5 ms·

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 are

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.
ctdonath 10y ago
Also for apps which use non-trivial resources elsewhere (weather apps like Dark Sky, or compute-intensive services) that can't be funded indefinitely via initial purchase price.
corysama 10y ago
What was the price of the most expensive music app you've purchased and how did you decide to gamble that much? For most people and most apps, paying once up front is a huge gamble. Most app consumers have no idea how to get a refund. Many aren't even aware that it's an option. So, they don't buy. It's not worth risking even 99c up front. Especially because the vast majority of consumers are not interested in doing thorough research on apps ahead of time. They just want to try a bunch and see what they like.
- 6stringmerc 10y ago
  Not unusual for me to grab something at a $9.99 or $19.99 introductory price. Have a half dozen or so. I happen to think it's a niche for music creation apps though.
- blub 10y ago
  Two of the most expensive apps are Auria and Gadget at about 40 EUR each. Auria has many plugin IAPs, with an average proce of 20-30EUR/piece. Gadget has a couple at 15 EUR/piece, but one can also buy other Korg apps for 15-30 EUR + IAP and integrate them into Gadget. Auria also had an upgrade which cost about 20-30 EUR (can't remember). It's not unusual for people to pay more than 150 EUR for Auria. Decisions to buy are made based on the developer's reputation, reviews and discussions on forums.

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.

ctdonath 10y ago

Also for apps which use non-trivial resources elsewhere (weather apps like Dark Sky, or compute-intensive services) that can't be funded indefinitely via initial purchase price.

corysama 10y ago

What was the price of the most expensive music app you've purchased and how did you decide to gamble that much? For most people and most apps, paying once up front is a huge gamble. Most app consumers have no idea how to get a refund. Many aren't even aware that it's an option. So, they don't buy. It's not worth risking even 99c up front. Especially because the vast majority of consumers are not interested in doing thorough research on apps ahead of time. They just want to try a bunch and see what they like.

6stringmerc 10y ago
Not unusual for me to grab something at a $9.99 or $19.99 introductory price. Have a half dozen or so. I happen to think it's a niche for music creation apps though.
blub 10y ago
Two of the most expensive apps are Auria and Gadget at about 40 EUR each. Auria has many plugin IAPs, with an average proce of 20-30EUR/piece. Gadget has a couple at 15 EUR/piece, but one can also buy other Korg apps for 15-30 EUR + IAP and integrate them into Gadget. Auria also had an upgrade which cost about 20-30 EUR (can't remember). It's not unusual for people to pay more than 150 EUR for Auria. Decisions to buy are made based on the developer's reputation, reviews and discussions on forums.