Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The Mac App Store Needs Paid Upgrades

blog.wilshipley.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 125 posts

Re: The Mac App Store Needs Paid Upgrades

#71

Post by msbarnett »

kennywinker wrote: post #64
msbarnett wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> See Tweetie 2, for an example What's the example, exactly? Genuinely curious. I upgraded to Tweetie 2 as soon as it came out. My impression was that it was very successful right up until Twitter bought Atebits.

It's hard to say how much of that was noise, and what effect it had on sales / success, but there was a lot of hype about the paid upgrade leaving people unhappy. Example headlines (Google "tweetie 2 paid update" for more): "Tweetie 2 Pricing Controversy: An Interview with Tweetie's Creator ..." "Tweetie 2: 'New App' – Will Spit On Existing 'Old App' Users | iSource" "Still won't pay for Tweetie 2 upgrade? Try these…

Fair enough. I'm not sure a mechanism for having paid upgrades under the same name as the original app would have avoided any of those headlines, though.

Re: The Mac App Store Needs Paid Upgrades

#72

Post by deedubaya »

davepeck wrote: post #66
deedubaya wrote: post #6

As a developer with Apps in the MAS, I can see where this makes sense from the developer's perspective. But I think it is a mater of laziness on the dev's part. Let me explain: From a users perspective, this would suck. It is an antiquated system. "I have to pay for an upgrade just so it works on the new OS?" Think of how many times you've had to do this in the past, and how you felt. Apple will act in the best inter…

To address your point: this might seem like a good idea until you follow it to its logical conclusions. The support burden, especially on smaller developers, would be massive after even a small number of upgrades. Moreover, it's unclear how this would work in practice given that new purchasers of the app should have access to the upgraded features that old users need to acquire through IAP. To address your side comme…

I wasn't directing the laziness comment specifically at Wil Shipley, I'm sure he isn't. It was more of an aside; a widely generalized comment. Most of us know "indie" devs aren't lazy. It was more to the point that it is easier to complain about what you want than to work with what you've got.

To address your counter point: it is all a mater of implementation, implementation, implementation.

1) I don't think it is unreasonable to say that developers should maintain the features they've already been paid for gratis.

2) It require planing from the get-go within your app, you can't tack this on after the fact. Basic features are covered by the initial purchase of the app. Additional features (AKA what one would want to charge for with a major version upgrade) or perhaps feature "packs" are provided via In-App purchases. New users always start out at the same level, requiring purchases for new features. Features already purchased to be restored via the facilites available in StoreKit.

Re: The Mac App Store Needs Paid Upgrades

#73

Post by EvanKelly »

ricardobeat wrote: post #58

I think this is mostly a mismatch in expectations. "pay full price, suckers" only rings true if it's not actually a major release - small features, security/compatibility updates should be free. A new version should offer enough benefits to be worth the price.

I don't know if I agree with this sentiment. Take the author's app, "Delicious Library 2". The main functionality of this app is to catalog your things in an easy and streamlined way. I'd reckon that most people are paying the ~$35 for this app to do just that.

If the developers develop a whole new set of features (while still building off the core functionality) that they could call "Delicious Library 3", but are actually fully compatible with Delicious Library 2, why should they have to ask their users to pay full price for an upgrade, when they already have the core functionality which is the draw for the new users to pay full price.

I've seen positives and negatives to this model in video gaming. I love seeing a full-feature expansion to a game I own, and don't mind paying $5 - $20 in addition to the $60 I already paid, but I wouldn't be happy paying $60 again for the "complete" edition just to get the expansions, but that "complete" edition is great for people who haven't already purchased the game.

Re: The Mac App Store Needs Paid Upgrades

#74

Post by deedubaya »

falcolas wrote: post #22
deedubaya wrote: post #6

As a developer with Apps in the MAS, I can see where this makes sense from the developer's perspective. But I think it is a mater of laziness on the dev's part. Let me explain: From a users perspective, this would suck. It is an antiquated system. "I have to pay for an upgrade just so it works on the new OS?" Think of how many times you've had to do this in the past, and how you felt. Apple will act in the best inter…

I'd hate to pick up a piece of software, only to find that there are 50 new features that I want that I have to buy piecemeal. It's how the gaming industry currently works (with DLC), and while it's working for them right now, there's an ugly backlash against those companies that forms with every new DLC release that requires a lot of PR to counter. As Joe User, I depend greatly on Joe Developer to make my Mac more u…

It's all about implementation. Instead of 50 features, perhaps there is a "2012 Feature Pack" that provides all the new features for 2012 and previous. The developer has a lot of flexibility on how to manage In-App purchases.

All In-App purchases are listed in the Available In-App Purchases section in the App Store.

Re: The Mac App Store Needs Paid Upgrades

#75

Post by Tloewald »

I assumed that Apple would add upgrades way back when but I now think the in app purchase model is better. Consider the reason for upgrades: new features? Sell them. Compatibility or big fixes? Why aren't these free for all customers?

