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

Coming changes to Apple's App Store

theverge.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

191–200 of 294 posts

Re: Coming changes to Apple's App Store

#191

Post by r00fus »

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.

I like the idea of game apps as a service - I'd love to be able to get a steady stream of games/updates for games I play regularly... I know I've gotten way more out of, say, Carcassonne than I feel I've paid, and that's for the game that has incremental IAP/DLC (as opposed to P2W which I avoid like the plague).

There are other games that I play all the time where I'd be happy to pay a bit every mo/yr to ensure content/fixes keep flowing.

Re: Coming changes to Apple's App Store

#192

Post by detaro »

veidr wrote: post #190
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…

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…

We'll see how Apples interface will look like. With a centralized marketplace like this they have a perfect opportunity to build interfaces to work against this, the question is if they will. (e.g. nice overviews, options for time-limits, notifications for not-used subscriptions, ...)

Re: Coming changes to Apple's App Store

#193

Post by baddox »

veidr wrote: post #190
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…

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…

It sounds like you're saying that a transaction is immoral if you judge that the buyer is paying more than the utility they are receiving. Of course, that requires you to be able to estimate a buyer's utility function better than the buyer, which is a pretty weak (even dangerous) foundation upon which to base moral arguments.

Re: Coming changes to Apple's App Store

#194

Post by veidr »

detaro wrote: post #192
veidr wrote: post #190

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

We'll see how Apples interface will look like. With a centralized marketplace like this they have a perfect opportunity to build interfaces to work against this, the question is if they will. (e.g. nice overviews, options for time-limits, notifications for not-used subscriptions, ...)

Yes, this is something where Apple's own interests and the customer's might be aligned.

Even just having a central place to cancel subscriptions is significantly better than having to do it individually -- and Apple almost certainly won't allow developers to get too obnoxious with the 'customer retention' hoops we need to jump through to actually cancel.

Re: Coming changes to Apple's App Store

#195

Post by veidr »

baddox wrote: post #193
veidr wrote: post #190

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

It sounds like you're saying that a transaction is immoral if you judge that the buyer is paying more than the utility they are receiving. Of course, that requires you to be able to estimate a buyer's utility function better than the buyer, which is a pretty weak (even dangerous) foundation upon which to base moral arguments.

Nope, I am saying tons (tons!) of people don't get around to cancelling things they want to cancel, even if technically they can do it any time. Especially when each renewal is a small amount.

And I have seen some actual metrics on stuff I've worked on, where we can tell that they haven't used the software for months... but they are still paying. I know this goes on with other products too.

Perhaps "immoral" is an overstatement, but it's certainly a sleazy business model.

Re: Coming changes to Apple's App Store

#196

Post by Androider »

nitrogen wrote: post #184
chasing wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Many, perhaps even most, popular mobile apps have some sort of online component that will surely stop working if the business is closed. And apps made for an OS two releases back or more regularly seem to stop working if not updated. I know I've certainly got paid apps that simply do not work at all anymore.

This is not a new phenomenon. Try running a game made for Windows XP or even Photoshop 6.0 on Windows 10, it likely doesn't work even in the backwards compatibility modes. Companies like GoG.com have made it a successful business to take old beloved games and make it convenient to play on today's machines, and I'm a happy customer of theirs even though I also own the originals in many cases.

The way I see it, the software was sold to work to work in a certain environment and period of time, and I'm free to try to keep it running best I can. But I'm certainly not entitled to demand that the software developers keep supporting me forever simply because I paid once. Therefore I strongly prefer subscription models for the software that I regularly use, as it's the only model that aligns both my and the developer's incentives in the long run.

Re: Coming changes to Apple's App Store

#197

Post by jkestner »

Nullabillity wrote: post #188
conorgil145 wrote: post #183

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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?

They do get to choose whether the upgrade is worth it. They can stay on an old version and system that it works with, or they can move to an app that has a business model they like better. Subscriptions are adding options, and that's great.

Re: Coming changes to Apple's App Store

#198

Post by Androider »

yoodenvranx wrote: post #113
chasing wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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. So each month we are now going to pay for Netflix, Spotify, Dropbox, Github, Amazon Prime and a bunch of apps...

If you enjoy those services... yes? If not, feel free not to!

I love and subscribe to all of the above, they provide me with capabilites that were simply not available before, such being able to stream any song I can imagine instantly. Heck, I'd happily pay 5x the current Netflix price if it was more like Spotify in terms of coverage.

Re: Coming changes to Apple's App Store

#199

Post by jkestner »

developer2 wrote: post #122
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…

>> Apple will not force you to subscribe to any apps No, but if the marketplace shifts to 90% of developers using subscriptions in their apps (essentially replacing the existing in-app purchases model), then it was facilitated by Apple as the "preferred" model for monetization. I'm in the same boat as others in the comments. I am willing to pay a subscription for the 2-3 pieces of software that are absolutely core to…

And if the marketplace shifts to 90% subscription apps and users don't want to pay it, then you'll see the marketplace shift again. We may not see it from our perspective, but the pay-once model is not sustainable for many apps - either they'll lose you, or you'll lose them.

Re: Coming changes to Apple's App Store

#200

Post by wlesieutre »

djrogers wrote: post #120
wlesieutre wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

$0.49/month is $6/year. If I thought an app was worth $2, I'm absolutely not willing to pay that much for it. If you're talking about an app that's a major part of your workflow for something, maybe this makes sense. But most of the apps that I've paid $2-$5 on are things that I'm only likely to fire up occasionally when I need them. Monthly fee to mark up photos or scan papers with the camera? I'll pass.

> $0.49/month is $6/year. If I thought an app was worth $2, I'm absolutely not willing to pay that much for it. I honestly can't think of a single paid app that I use that I don't think is worth more than $2 to purchase forever. If there's an app I won't use often but professionals would use daily for years (say a house measurement app while I'm shipping for a house) I'm happy to pay .99 or 1.99 for the month or two…

How about a VNC client for when you occasionally want to remote into your home computer? Say you use it every two weeks.

Subscription price is $5/month ($60/year) because it's a professional tool for sysadmins who use it all the time. Maybe you'd have paid $30 for it standalone, but now if you want to use it for 3 years, the price is 6x as high (and the software poofs when you stop paying).

The line between professional tools and software I'd like to use for totally noncommercial purposes once every couple of weeks isn't always clear cut, and the pricing policies on the App Store have tended to keep things at an affordable mid-range where I can buy something even if it's only for occasional use. Subscription prices seem to get priced for the heavy professional users.

The solution I'm hoping for (carrying on the VNC example) is a free tier locked to a single connection, cheap tier with 5 saved connections, and professional tier for heavy users. But you just know the net effect of this is going to be prices going up (they wouldn't be doing it otherwise), and there are frankly a lot of things that aren't worth a recurring payment to keep around.

Post reply on HN