features.
Credit card fees come out of their share and those could very well account for the bulk of the 15%. Even if Apple pays nothing in payment processor markup, there is a fixed minimum "interchange" cost that everyone has to pay (even Walmart). For "ecommerce" it's:[1]
Credit: $0.10 + 1.8-2.4%
Debit: $0.21 + 0.05%
Those 10-21 cent minimums make a big dent in smaller transactions. For a monthly recurring charge of $1.99, already 6% of that goes to credit card interchange. That leaves a 9% gross margin for Apple (4% if debit).
At $0.99, Apple's margin drops to 3% on credit, and they lose money on a debit card.
Now, there is a "small ticket" interchange category that one would hope these transactions would qualify for. That's just $0.04 + 1.65%. But it says it requires a swipe, so I'm not sure. From a fraud risk standpoint Apple Pay should be treated better than a swipe, but I'm not sure if the rules have caught up yet.
[1] https://usa.visa.com/dam/VCOM/download/merchants/Visa-USA-In...