5 ms·

I prefer to apply this analogy to the situation with how users expect updates into perpetuity in exchange for their 99 cents. Developers that try to fund conti

I prefer to apply this analogy to the situation with how users expect updates into perpetuity in exchange for their 99 cents. Developers that try to fund continuous updates through a small annual subscription fee (like Dark Sky on Android, for example) get pilloried for it. You wouldn't pay $4 for a coffee at Starbucks, then come back to the store six months later and say "I paid $4 for this, refill it." But you expect that app you paid a buck for in 2008 to still work in 2017 across 10+ new OS revisions (and one or two major UI paradigm shifts), and the justification for that is "I paid for it once." When you went out and bought boxed software it was kind of an expectation that it was going to work for a reasonable time period afterward. But if you want an update or support for a later OS version that didn't exist at the time of purchase, you're going to pay for it.

moxious 9y ago
We're really torturing the metaphor with app updates as coffee refills, buuuuuut.... Many of us are in the software business. So we know how hard the stuff can be. But the customer doesn't, and shouldn't care. I think it's reasonable for the customer to expect updates forever. Particularly because so often, we put out a product that has bugs and problems in it. The customer is sometimes already being fairly accepting being willing to pay for a product that has problems that are yet to be fixed. The app author also has the ability to release a new app if the features warrant. So no one is forcing the publisher to give new features for free.
- ben1040 9y ago
  >The app author also has the ability to release a new app if the features warrant. That's easier said than done. You can't really do this without losing your customer base, links to your app in the store, sign-in tokens, etc, and you have to have some mechanism for migrating data out of one app sandbox to the other. Additionally, if you want to be fair and offer an upgrade price, the app stores don't allow this directly. Tweetbot did something clever; they wanted to charge $10 for new users but $5 for upgrades. They put the "old" version and the "new" version in a package deal bundle on the iOS App Store, and priced the bundle at $10. If you had the "old" version already, you got get a discounted upgrade by buying the bundle -- since you already owned one app in the bundle, you got a credit for that towards the full price. The app stores could fix this problem and allow publishers to set upgrade pricing, but they don't.
bbarn 9y ago
So, if you expect your users to use your product for multiple years, charge appropriately. There's a difference between an update and an upgrade. A further difference still from a subscription. I think most people are happy paying a single price for a single thing and expecting to not pay for it again - but happy to pay for the next version, that offers something more than their version.
jstarfish 9y ago
So why not do licensing based on OS revision? i.e. "You bought Space Trader for Android 6. You've since upgraded to Android 8. Cough up another $.99 for the Android 8 version, or continue enjoying what you paid for on another device running Android 6." It seems fair to me, but I could see this becoming a lot of clutter (rebuying v4-v5-v6-v7-v8 and having as many apps in your library).
- AlexandrB 9y ago
  This has a really big downside, which is that every OS upgrade now has a cost associated with it for the user. Would greatly slow adoption of new iOS & Android versions, potentially harming security.
  - jstarfish 9y ago
    True, I considered that but smartphones aren't known for longevity. Sooner or later end of service life (or just the "ooh shiny" factor) will force an upgrade on the user.
daxfohl 9y ago
In fact, this is SO true, that I think if an app were to charge $2/mo rather than 99c once, I'd be more likely to buy it. As a consumer, and especially as a tech-aware consumer, I know that something costing 99c is a cheap throwaway piece of plastic from a gumball machine. Anything worth having needs recurring updates, server-side maintenance, etc. 99c once I view as "free", which I view as "junk", which I view as "something I don't need". Rough analogies: "anything that's free, you're not the consumer; you're the product", and "here, you throw this away" -Jim Gaffigan (I think) on flyers and free samples.
Dylan16807 9y ago
It's not the developer's responsibility, but yes an app from 2008 should never stop working.
ars 9y ago
Users don't expect new features to be added forever. But they do expect that the program will work forever, even if the OS or devices change. If it helps, then take that $0.99 and earn interest on it forever, that interest should be enough to pay for updates.
exclusiv 9y ago
So true. I acquired the rights to older desktop software a few years ago that had been in use for about 10 yrs by a lot of users. The original creators only charged $50 one time. Some users thought it was $50 per computer so they would pay several times. The owner told me the support costs are too unwieldy and he wanted out. So convincing the prior users that they should pay $10-40/mo was a challenge. For many that objected, I told them the truth - that the prior creators could no longer sustain it at that price and it was actually severely underpriced. I told them they are free to use the desktop version as long as they want but that we can't support it and we are doing a membership model which will be supported - for devices now and in the future and we'll be adding new features as we had been. That helped to convert most. I agree with you that the expectations aren't inline with what it takes because a lot of software is subsidized by ads and we had a long history of desktop apps working for many years. Many users will understand if you position your response properly, assuming you don't have a better, cheaper competitor! :) Our audience is older and we still get contended on price because people will think of the value they get for what they pay for Netflix or Office. They usually understand when you say that specialty software cannot exist unless it's priced higher and that we aren't a megacorp like Microsoft.

