6 ms·

Subscription model for all apps... I don't see a reason to subscribe for apps that are one-time pay and periodic long term use. There is a fine line here that

by surds 10y ago

Subscription model for all apps... I don't see a reason to subscribe for apps that are one-time pay and periodic long term use. There is a fine line here that developers will have to be cautious not to cross. A lot of apps have no reason to be subscription model, but the prospect of recurring revenue is too tempting. Edit: On the other hand, this is totally awesome for services and products that already offer subscriptions on other platforms or on the web, like online streaming, education, and as someone mentioned here, tools like Sketch.

deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
joezydeco 10y ago
What do app developers do now when everyone has 1.0 and you want to release a 2.0 version with more features and not just bugfixes? Do users still expect the upgrade for free?
- AlexandrB 10y ago
  No, Apple should have added upgrade pricing years ago and I would gladly pay for upgrades that way. The fact that they still haven't added upgrades and are instead pushing for a subscription model rubs me the wrong way.
- zkirill 10y ago
  Yes, at least in my experience. There are many who expect updates and new features because they have already invested so much of their time into your free app.
  - pc86 10y ago
    You can make the argument that a certain price point justifies free upgrades within a certain period of time or to a certain level (e.g. buy 1.x and get free up to all 2.n versions), but "I spend a lot of time in your app" is not a valid reason to get more of it for free.
- bitL 10y ago
  That's a flaw in all app stores (perhaps by design to force everyone to a subscription model someday?). For example, ImageLine's FL Studio was warning everyone that their new app will be completely different than their old app, but they weren't able to change version for their customers by the store policies, so they were asking users to be careful about upgrade. So currently your only option is to release app2, app3 etc. without the possibility to address your customer base (offering upgrades etc.) Subscriptions are basically renting apps for regular time periods. If forced, this would kill all indies for sure as most people would spend budget to the few main apps they need. I can also barely envision how the platform would attract creative people as it would feel like oligopoly. Frankly, with computers we have a chance to break natural constraints on availability but companies seem to be hell bent on reintroducing the same stinky approaches from the past. Why?
  - st3v3r 10y ago
    "Frankly, with computers we have a chance to break natural constraints on availability but companies seem to be hell bent on reintroducing the same stinky approaches from the past. Why?" Because I want to buy food and pay rent.
    - bitL 10y ago
      How does it help you if your potential customers avoid your software like a plague? Subscriptions border on restricting somebody's financial freedom. Imagine your plumber was forcing you to pay yearly for once/here and there using their services?
      - rstupek 10y ago
        I think its more analogous to your water/waste company who you pay monthly for them to remove your waste from your house. The provide an ongoing service, you don't get to pay a one time fee for it. Subscriptions provide a way for apps that have an ongoing support component to be paid for that instead of using ads.
      - st3v3r 10y ago
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- Frank2312 10y ago
  A problem with upgrade pricins is the difference between new and old users. Do new users have to pay all tiers of upgrade or do they get a reduced cost? If it's the former, then the app's price keeps on rising and comes down to IAPs being better to unlock extra features you actually need without the whole package. If it's the latter, then old users feel betrayed for having to pay the full upgrade price even though they bought the app earlier than new users. There are pros and cons for both sides, unless I didn't think of one solution that could work perfectly.
  - vitd 10y ago
    >old users feel betrayed for having to pay the full upgrade price even though they bought the app earlier than new users. Do they, though? Back when things like word processors were hundreds of dollars for the initial purchase and maybe half that for upgrades, it kept your users relatively happy. But when Apple introduced Pages on the app store originally, it was something like $30-40 for new versions. So I actually ended up spending less on it than I had on other word processors, but getting the same regular updates. It's free now, but I personally love the model of low reasonable price each time rather than really high first time price, and kind of high additional price when new versions come out. That initial high price meant there were a lot of programs I didn't buy when I wasn't making quite the salary I am today.
6stringmerc 10y ago
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-great public reception.
- k-mcgrady 10y ago
  >> "updates offer a lot" This is the main issue I think. The only way to charge users for an update is to create a new version of the app and then try to inform users about it. A subscription will enable ongoing development for apps which is unsustainable at 99¢ per download.
  - 6stringmerc 10y ago
    Or, as revenue comes in from an app, adding more features to entice more buyers, then giving existing users more features (which in turn will theoretically result in better word-of-mouth) can have a positive feedback loop.
    - rtpg 10y ago
      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.
      - 6stringmerc 10y ago
        So time for the next program/app, right?
        k-mcgrady 10y ago
        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.
kybernetyk 10y ago
>I don't see a reason to subscribe for apps that are one-time pay and periodic long term use. This. I'm a developer of such a "sporadic use" app and I don't see how a subscription model would benefit my users. And I honestly wouldn't feel too good about introducing subscription pricing to a tool someone might need once in a few weeks. On the other hand this might be a solution to the upgrade pricing problem if one could set the subscription interval to 1 year.
- surds 10y ago
  Optimally priced annual subscription may work well. Again, this depends on the app's context justifying the subscription model. One such annual subscription offer that I was totally in favor of was WhatsApp. Given the volume of use I had from the service, I would have gladly paid more. I would prefer subscription to a clean chat service instead of a free service shoving news, themes, icon-packs etc. in my face to make money.

by surds 10y ago

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

joezydeco 10y ago

What do app developers do now when everyone has 1.0 and you want to release a 2.0 version with more features and not just bugfixes? Do users still expect the upgrade for free?

