Live data from Hacker News

Coming changes to Apple's App Store

theverge.com

21–30 of 294 posts

Re: Coming changes to Apple's App Store

#21

All I know is that their review process has gotten WAY faster and better over the last month, as in 24 hour review which has been awesome. Have other people noticed this? I wonder if they added capacity or dropped review quality - so far we haven't seen a drop in quality and they are able to catch problems at about the same rate.

We've been seeing this too, with some apps being approved in Now if we could see a similar factor improvement in TestFlight beta review times...

Re: Coming changes to Apple's App Store

#22

All I know is that their review process has gotten WAY faster and better over the last month, as in 24 hour review which has been awesome. Have other people noticed this? I wonder if they added capacity or dropped review quality - so far we haven't seen a drop in quality and they are able to catch problems at about the same rate.

That change happened because App Store's management was transferred from Eddy Cue over to Phil Schiller. While Eddy Cue was completely deaf to developers' complaints and needs, Schiller seems to be giving a damn and he's trying to improve things. They now employ ML/algorithmic means to test submitted apps and catch simple rejection issues. I'm also pretty sure that if you have a pretty good record of submissions & approvals, they spend less time scrutinizing your app. And if you're just issuing fixes or simple changes, they don't spend any time "human testing" at all.

PS: I've come to a conclusion that whatever Cue runs, it is shit or turns to shit quickly. He's in charge of all the Apple services and they're a complete mess. I hope Cue retires or just transfers his responsibilities to someone who cares about them.

Re: Coming changes to Apple's App Store

#23
post #12

Subscription model for all apps... I don't see a reason to subscribe for apps that are one-time pay and periodic long term use. There is a fine line here that developers will have to be cautious not to cross. A lot of apps have no reason to be subscription model, but the prospect of recurring revenue is too tempting. Edit: On the other hand, this is totally awesome for services and products that already offer subscri…

What do app developers do now when everyone has 1.0 and you want to release a 2.0 version with more features and not just bugfixes? Do users still expect the upgrade for free?

No, Apple should have added upgrade pricing years ago and I would gladly pay for upgrades that way. The fact that they still haven't added upgrades and are instead pushing for a subscription model rubs me the wrong way.

Re: Coming changes to Apple's App Store

#24
post #12

Subscription model for all apps... I don't see a reason to subscribe for apps that are one-time pay and periodic long term use. There is a fine line here that developers will have to be cautious not to cross. A lot of apps have no reason to be subscription model, but the prospect of recurring revenue is too tempting. Edit: On the other hand, this is totally awesome for services and products that already offer subscri…

What do app developers do now when everyone has 1.0 and you want to release a 2.0 version with more features and not just bugfixes? Do users still expect the upgrade for free?

Yes, at least in my experience. There are many who expect updates and new features because they have already invested so much of their time into your free app.

Re: Coming changes to Apple's App Store

#25
post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What do app developers do now when everyone has 1.0 and you want to release a 2.0 version with more features and not just bugfixes? Do users still expect the upgrade for free?

Yes, at least in my experience. There are many who expect updates and new features because they have already invested so much of their time into your free app.

You can make the argument that a certain price point justifies free upgrades within a certain period of time or to a certain level (e.g. buy 1.x and get free up to all 2.n versions), but "I spend a lot of time in your app" is not a valid reason to get more of it for free.

Re: Coming changes to Apple's App Store

#26
post #12

Subscription model for all apps... I don't see a reason to subscribe for apps that are one-time pay and periodic long term use. There is a fine line here that developers will have to be cautious not to cross. A lot of apps have no reason to be subscription model, but the prospect of recurring revenue is too tempting. Edit: On the other hand, this is totally awesome for services and products that already offer subscri…

Maybe this model is good for games, but as a predominately "Music Creation App" user I sincerely hope this "Subscription 2.0" model doesn't catch on in that arena. Paying up-front is suitable to me, and sometimes updates offer a lot (Propellerhead Figure has been through several improvement phases, for instance). I seem to recall other software trying to go 'subscription' in the music or creative arena with not-so-great public reception.

Re: Coming changes to Apple's App Store

#27

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…

> Things that would make me buy MORE apps (demos, …

It's been pretty much proven that demos actually sell fewer apps than no demos, at least at the price levels seen in the App Store (once you get up to several hundred dollars or higher, then presumably things change). Even at the $60 price point of AAA console games, demos have been proven to hurt sales (which is why you never seen demos of AAA console games anymore).

Re: Coming changes to Apple's App Store

#28

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…

What about $0.99/mo, or even $0.49/mo? My initial reaction is the same as yours, but I could see myself agreeing to $0.99/mo for some of the apps I paid $2 or $3 for. Still relatively cheap for me but would dramatically increase income for the developer.

Re: Coming changes to Apple's App Store

#29
post #12

Subscription model for all apps... I don't see a reason to subscribe for apps that are one-time pay and periodic long term use. There is a fine line here that developers will have to be cautious not to cross. A lot of apps have no reason to be subscription model, but the prospect of recurring revenue is too tempting. Edit: On the other hand, this is totally awesome for services and products that already offer subscri…

What do app developers do now when everyone has 1.0 and you want to release a 2.0 version with more features and not just bugfixes? Do users still expect the upgrade for free?

That's a flaw in all app stores (perhaps by design to force everyone to a subscription model someday?). For example, ImageLine's FL Studio was warning everyone that their new app will be completely different than their old app, but they weren't able to change version for their customers by the store policies, so they were asking users to be careful about upgrade.

So currently your only option is to release app2, app3 etc. without the possibility to address your customer base (offering upgrades etc.)

Subscriptions are basically renting apps for regular time periods. If forced, this would kill all indies for sure as most people would spend budget to the few main apps they need. I can also barely envision how the platform would attract creative people as it would feel like oligopoly. Frankly, with computers we have a chance to break natural constraints on availability but companies seem to be hell bent on reintroducing the same stinky approaches from the past. Why?

Post reply on HN