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

241–250 of 294 posts

Re: Coming changes to Apple's App Store

#241

Post by iaskwhy »

jkestner wrote: post #197
Nullabillity wrote: post #188

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

It's a temporary option though. As soon as you need to restore a new device and you don't keep the apps backup, you will get the latest version. If I were to bet, I'd say not many people keep a backup of their current apps' versions.

Re: Coming changes to Apple's App Store

#242

Post by sangnoir »

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.

> You can stop subscribing and are left with a perpetual license for the current version you are on

Yeah, we (IntelliJ subscribers) had to fight[1] for that[2]: before there was an outcry, JetBrains had planned to brick[3] your IDE the moment your subscription lapsed.

1. https://blog.jetbrains.com/blog/2015/09/04/we-are-listening/

2. https://blog.jetbrains.com/blog/2015/09/18/final-update-on-t...

3. https://blog.jetbrains.com/blog/2015/09/03/introducing-jetbr...

Re: Coming changes to Apple's App Store

#243

Post by veidr »

WA wrote: post #231
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…

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 B2…

Indeed, nothing wrong with that. My comment pertains specifically to auto-renewing subscriptions. Which they overwhelmingly are, nowadays, but perhaps I should have been more precise.

Re: Coming changes to Apple's App Store

#244

Post by veidr »

sambe wrote: post #220
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…

Quite obviously biased and overstated. Many subscription models have nothing to do with tricking people or making it hard to cancel and many customers of those continue to pay knowingly and willingly and appreciate the convenience of agreeing to this up-front instead of manually renewing multiple services each month. For example, my water provider. My Netflix subscription. You cannot just ignore this because it doesn…

> many customers of those continue to pay knowingly and willingly and appreciate the convenience

Yes, I fully agree.

> Many subscription models have nothing to do with tricking people

I don't agree with this, at least for auto-renewing subscriptions; that's my point. Every piece of software sold on auto-renewing subscription has some significant number of subscribers (as a percentage of its total number of them) that don't actually want it.

That is true regardless of what the publisher intends or wants.

Obviously, the exact percentage will vary a great deal, depending on the product.

Water is an example of something where that percentage would be low — presumably, almost everybody wants their water to stay on.

Netflix, not so much; I myself once paid for Netflix for months, perhaps years, without using it once, and without wanting to keep it on "just in case". I was just too busy to cancel it the few times I thought of it (until I finally did).

Netflix is not on the sleazier side of the spectrum, though; it's quite easy to cancel.

There are, however, a lot more disgusting sleazy fuckers out there like the Wall Street Journal, MyFico.com, and Comcast, than there are Netflixes.

P.S. As a bonus, here's my Second Law of Subscriptiodynamics:

The total difficulty in cancelling an isolated auto-renewing subscription always increases over time.

Re: Coming changes to Apple's App Store

#245

Post by iaskwhy »

r00fus wrote: post #191
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.

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 conte…

I can play Carcassonne every day for 3 months in a row, dozens of games a day, but I also had 6 months without playing at all or very rarely. I bought all the extensions too. I don't think I would subscribe, I don't like this anxious urge of needing to do something because I'm paying for it. That's why I don't subscribe to cinemas or services like Netflix. I want to be as free as possible to decide what to do in my free time and having a subscription removes some of this freedom.

Re: Coming changes to Apple's App Store

#246

Post by iaskwhy »

djrogers wrote: post #121
AlexandrB wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think that's only partially true. While Apple promised that there will be an easy way to manage subscriptions, at least some users will just forget that they've subscribed to something and will continue to be charged regardless of whether they are even using the app. This is especially true if they have a mix of intended subscriptions and small unintended ones. This is part of the time-honored business model for pl…

I get an email every single time I am charged for a subscription, so unless you make it a habit to ignore invoice emails, you won't be likely to forget more than once.

So you get the email after the charge took place? I would appreciate it before the charge happening...

Re: Coming changes to Apple's App Store

#247

Post by nsgi »

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…

On the other hand, the problem with making money from selling upgrades is that it encourages the app maker to bloat their software with useless features to justify the price of the new version.

Re: Coming changes to Apple's App Store

#248

Post by Angostura »

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 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.

Whereas I would prefer to pay for a useful app... and then if they develop in ways that I find attactive, pay some more for the improvements.

With the subscription model, they have absolutely no incentive to ' continue to update and improve the app'

Re: Coming changes to Apple's App Store

#249

Post by jasonsync »

wlesieutre wrote: post #48
jaxondu wrote: post #4

Interestingly Sketch app announced today they're changing to a subscription model soon. Sketch app abandoned Apple store last December. Looks like Sketch will be back to Mac App Store this fall. It is sad that Apple only took action now, after years of requests and complains by indie developers. Now that app boom is over, I doubt this App Store changes will have any impact.

Oh damn it. Sketch 3 owner, this is news to me. As a hobbyist, their subscription price will almost certainly not be worth it. The reason I quit Adobe and bought Sketch was to support software that I could actually buy. Not this "Good deal for professionals, even cheaper for students, fuck anybody who just wants to use a decent art program every couple of months" model. I'll see what I can track down on details, but…

> My biggest concern is going to be OS compatibility.

Autodesk Sketchbook did this around version 6 (not sure if they still do it), and it's a horrible experience.

They change major versions and charge you again. You only find out when the older version you paid for is no longer available on your updated OS X.

Awesome software that I stopped using because of this.

Re: Coming changes to Apple's App Store

#250

Post by Xylakant »

veidr wrote: post #244
sambe wrote: post #220

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Quite obviously biased and overstated. Many subscription models have nothing to do with tricking people or making it hard to cancel and many customers of those continue to pay knowingly and willingly and appreciate the convenience of agreeing to this up-front instead of manually renewing multiple services each month. For example, my water provider. My Netflix subscription. You cannot just ignore this because it doesn…

> many customers of those continue to pay knowingly and willingly and appreciate the convenience Yes, I fully agree. > Many subscription models have nothing to do with tricking people I don't agree with this, at least for auto-renewing subscriptions; that's my point. Every piece of software sold on auto-renewing subscription has some significant number of subscribers (as a percentage of its total number of them) that…

> I don't agree with this, at least for auto-renewing subscriptions; that's my point. Every piece of software sold on auto-renewing subscription has some significant number of subscribers (as a percentage of its total number of them) that don't actually want it.

Some SaaS providers make unused subscriptions free of charge (Slack AFAIR), others auto-cancel them after a period of inactivity. This obviously only works if the provider has knowledge of whether a subscription is used, but it shows that the flaw is not inherent with subscriptions.

Other than that: I have quite a couple of pieces of software that I bought at pretty much full price and never really used. Is that immoral as well?

Post reply on HN