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

231–240 of 294 posts

Re: Coming changes to Apple's App Store

#231

Post by WA »

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…

Your comment sounds a bit like all subscription based services only work because of people who never cancel their accounts. I'd say this is not true.

The pot of gold that everybody wants is not because people forget to cancel the subscription, but because you don't have to acquire new customers every single day. You can provide a good product to your "fan base" for years.

I can speak only from my experience in the B2C space with a 2 bucks a month product:

It's basically prepaid. Accounts will become inactive when the payment period ends. There is no automatic renewal. The reason is precisely, because I think this is the most transparent way.

It works, it pays me a decent salary and I get to maintain the software for a long time.

Re: Coming changes to Apple's App Store

#232

Post by Nullabillity »

WA wrote: post #228
Nullabillity wrote: post #186

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

At some point, done is done. If you can't get users to buy your upgrades anymore, then that might be a sign that it's time to move on?

It's pretty crazy that people expect to be able to pay themselves indefinitely from charging the same people repeatedly without any improvements to show for it.

Re: Coming changes to Apple's App Store

#233

Post by khedoros »

derefr wrote: post #224
khedoros wrote: post #163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

I'm not talking about years later. I'm talking about an immediately obvious shortcoming that manifests on the platform supported by the product at the time of purchase.

If I buy it and they're out of business 5 minutes later, then I guess I should've been paying more attention to who I give my money to.

Re: Coming changes to Apple's App Store

#234

Post by camillomiller »

coroutines wrote: post #142
adrianhon wrote: post #84

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…

People fear that the subscription model is an easy grab for continued revenue. 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.

They won't, don't worry. It will be a great option for small devs to get a sustained income, a good incentive to keep working on an app that otherwise could be neglected after the first few months. Also, Apple announce that there would be more than 200 price tiers for subscriptions. We'll have to see when it's all live but I suspect there could be subscription lower than the 99 cent baseline. At least I hope so

Re: Coming changes to Apple's App Store

#235

Post by blub »

corysama wrote: post #40
6stringmerc wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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-gr…

What was the price of the most expensive music app you've purchased and how did you decide to gamble that much? For most people and most apps, paying once up front is a huge gamble. Most app consumers have no idea how to get a refund. Many aren't even aware that it's an option. So, they don't buy. It's not worth risking even 99c up front. Especially because the vast majority of consumers are not interested in doing t…

Two of the most expensive apps are Auria and Gadget at about 40 EUR each. Auria has many plugin IAPs, with an average proce of 20-30EUR/piece. Gadget has a couple at 15 EUR/piece, but one can also buy other Korg apps for 15-30 EUR + IAP and integrate them into Gadget.

Auria also had an upgrade which cost about 20-30 EUR (can't remember). It's not unusual for people to pay more than 150 EUR for Auria.

Decisions to buy are made based on the developer's reputation, reviews and discussions on forums.

Re: Coming changes to Apple's App Store

#236

Post by WA »

Nullabillity wrote: post #232
WA wrote: post #228

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

At some point, done is done. If you can't get users to buy your upgrades anymore, then that might be a sign that it's time to move on? It's pretty crazy that people expect to be able to pay themselves indefinitely from charging the same people repeatedly without any improvements to show for it.

> At some point, done is done.

Only if the rest of the ecosystem doesn't move. If the OS stays the same, APIs, platforms, and the hardware. Then yes, you're eventually done.

See, I guess a lot of this discussion stems from what specific examples people have in their mind. Yes, there is obviously software that is done at some point, that doesn't require updates, that can be run forever and is good enough for most people.

And there's software that is essentially useless after a few years if you don't upgrade to the newest version.

Offering paid upgrades or providing a SaaS are often the same thing, with slightly different billing schedules. Try to use Microsoft Word 2000 in 2016. The software you bought once and "owned" is of no use in 2016, where businesses email .docx files around. I think software ownership is a myth. Almost every product comes with a best-before date.

I think the market will reflect precisely this. Some apps will keep one-off-pricing, because it fits the nature of the app. Other apps will use subscriptions. If a subscription-based app doesn't provide enough value to its users, someone will come, make a better product with a lower price point and that's it.

> It's pretty crazy that people expect to be able to pay themselves indefinitely from charging the same people repeatedly without any improvements to show for it.

I agree, but my assumption is that the software gets continuously improved, because that's what's expected. If software is subscription-based and doesn't appear to be maintained, people will complain and stop using the service.

Re: Coming changes to Apple's App Store

#237

Post by zimpenfish »

veidr wrote: post #195
baddox wrote: post #193

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Subscriptions through the App Store are easy to cancel and you also get an email reminder when they're about to automatically renew. That reduces the sleaziness quite a bit, I think.

Re: Coming changes to Apple's App Store

#238

Post by WA »

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…

> I don't know why people allowed this transition from software ownership to subscription to happen

I don't know why developers allowed to happen the transition of reasonably priced software to ridiculously underpriced almost-free apps.

Re: Coming changes to Apple's App Store

#239

Post by porlw »

AlexandrB wrote: post #59
dapearce wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

My app usage pattern is a handful of apps I use every day and a much larger number of apps that I use very occasionally (down to once a year for something like GPS Nav, an offline mapping app). The problem with subscriptions is that it's hard for me to justify paying a recurring $12/year subscription for an app that I'll use once in that time. These kinds of apps I'm most likely to just do without if they go to a sub…

Use my new app!

It's a special folder.

When you put an app in the folder it will DELETE the app from your phone and store it like a symlink. When you try to open the app from the folder it will install it again for you.

Think of all the subscription money you will save!

Only $5 per month.

Re: Coming changes to Apple's App Store

#240

Post by samsonradu »

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…

But the 2 models are not mutually exclusive, are they? Probably some apps will offer both alternatives or the one that fits the purpose of the app. Not sure why, in essence, this is wrong.

Indeed I find subscriptions annoying too, hope the new AppStore comes with a friendly subscription management section along.

Post reply on HN