AlexandrB 10y ago
No, Apple should have added upgrade pricing years ago and I would gladly pay for upgrades that way. The fact that they still haven't added upgrades and are instead pushing for a subscription model rubs me the wrong way.
zkirill 10y ago
Yes, at least in my experience. There are many who expect updates and new features because they have already invested so much of their time into your free app.
- pc86 10y ago
  You can make the argument that a certain price point justifies free upgrades within a certain period of time or to a certain level (e.g. buy 1.x and get free up to all 2.n versions), but "I spend a lot of time in your app" is not a valid reason to get more of it for free.
bitL 10y ago
That's a flaw in all app stores (perhaps by design to force everyone to a subscription model someday?). For example, ImageLine's FL Studio was warning everyone that their new app will be completely different than their old app, but they weren't able to change version for their customers by the store policies, so they were asking users to be careful about upgrade. So currently your only option is to release app2, app3 etc. without the possibility to address your customer base (offering upgrades etc.) Subscriptions are basically renting apps for regular time periods. If forced, this would kill all indies for sure as most people would spend budget to the few main apps they need. I can also barely envision how the platform would attract creative people as it would feel like oligopoly. Frankly, with computers we have a chance to break natural constraints on availability but companies seem to be hell bent on reintroducing the same stinky approaches from the past. Why?
- st3v3r 10y ago
  "Frankly, with computers we have a chance to break natural constraints on availability but companies seem to be hell bent on reintroducing the same stinky approaches from the past. Why?" Because I want to buy food and pay rent.
  - bitL 10y ago
    How does it help you if your potential customers avoid your software like a plague? Subscriptions border on restricting somebody's financial freedom. Imagine your plumber was forcing you to pay yearly for once/here and there using their services?
    - rstupek 10y ago
      I think its more analogous to your water/waste company who you pay monthly for them to remove your waste from your house. The provide an ongoing service, you don't get to pay a one time fee for it. Subscriptions provide a way for apps that have an ongoing support component to be paid for that instead of using ads.
    - st3v3r 10y ago
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
Frank2312 10y ago
A problem with upgrade pricins is the difference between new and old users. Do new users have to pay all tiers of upgrade or do they get a reduced cost? If it's the former, then the app's price keeps on rising and comes down to IAPs being better to unlock extra features you actually need without the whole package. If it's the latter, then old users feel betrayed for having to pay the full upgrade price even though they bought the app earlier than new users. There are pros and cons for both sides, unless I didn't think of one solution that could work perfectly.
- vitd 10y ago
  >old users feel betrayed for having to pay the full upgrade price even though they bought the app earlier than new users. Do they, though? Back when things like word processors were hundreds of dollars for the initial purchase and maybe half that for upgrades, it kept your users relatively happy. But when Apple introduced Pages on the app store originally, it was something like $30-40 for new versions. So I actually ended up spending less on it than I had on other word processors, but getting the same regular updates. It's free now, but I personally love the model of low reasonable price each time rather than really high first time price, and kind of high additional price when new versions come out. That initial high price meant there were a lot of programs I didn't buy when I wasn't making quite the salary I am today.

6stringmerc 10y ago

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-great public reception.

k-mcgrady 10y ago
>> "updates offer a lot" This is the main issue I think. The only way to charge users for an update is to create a new version of the app and then try to inform users about it. A subscription will enable ongoing development for apps which is unsustainable at 99¢ per download.
- 6stringmerc 10y ago
  Or, as revenue comes in from an app, adding more features to entice more buyers, then giving existing users more features (which in turn will theoretically result in better word-of-mouth) can have a positive feedback loop.
  - rtpg 10y ago
    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.
    - 6stringmerc 10y ago
      So time for the next program/app, right?
      - k-mcgrady 10y ago
        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.

kybernetyk 10y ago

>I don't see a reason to subscribe for apps that are one-time pay and periodic long term use. This. I'm a developer of such a "sporadic use" app and I don't see how a subscription model would benefit my users. And I honestly wouldn't feel too good about introducing subscription pricing to a tool someone might need once in a few weeks. On the other hand this might be a solution to the upgrade pricing problem if one could set the subscription interval to 1 year.

surds 10y ago
Optimally priced annual subscription may work well. Again, this depends on the app's context justifying the subscription model. One such annual subscription offer that I was totally in favor of was WhatsApp. Given the volume of use I had from the service, I would have gladly paid more. I would prefer subscription to a clean chat service instead of a free service shoving news, themes, icon-packs etc. in my face to make money.