Coming changes to Apple's App Store • Hacker News Board

Re: Coming changes to Apple's App Store

#181

Post by toyg » Wed, Jun 08, 2016, 10:34 PM UTC

addicted wrote: post #175

abalone wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

But Apple already had a solution for this. The Mac App ecosystem. The Mac app eco system was thriving despite a ridiculously small market. The indie devs focused on delivering quality applications and a lot of people paid good money. Enough to sustain many indie companies and developers. I don't get why Apple has chosen to ignore the factors that helped make that eco system such high quality. Edit: I want to add I am…

> a lot of people paid good money

... none of which went to Apple. So that's one business model they're not particularly keen on. It might have benefited the platform at large and drive Mac sales (unlikely -- what drove sales were always the big creative suites), but it didn't directly benefit Apple in the same way as appstore sales now do.

Apple simply doesn't want big-price shrinkwrap on iOS. 75% of the market is games where whales are nickled and dimed; that's what they want: high frequency, low-price, constant, reliable revenue.

Re: Coming changes to Apple's App Store

#182

Post by andyfleming » Wed, Jun 08, 2016, 10:35 PM UTC

berkut wrote: post #106

chasing wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I want to address two things, here: 1) You're absolutely right: Pricing matters. If I charge you $10/mo for my app that sends you a text message every time there's a full moon, that would be way too expensive and you'd be well within your rights as a consumer to spend your money on something else. As far as I'm aware, Apple will not force you to subscribe to any apps. 2) "... subscriptions are immoral..." Bullshit. A…

The problem with subscriptions is that it allows the app maker to potentially not maintain and improve their app while still earning money. I've been employed by companies (who I've now left) where the management explicitly wanted to move to subscription for this reason: not having to keep adding new features to get customers to buy new versions. (apps were desktop software). That's not to say subscription doesn't ma…

Yeah, that's what's nice about IntelliJ products. You can stop subscribing and are left with a perpetual license for the current version you are on. It provides protection for the stagnation issue you are talking about.

Re: Coming changes to Apple's App Store

#183

Post by conorgil145 » Wed, Jun 08, 2016, 10:49 PM UTC

sangnoir wrote: post #154

chasing wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I want to address two things, here: 1) You're absolutely right: Pricing matters. If I charge you $10/mo for my app that sends you a text message every time there's a full moon, that would be way too expensive and you'd be well within your rights as a consumer to spend your money on something else. As far as I'm aware, Apple will not force you to subscribe to any apps. 2) "... subscriptions are immoral..." Bullshit. A…

> What is moral is creating a system by which software developers can support themselves by creating products that are useful to the community Speaking as a developer - what kind of entitled, self-important thinking is this? No one owes developers a decent lifestyle or a liveable income. I can't wait till some idiot sells a subscription to a calculator or flashlight app - I say to them GTFO! The app 'industry' is not…

> No one owes developers a decent lifestyle or a liveable income.

If the developer cannot make a living by creating an app (or any other piece of software for that matter), why would they bother creating it at all?

> If Nike sold you an indestructible trainer (including non-wearing sole) that you could buy tomorrow, would you rather buy it outright or pay subscriptions in perpertuity

This is not a great comparison. As was previously mentioned, software like requires updates to continue running correctly (new OS versions, bugs, etc) while a shoe does not require any changes or maintenance. If the shoe fits, then you wear it and that is that. You can do nothing to it and it will continue to work as a shoe forever (especially, if it is indestructible as in your example). However, if you paid once for a piece of software and then do nothing to it for a few years, the chance of it running correctly on your device is close to zero.

People should be paid for creating and maintaining software.

Re: Coming changes to Apple's App Store

#184

Post by nitrogen » Wed, Jun 08, 2016, 10:52 PM UTC

chasing wrote: post #35

AlexandrB wrote: post #20

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 think the mindset change that needs to happen is this: Apps are a service. I would actually prefer to pay developers of apps that are truly useful to me a monthly amount so I know they can continue to update and improve the app. If an app saves me $1000/yr in headache, I'd prefer to spend $30/yr on a subscription rather than lose the app entirely because the developers can't keep the lights on.

> Apps are a service.

No. Flat out no. If I spend $x0 or $x00 for an app to create something (music, code, mechanical drawing, whatever), I darn well better be able to access my music/code/drawing at any point in the future, even if the maker of the app has gone out of business.

Re: Coming changes to Apple's App Store

#185

Post by conorgil145 » Wed, Jun 08, 2016, 10:57 PM UTC

andyfleming wrote: post #182

berkut wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem with subscriptions is that it allows the app maker to potentially not maintain and improve their app while still earning money. I've been employed by companies (who I've now left) where the management explicitly wanted to move to subscription for this reason: not having to keep adding new features to get customers to buy new versions. (apps were desktop software). That's not to say subscription doesn't ma…

Yeah, that's what's nice about IntelliJ products. You can stop subscribing and are left with a perpetual license for the current version you are on. It provides protection for the stagnation issue you are talking about.

This x1000. Just because a piece of software has a subscription does not mean that you automatically lose access to that software if you stop paying. The developer of the software can choose to handle a cancellation any way (s)he deems appropriate. They could cut you off entirely, or they could leave you on the version you have forever with full access, or they could remove features which rely on their servers, or......

