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

81–90 of 125 posts

Re: The Mac App Store Needs Paid Upgrades

#81

Post by jacalata »

Tloewald wrote: post #75

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.

Compatibility or bug fixes aren't free for all users because just like features, the developer had to spend time building them and needs to get paid for that time.

Re: The Mac App Store Needs Paid Upgrades

#82

Post by tptacek »

kennywinker wrote: post #80
tptacek wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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".

Non sequitor. The comment thread you're on argues that developers on Apple's Mac platform are sharecroppers. Atwood may well think that (it's not totally clear to me), but Shipley clearly does not: he is making more money after adopting the App Store than he was before it, and is content with the control/promotion tradeoff. He says so explicitly in the article we're commenting on.

Re: The Mac App Store Needs Paid Upgrades

#83

Post by ghshephard »

kennywinker wrote: post #27
TetOn wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nothing in Apple's recent history suggests this is true. Think of the recent kerfuffle over Final Cut; they had no intention of continuing to sell the older version even though the new one was feature incomplete. It is highly likely that, when it appears, Aperture4 will similarly just replace Aperture3 at approximately the same price point. You can choose to buy the new one or not, but there's no discounted upgrade p…

We have yet to see this problem. The switch to FCPX was the first version in the app store. There hasn't been a high priced Apple app that has received a major upgrade via the Mac App Store. You may be right that they are going to stay at low initial / full price upgrade... I see two issues with that (for Apple). One, if the upgrade is not major enough to convince people to shell out for it. This fragments their apps…

If the vast majority of your market is upgrading, and the customers for your new product, are by and large the same as the customers for your previous product, then you can simply offer the upgrade price to everyone, without loss of revenue. Indeed, you make it easier for new customers to come on board - so, best of both worlds.

I'm not sure what's wrong with offering major new versions of your product at the upgrade price to everyone (new and existing users alike). Sounds perfectly sustainable.

Re: The Mac App Store Needs Paid Upgrades

#84

Post by tbsdy »

campnic wrote: post #26
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…

Your comment only makes sense under the argument that when a user purchases an app, the developer is indebted to the user to provide future functionality of any variety. Maintenance should not be expected for free. New features should not be expected for free. How much those two pieces of work cost should be dependent on future expected earnings for the developer and the perceived value to the consumer, not on whethe…

If I've paid for an app, then I expect it to work. If it's not working, then I expect you to fix it. I don't expect to pay for those fixes.

Features, on the other hand, I expect to pay for.

Re: The Mac App Store Needs Paid Upgrades

#85

Post by gergles »

jacalata wrote: post #81
Tloewald wrote: post #75

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.

Compatibility or bug fixes aren't free for all users because just like features, the developer had to spend time building them and needs to get paid for that time.

And the customer fucking paid for a program that worked right the first time. Customers are absolutely 100% entitled to bug fixes for free.

Re: The Mac App Store Needs Paid Upgrades

#86

Post by cynix »

jacalata wrote: post #81
Tloewald wrote: post #75

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.

Compatibility or bug fixes aren't free for all users because just like features, the developer had to spend time building them and needs to get paid for that time.

I build a house for you for $X. You find out that the lights don't work and ask me to fix it. Would you be happy if I told you "Oh, sorry I messed up the electrical connections. It'll cost you $Y though, because I have to spend time fixing them and I need to get paid for that time."?

Re: The Mac App Store Needs Paid Upgrades

#87

Post by tomflack »

cynix wrote: post #86
jacalata wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Compatibility or bug fixes aren't free for all users because just like features, the developer had to spend time building them and needs to get paid for that time.

I build a house for you for $X. You find out that the lights don't work and ask me to fix it. Would you be happy if I told you "Oh, sorry I messed up the electrical connections. It'll cost you $Y though, because I have to spend time fixing them and I need to get paid for that time."?

In perpetuity? When a major OS upgrade breaks the app completely after being in use with no problems for 5 years?

Again we find that conflating real-world examples with technology issues is a bad way of understanding them. With a house you typically have a warranty period and afterwards are required to pay for fixes yourself.

There is a lot of grey here that paid updates help deal with. The users will vote with their wallets if they feel they're being thoroughly fleeced.

Re: The Mac App Store Needs Paid Upgrades

#88

Post by fpgeek »

ghshephard wrote: post #83
kennywinker wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We have yet to see this problem. The switch to FCPX was the first version in the app store. There hasn't been a high priced Apple app that has received a major upgrade via the Mac App Store. You may be right that they are going to stay at low initial / full price upgrade... I see two issues with that (for Apple). One, if the upgrade is not major enough to convince people to shell out for it. This fragments their apps…

If the vast majority of your market is upgrading, and the customers for your new product, are by and large the same as the customers for your previous product, then you can simply offer the upgrade price to everyone, without loss of revenue. Indeed, you make it easier for new customers to come on board - so, best of both worlds. I'm not sure what's wrong with offering major new versions of your product at the upgrade…

This may be the "least bad" choice, but it still isn't a good one. Besides the lost revenue from new customers, Wil mentions another important problem: If existing and new customers are charged the same price for an upgrade at least some existing customers are likely to consider it unfair (especially given past practice in the software industry) and to be angry about it.

That may or may not be a rational response. After all, if someone thinks an upgrade is worth $X, why should he or she care whether or not a new customer is getting the same price? On the other hand, a developer demonstrating that they value customer history and loyalty (with a discounted upgrade) is a strong signal that they value the long-term customer relationship. That is something a customer could rationally care about. Either way, the potential for existing customer anger is a problem developers will have to deal with.

Wil's post might also be a pre-emptive strike against potential, future customer anger. After all, if a customer complains that they're not getting a discounted upgrade, he can point them to this post.

Re: The Mac App Store Needs Paid Upgrades

#89

Post by fpgeek »

msbarnett wrote: post #71
kennywinker wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

You don't? If people had complained about being charged a reasonable, discounted upgrade price for Tweetie 2, they'd have been laughed at. That has been a common model for software upgrades for as long as I remember (and quite probably longer than I have been alive).

Re: The Mac App Store Needs Paid Upgrades

#90

Post by nico_h »

frio wrote: post #63
MatthewPhillips wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Google's business model isn't to release paid apps This differs from every OS vendor I'm aware of in the past. Just noting. > they do release top tier apps. Could you point out to me some of these apps where the alternatives are sold for top-tier prices?

Compare Google Navigation on Android, to TomTom on iOS. Navigation is free, works perfectly, and even goes so far as to include a "Car Mode" for docking your phone in your car. TomTom costs, at last check, $95NZD. I've not bothered trying it.

I do believe TomTom has data for offline use, unlike Google Navigation.

(I have iOS tomtom for western Europe) Also, it has voices in many languages. So it will still work when you're out of coverage/country.

Remember, 99% of the land surface has crap/non-existant 2G/3G/4G coverage.

Post reply on HN