3 ms·

> I'm perfectly happy to pay $20-30 for an app That's where you diverge from the population. Apple needs a solution for the general problem of people not wanti

by abalone 10y ago

> I'm perfectly happy to pay $20-30 for an app That's where you diverge from the population. Apple needs a solution for the general problem of people not wanting to pay much for iOS apps. It may disappoint those of us who prefer spending more up front for quality, but Apple has surely determined that more people will buy more apps this way. (By the way, you compared paying $X upfront to paying $X per year which of course is a worse deal. A more representative comparison would be $X * 0.33 per year.)

AlexandrB 10y ago
> Apple needs a solution for the general problem of people not wanting to pay much for iOS apps. Yes! And thanks to missing app store features Apple has provided developers no way to set expectations for things like upgrade pricing. Not to mention in-app purchases which were another way to maintain the illusion of "free" apps among users. The fact that subscription pricing is now seen as the solution is really sad because subscribing to an App is fundamentally different than buying one. In particular, transactions that used to be atomic - like buying an app or gifting an App to a friend - are now transient and come with all kinds of strings and commitments attached. Today I could go home, fire up my 5 year old iPod touch, and still access all of its apps - and the data therein. In a subscription-based app economy I wouldn't be able to do the same after the first month!
- abalone 10y ago
  That's a good point on gifting. I wonder how that will work, since that is actually already an app store feature.. Will there now be an option to gift a duration? Also, it's not clear to me that apps will be disabled if you stop subscribing as opposed to just no longer upgraded. So your 5 year old iPod might still work.
addicted 10y ago
But Apple already had a solution for this. The Mac App ecosystem. The Mac app eco system was thriving despite a ridiculously small market. The indie devs focused on delivering quality applications and a lot of people paid good money. Enough to sustain many indie companies and developers. I don't get why Apple has chosen to ignore the factors that helped make that eco system such high quality. Edit: I want to add I am not against improving the subscription model. My problem is that Apple doesn't seem to want to add the stuff indie mac devs have been asking for years (trial periods, upgrade pricing). It would have been great if Apple did both subscription, and better purchase models (it's still possible they might once WWDC comes around).
- toyg 10y ago
  > a lot of people paid good money ... none of which went to Apple. So that's one business model they're not particularly keen on. It might have benefited the platform at large and drive Mac sales (unlikely -- what drove sales were always the big creative suites), but it didn't directly benefit Apple in the same way as appstore sales now do. Apple simply doesn't want big-price shrinkwrap on iOS. 75% of the market is games where whales are nickled and dimed; that's what they want: high frequency, low-price, constant, reliable revenue.
- abalone 10y ago
  > The Mac app eco system was thriving Was it? What's your source?

by abalone 10y ago

AlexandrB 10y ago

> Apple needs a solution for the general problem of people not wanting to pay much for iOS apps. Yes! And thanks to missing app store features Apple has provided developers no way to set expectations for things like upgrade pricing. Not to mention in-app purchases which were another way to maintain the illusion of "free" apps among users. The fact that subscription pricing is now seen as the solution is really sad because subscribing to an App is fundamentally different than buying one. In particular, transactions that used to be atomic - like buying an app or gifting an App to a friend - are now transient and come with all kinds of strings and commitments attached. Today I could go home, fire up my 5 year old iPod touch, and still access all of its apps - and the data therein. In a subscription-based app economy I wouldn't be able to do the same after the first month!

abalone 10y ago
That's a good point on gifting. I wonder how that will work, since that is actually already an app store feature.. Will there now be an option to gift a duration? Also, it's not clear to me that apps will be disabled if you stop subscribing as opposed to just no longer upgraded. So your 5 year old iPod might still work.

addicted 10y ago

But Apple already had a solution for this. The Mac App ecosystem. The Mac app eco system was thriving despite a ridiculously small market. The indie devs focused on delivering quality applications and a lot of people paid good money. Enough to sustain many indie companies and developers. I don't get why Apple has chosen to ignore the factors that helped make that eco system such high quality. Edit: I want to add I am not against improving the subscription model. My problem is that Apple doesn't seem to want to add the stuff indie mac devs have been asking for years (trial periods, upgrade pricing). It would have been great if Apple did both subscription, and better purchase models (it's still possible they might once WWDC comes around).

toyg 10y ago
> a lot of people paid good money ... none of which went to Apple. So that's one business model they're not particularly keen on. It might have benefited the platform at large and drive Mac sales (unlikely -- what drove sales were always the big creative suites), but it didn't directly benefit Apple in the same way as appstore sales now do. Apple simply doesn't want big-price shrinkwrap on iOS. 75% of the market is games where whales are nickled and dimed; that's what they want: high frequency, low-price, constant, reliable revenue.
abalone 10y ago
> The Mac app eco system was thriving Was it? What's your source?