Re: Coming changes to Apple's App Store

#186

Post by Nullabillity » Wed, Jun 08, 2016, 11:03 PM UTC

WA wrote: post #165

chasing wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I want to address two things, here: 1) You're absolutely right: Pricing matters. If I charge you $10/mo for my app that sends you a text message every time there's a full moon, that would be way too expensive and you'd be well within your rights as a consumer to spend your money on something else. As far as I'm aware, Apple will not force you to subscribe to any apps. 2) "... subscriptions are immoral..." Bullshit. A…

I run a niche B2C SaaS with a monthly fee. This lets me maintain the product for a long time. If it was a one-off payment, I probably could've closed shop by now. Thing is, all niche products with tiny markets (say, a few hundred or a few thousand users) won't be able to survive in the long run without subscriptions.

Obviously SaaS has to be subscription based, since there are the obvious hosting costs per user.

But very little software needs to be SaaS, that was a mess you got yourself into in the first place.

Re: Coming changes to Apple's App Store

#187

Post by makomk » Wed, Jun 08, 2016, 11:08 PM UTC

andyfleming wrote: post #182

berkut wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem with subscriptions is that it allows the app maker to potentially not maintain and improve their app while still earning money. I've been employed by companies (who I've now left) where the management explicitly wanted to move to subscription for this reason: not having to keep adding new features to get customers to buy new versions. (apps were desktop software). That's not to say subscription doesn't ma…

Yeah, that's what's nice about IntelliJ products. You can stop subscribing and are left with a perpetual license for the current version you are on. It provides protection for the stagnation issue you are talking about.

Last I heard, IntelliJ actually gave you a perpetual license for the version 12 months behind the current one when you stopped subscribing - with no guarantee it'd even open your current project files. See https://blog.jetbrains.com/blog/2015/09/18/final-update-on-t...

Re: Coming changes to Apple's App Store

#188

Post by Nullabillity » Wed, Jun 08, 2016, 11:13 PM UTC

conorgil145 wrote: post #183

sangnoir wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> What is moral is creating a system by which software developers can support themselves by creating products that are useful to the community Speaking as a developer - what kind of entitled, self-important thinking is this? No one owes developers a decent lifestyle or a liveable income. I can't wait till some idiot sells a subscription to a calculator or flashlight app - I say to them GTFO! The app 'industry' is not…

> No one owes developers a decent lifestyle or a liveable income. If the developer cannot make a living by creating an app (or any other piece of software for that matter), why would they bother creating it at all? > If Nike sold you an indestructible trainer (including non-wearing sole) that you could buy tomorrow, would you rather buy it outright or pay subscriptions in perpertuity This is not a great comparison. A…

> As was previously mentioned, software like requires updates to continue running correctly (new OS versions, bugs, etc)

.. not really? There are only so many bugs to fix (and are they really significant enough to be a major hindrance anyway?), and bit rot is a platform problem, not an application problem.

And even then, shouldn't users be able to choose whether the "upgrade" is worth it?

Re: Coming changes to Apple's App Store

#189

Post by bitL » Wed, Jun 08, 2016, 11:18 PM UTC

WA wrote: post #165

chasing wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I want to address two things, here: 1) You're absolutely right: Pricing matters. If I charge you $10/mo for my app that sends you a text message every time there's a full moon, that would be way too expensive and you'd be well within your rights as a consumer to spend your money on something else. As far as I'm aware, Apple will not force you to subscribe to any apps. 2) "... subscriptions are immoral..." Bullshit. A…

I run a niche B2C SaaS with a monthly fee. This lets me maintain the product for a long time. If it was a one-off payment, I probably could've closed shop by now. Thing is, all niche products with tiny markets (say, a few hundred or a few thousand users) won't be able to survive in the long run without subscriptions.

Anything *aaS is a perfect candidate for subscription. Most other things aren't. Why should you pay recurring fee for what can easily run on your local machine? On the other hand, the $1 price on AppStore for most apps is ridiculously low.

Re: Coming changes to Apple's App Store

#190

Post by veidr » Wed, Jun 08, 2016, 11:31 PM UTC

chasing wrote: post #103

bad_user wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There aren't many apps that can save you 1000/year. I keep hearing this, but that's nonsense. If a "service" is not producing money and isn't saving you time allowing you to produce money, then it's not worth paying for. Yes, I have subscriptions for IntelliJ IDEA, for Dropbox, for FastMail and for a DigitalOcean VPS. All these are producing money for me. But the list ends here. Because here's the thing: $5/month her…

I want to address two things, here: 1) You're absolutely right: Pricing matters. If I charge you $10/mo for my app that sends you a text message every time there's a full moon, that would be way too expensive and you'd be well within your rights as a consumer to spend your money on something else. As far as I'm aware, Apple will not force you to subscribe to any apps. 2) "... subscriptions are immoral..." Bullshit. A…

Subscriptions are immoral, but not for those reasons. It's an immoral business model because its success is based on bilking people -- cheating them into paying for 'service' when they don't want to.

The mechanism is simple: the slight inconvenience of cancellation prevents a huge number of users from cancelling as soon as they want to.

This is why getting your customers to set up automated and recurring payments is the pot of gold everybody wants (not just in software).

You don't have to intend to bilk people if you do subscriptions; it's inherent in your business model.

Try putting a confirmation screen in your app that makes the user press "Renew" each month before the app charges them again. That would move you toward the moral end of the spectrum, but it would gut your sales.

A $2 per month subscription, even if totally unneeded, is not something most busy people can find the time to deal with cancelling. Pretty soon a year has gone by and your "service" has provided zero value to them but you've ripped them off for $24.

(For clarity: I don't mean you personally, and also I do work in subscription-based software. I just don't have any illusions about it and it makes me feel icky.)