The one missing thing I think Apple needs is a neat mechanism for allowing existing apps to be upgrades into app store apps.

Re: The Mac App Store Needs Paid Upgrades

#76

Post by davepeck »

deedubaya wrote: post #72
davepeck wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To address your point: this might seem like a good idea until you follow it to its logical conclusions. The support burden, especially on smaller developers, would be massive after even a small number of upgrades. Moreover, it's unclear how this would work in practice given that new purchasers of the app should have access to the upgraded features that old users need to acquire through IAP. To address your side comme…

I wasn't directing the laziness comment specifically at Wil Shipley, I'm sure he isn't. It was more of an aside; a widely generalized comment. Most of us know "indie" devs aren't lazy. It was more to the point that it is easier to complain about what you want than to work with what you've got. To address your counter point: it is all a mater of implementation, implementation, implementation. 1) I don't think it is un…

I understand where you're coming from, but I guess I still can't agree.

1. Nobody's saying this. The original post actually asks for the ability to maintain older versions in the app store (so that, presumably, users who don't want to upgrade don't get stranded) while preventing new users from purchasing anything but the latest version.

2. So after three major upgrades, the experience for new users is: pay for app, then pay for three "upgrades" from within the app? Or even just one "roll-up upgrade" that implies all of 'em? And same for re-downloads: install the app, then restore purchases?

That sounds like a very un-Apple-like user experience; it's not something I would want my users to deal with.

Re: The Mac App Store Needs Paid Upgrades

#77

Post by disappearance »

metageek wrote: post #19
Splines wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I was thinking the same thing, but I don't think that's sustainable, nor is it a good user experience. If you have X choices of IAP features available, are you going to test the 2^(X+1) configurations out there? Probably the best you could do with IAP is offer current version as IAP, and roll your n-1 features back into the main app as a free update on a periodic basis (i.e., want the latest and greatest, buy it now,…

I think ianterrell's idea was that, if you're going from, say, version 2 to version 3, you release version 3 for free, but all the new version 3 features are a single in-app purchase. No nickel and diming. One result of this approach is that everybody gets bugfixes for free, which users are sure to like better than a model where they have to pay for fixes. One thing you have to decide is what to do if you then releas…

Surely one edition only.

All new features are paid for as content upgrades currently are.

If you overhaul your code you release it first as a free demo (old language; beta), then discontinue it as you release a feature-matched-update to the single paid for version you maintain.

This reduces new features to an individual cost upgrade and ensures your existing users aren't left with an unsupported version.

This is actually a very good result for the consumer. (I'm thinking premium applications such as Audio, Photoshop etc.)

Re: The Mac App Store Needs Paid Upgrades

#78

Post by thelibrarian »

deedubaya wrote: post #74
falcolas wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd hate to pick up a piece of software, only to find that there are 50 new features that I want that I have to buy piecemeal. It's how the gaming industry currently works (with DLC), and while it's working for them right now, there's an ugly backlash against those companies that forms with every new DLC release that requires a lot of PR to counter. As Joe User, I depend greatly on Joe Developer to make my Mac more u…

It's all about implementation. Instead of 50 features, perhaps there is a "2012 Feature Pack" that provides all the new features for 2012 and previous. The developer has a lot of flexibility on how to manage In-App purchases. All In-App purchases are listed in the Available In-App Purchases section in the App Store.

And how would you feel if in a few years you bought GreatApp from the MAS, and then found that to get the current functionality you had to then buy as an in-app purchase "2012 Feature Pack", "2013 Feature Pack" and "2014 Feature Pack"?

Re: The Mac App Store Needs Paid Upgrades

#79

Post by msbarnett »

thelibrarian wrote: post #78
deedubaya wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's all about implementation. Instead of 50 features, perhaps there is a "2012 Feature Pack" that provides all the new features for 2012 and previous. The developer has a lot of flexibility on how to manage In-App purchases. All In-App purchases are listed in the Available In-App Purchases section in the App Store.

And how would you feel if in a few years you bought GreatApp from the MAS, and then found that to get the current functionality you had to then buy as an in-app purchase "2012 Feature Pack", "2013 Feature Pack" and "2014 Feature Pack"?

His post suggests that each " feature pack" would also contain all of the previous years' features, for new-commers.

Re: The Mac App Store Needs Paid Upgrades

#80

Post by kennywinker »

tptacek wrote: post #61
kennywinker wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Obvious hyperbole is obvious. IMO, the analogy stands. I'm not the only one who thinks so http://www.codinghorror.com/blog/2011/10/serving-at-the-plea...

Wil Shipley makes a living selling a popular Mac application both on and off the Mac App Store. Jeff Atwood has from what I can tell never shipped shrink-wrap software as an ISV on any platform (I don't mean that derisively).

I don't see them disagreeing. They're both saying "here are some issues I see with the Apple/Developer relationship".
Post reply on HN