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

221–230 of 294 posts

Re: Coming changes to Apple's App Store

#221

Post by _frog »

post_break wrote: post #79
salmonet wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've been very pleased with the subscription experience on the App Store. The reason I usually hate subscriptions is that they are a headache remember, changing credit cards requires me to remember and update subscriptions in many different places, and providers make it hard to cancel. My experience with subscriptions on iOS has been very positive. It's easy to pay for and easy to cancel. Personally, I would rather p…

A simple trial period like Androids 2 hour window would avoid all of this subscription nonsense for your last point.

Apple's giving developers the ability to offer trial periods for subscriptions. In their example an app that bills monthly could offer either a week or month long trial period to users.

Re: Coming changes to Apple's App Store

#222

Post by rtpg »

djrogers wrote: post #125
localhost3000 wrote: post #86

As an indie developer my single biggest gripe with the app store (after the obviously asinine review process) is the resetting of visible app reviews any time an app is updated. This is an incredibly expensive tax on shipping app updates which creates a strong disincentive to not incrementally improve your product and a strong incentive for sleazy developers to buy fake reviews when they do ship an update. I detest t…

The other option is for a single bug in a single release to stay in your app reviews in perpetuity. Why would you want that, rather than give prospective customers the option to look at current vs old reviews? Also, I would quibble with your description of it as 'resetting of visible app reviews' as the old reviews are still visible, they're just one tap away...

This is solved in the Android app store with "user was using older version"

Exactly this situation happens and it's fine because people mention it. "In the latest update, X happens"

Plus developers can respond to reviews and mention that the issue was fixed

Re: Coming changes to Apple's App Store

#223

Post by rtpg »

6stringmerc wrote: post #51
k-mcgrady wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> "updates offer a lot" This is the main issue I think. The only way to charge users for an update is to create a new version of the app and then try to inform users about it. A subscription will enable ongoing development for apps which is unsustainable at 99¢ per download.

Or, as revenue comes in from an app, adding more features to entice more buyers, then giving existing users more features (which in turn will theoretically result in better word-of-mouth) can have a positive feedback loop.

And when you hit peak users (say, 100% of the market) you now have no money to support more upgrades.

So despite the fact that pretty much everyone will want continued improvements, nobody will get anything.

Re: Coming changes to Apple's App Store

#224

Post by derefr »

khedoros wrote: post #163
tolmasky wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> ore importantly, subscriptions are immoral because the end result is robbing users of any sense of ownership. And as a software developer, you no longer feel compelled to innovate, to improve, in order to convince users to upgrade. I for one hate renting things, I prefer ownership. Sure as long as you also accept that you are not owed bug fixes it updates. If you however believe that with system upgrades you should…

> Sure as long as you also accept that you are not owed bug fixes it updates. "Bug fixes" and "updates" are both too broad. If a feature is broken enough that an advertised feature of the software doesn't work, or in the case of something criminally negligent on the developer's part, I'd consider myself entitled to an update to fix the issue. Either that or a refund for whatever amount I paid for the app (or potentia…

> I'd consider myself entitled to an update to fix the issue. Either that or a refund

If a company publishes an app and then goes out of business, and then years later the platform shifts out from under that app such that it no longer works, do you feel like you deserve a refund? If so, who do you expect to pay? The platform gave your money to the developer; the developer ceased to exist. Neither one has "your" money any more.

Re: Coming changes to Apple's App Store

#225

Post by WA »

hardwaresofton wrote: post #211
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…

> 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 you're trying to make a living doing X, and you can't, then don't do it anymore. There are tens of thousands of apps that did not need to be made, yet were (no doubt the first step of someone's get-rich-quick scheme). If there is a need, the need will be met, eventu…

I like your customer-oriented point of view. Because ultimately, it's not about the developer, but about the customer. A few points I want to add though:

> As others have mentioned, requiring updates to run correctly is actually a fault of the underlying system, and the change therein.

Theoretically yes, but this changed from the customer perspective as well. Whereas a few years ago, it was a sign of quality software that no updates were required, it's now a sign of an app that is unmaintained. No updates is a negative signal and thus, updates are mandatory to be perceived as high quality software and to a certain extend, to prevent 1-star reviews.

> If there is a need, the need will be met, eventually, by someone, and if it is truly a "need", people will be willing to pay money for it.

"If there is a need, the need will be met, eventually." Period. The rest of the sentence isn't always true. People aren't necessarily willing to pay money for it and there are other revenue streams ("pay with your data").

Re: Coming changes to Apple's App Store

#226

Post by derefr »

rpgmaker wrote: post #217
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…

> More importantly, subscriptions are immoral because the end result is robbing users of any sense of ownership. I don't know why people allowed this transition from software ownership to subscription to happen (although they really weren't given the choice). It's ridiculous that the customer is giving away his MS Office ownership in exchange for the marginal improvements that MS has been doing in the last couple of…

It started with corporations. It's far "cheaper"—in how things appear on a balance-sheet—for corporations to subscribe to services, than it is for them to buy software at retail. "Convert CapEx to OpEx" is the keyword-phrase to chase for this. It's the same reason hardware sellers like Apple have leasing programs: they're mainly for corporations, and just coincidentally there for individuals.

Do note that the big conversions to SaaS models in recent years—Adobe Creative Cloud, Microsoft Office 365, etc.—are of products where 90+% of the revenue already came from corporate buyers rather than from individual consumer licenses. That the SaaS model also does something-or-other to drive consumer income is cute, but kind of irrelevant to the product managers who are making these business-model decisions.

Re: Coming changes to Apple's App Store

#227

Post by WA »

bitL wrote: post #189
WA wrote: post #165

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The line is somewhat arbitrary between SaaS and self-hosted. How many software products must truly be SaaS from an infrastructure point of view? Few I'd say. But there are other advantages of SaaS, for both customer and developer: No installation required, no updates to install, easier to maintain from a developer perspective.

Re: Coming changes to Apple's App Store

#228

Post by WA »

Nullabillity wrote: post #186
WA wrote: post #165

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The hosting cost are virtually nonexistent. I pay 150 bucks a month for a server which handles thousands of users. I don't understand why you'd call this a mess. It's a win-win in my case, since I serve a tiny niche which currently wouldn't be provided with a good solution at all if it wasn't for my subscription based software.

Re: Coming changes to Apple's App Store

#229

Post by djrogers »

wlesieutre wrote: post #200
djrogers wrote: post #120

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. 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 professio…

sounds like a cheaper VNC client would be a better option for you - fortunately there are dozens...

Re: Coming changes to Apple's App Store

#230

Post by rodgerd »

Androider wrote: post #196
nitrogen wrote: post #184

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 l…

> Try running a game made for Windows XP [...] on Windows 10, it likely doesn't work even in the backwards compatibility modes.

This is the exact opposite of truth. Windows 95? Sure. But XP? Rubbish.

Post reply on HN