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

261–270 of 294 posts

Re: Coming changes to Apple's App Store

#261

Post by JamesSwift »

AndrewKemendo wrote: post #11

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.

Yep, I was really surprised when we had an app go from submission to 'ready for sale' in 4-5 hours this week. Much better than times past (when we would quote 2 weeks expected to customers).

Re: Coming changes to Apple's App Store

#262

Post by veidr »

forgetsusername wrote: post #259
veidr wrote: post #244

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

> that don't actually want it. Why is it the company's responsibility to determine if a user "really wants it" or not? If the subscription is live, the assumption is that the service is desired. Personal accountability.

Totally, bro!!!

BTW, can I interest you in a franchise opportunity? We at "Veidr's Payday Loans" are always looking for local owner-operators who understand "personal accountability".

Re: Coming changes to Apple's App Store

#263

Post by veidr »

Xylakant wrote: post #250
veidr wrote: post #244

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 i…

Detecting non-use and waiving all charges in that case? That not only nullifies all moral/ethical/assholiness problems with the subscription model, it is practically heroic.

But, I don't think that's very common.

Re: Coming changes to Apple's App Store

#264

Post by dntrkv »

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…

You think $150 is too expensive for a piece of software you use ~8 hours a day to do a $100k+ salary job?

Go ask a mechanic or carpenter how much money they spend on their tools for a job that pays significantly less.

Re: Coming changes to Apple's App Store

#265

Post by k-mcgrady »

6stringmerc wrote: post #253
rtpg wrote: post #223

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

So time for the next program/app, right?

And then your users are screwed as the app will eventually lose compatibility with the OS. You're also hoping that your next app will be successful. You're abandoning something that people use for a shot in the dark.

Re: Coming changes to Apple's App Store

#266

Post by tdkl »

dntrkv wrote: post #264
rpgmaker wrote: post #217

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

You think $150 is too expensive for a piece of software you use ~8 hours a day to do a $100k+ salary job? Go ask a mechanic or carpenter how much money they spend on their tools for a job that pays significantly less.

> Go ask a mechanic or carpenter how much money they spend on their tools for a job that pays significantly less.

That's a hilarious example, because they don't rent and pay subscription for those tools, they buy them.

Re: Coming changes to Apple's App Store

#267

Post by ominous »

chasing wrote: post #103
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…

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…

Immoral or not, what is being said is: If I were to buy software X and place it on a box I control, without access to the internet, I expect it -- and its bugs -- to work forever. Ruling out time issues (y2k or similar), I expect notepad.exe (for example) or grep to work forever. I can extract from it all the use I am able to.

> If you value a piece of software, then (...)

No. Just no. If I value X, I value X. Don't try to con me into doing something else. It is "I value X because something.", not "I value X because I want something else to happen in the future." (in this case, maintain and improve the app). I may want to donate, or buy future products from the same developer, just so I can support him. But if I just value X, no further action is implied.

> As far as I'm aware, Apple will not force you to subscribe to any apps.

True. In the same way nobody will force you to pay taxes. You are not forced to pay taxes. But you are punished if you don't. You are not forced to use this app model, but you are punished if you don't. (if the current model of buying apps completely migrates to a subscription based one).

Re: Coming changes to Apple's App Store

#268

Post by nitrogen »

Androider wrote: post #251
nitrogen wrote: post #214

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I disagree with the subscription model helping in the long run, because with a flat fee model, you at least have a chance of keeping the old version running. If I like something and the developers add new features, I'll buy the upgrades to get new features; that's how developer incentives can align with mine.

A subscription model doesn't automatically exclude running old versions after you stop the subscription, see for example the IntellIJ by Jetbrains model. The "available in the next version" effect of one-time purchased software creates bad incentives for the developers to exclusively focus on new features even if they're gimmicks, because that's the only thing that brings in the money. As a customer, I literally cann…

A subscription that works basically like paid software you can keep plus a maintenance fee is much more palatable to me. I place a high value on being able to maintain access to my tools and creations, and prefer models (including FOSS) that permit that.

Re: Coming changes to Apple's App Store

#269

Post by nitrogen »

Androider wrote: post #252
rodgerd wrote: post #230

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Don't I wish that were true. Off the top of my head, I know for a fact that a few of the Splinter Cell series games are impossible to run nowadays, and other games that used the same Ubi DRM too. And I just can't seem to get the original Fallout 3 working for either love or money.

I'm sure "someone" knows how to run them, arguably justifiably if you have paid for them.

Re: Coming changes to Apple's App Store

#270

Post by Spivak »

chasing wrote: post #103
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…

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…

> And you don't "own" software you buy and pay for once.

What else could ownership possibly mean at that point?

The thing that's missing from the app store isn't subscriptions, it's service contracts.

* I go down to the store and buy a toaster -- I now own that toaster. Now I don't expect the toaster to last forever, but if the toaster breaks or simply stops functioning after a year I have both contractual and legal recourse to have my toaster replaced or refunded.

* When I buy a Windows license I know that I am paying for a guaranteed X years of support.

* If I buy an app I'm paying for... well that's the thing, I don't really know. Some apps it's indefinite, some apps it's until the VC funding runs out, some apps it's until the dev is bored with the project, etc.. Worse, since apps are all thin clients now when that support ends the app is useless.

> What is moral is creating a system by which software developers can support themselves...

Don't kid yourself, no morality went into this decision from Apple's side or any Dev that chooses this monetization path. This is about what people think they can get away with.

I think the central point worth debating is this: A customer has a reasonable expectation that a one time purchase guarantees them that an app will continue to function and be maintained^1 for either the lifetime of the service or the lifetime of the device on which it runs^2.

^1 Not necessarily any new features, just continuing to function.

^2 Depending on whether the app is a service or not.

Post reply on HN