moxious 9y ago

We're really torturing the metaphor with app updates as coffee refills, buuuuuut.... Many of us are in the software business. So we know how hard the stuff can be. But the customer doesn't, and shouldn't care. I think it's reasonable for the customer to expect updates forever. Particularly because so often, we put out a product that has bugs and problems in it. The customer is sometimes already being fairly accepting being willing to pay for a product that has problems that are yet to be fixed. The app author also has the ability to release a new app if the features warrant. So no one is forcing the publisher to give new features for free.

ben1040 9y ago
>The app author also has the ability to release a new app if the features warrant. That's easier said than done. You can't really do this without losing your customer base, links to your app in the store, sign-in tokens, etc, and you have to have some mechanism for migrating data out of one app sandbox to the other. Additionally, if you want to be fair and offer an upgrade price, the app stores don't allow this directly. Tweetbot did something clever; they wanted to charge $10 for new users but $5 for upgrades. They put the "old" version and the "new" version in a package deal bundle on the iOS App Store, and priced the bundle at $10. If you had the "old" version already, you got get a discounted upgrade by buying the bundle -- since you already owned one app in the bundle, you got a credit for that towards the full price. The app stores could fix this problem and allow publishers to set upgrade pricing, but they don't.

bbarn 9y ago

So, if you expect your users to use your product for multiple years, charge appropriately. There's a difference between an update and an upgrade. A further difference still from a subscription. I think most people are happy paying a single price for a single thing and expecting to not pay for it again - but happy to pay for the next version, that offers something more than their version.

jstarfish 9y ago

So why not do licensing based on OS revision? i.e. "You bought Space Trader for Android 6. You've since upgraded to Android 8. Cough up another $.99 for the Android 8 version, or continue enjoying what you paid for on another device running Android 6." It seems fair to me, but I could see this becoming a lot of clutter (rebuying v4-v5-v6-v7-v8 and having as many apps in your library).

AlexandrB 9y ago
This has a really big downside, which is that every OS upgrade now has a cost associated with it for the user. Would greatly slow adoption of new iOS & Android versions, potentially harming security.
- jstarfish 9y ago
  True, I considered that but smartphones aren't known for longevity. Sooner or later end of service life (or just the "ooh shiny" factor) will force an upgrade on the user.

daxfohl 9y ago

In fact, this is SO true, that I think if an app were to charge $2/mo rather than 99c once, I'd be more likely to buy it. As a consumer, and especially as a tech-aware consumer, I know that something costing 99c is a cheap throwaway piece of plastic from a gumball machine. Anything worth having needs recurring updates, server-side maintenance, etc. 99c once I view as "free", which I view as "junk", which I view as "something I don't need". Rough analogies: "anything that's free, you're not the consumer; you're the product", and "here, you throw this away" -Jim Gaffigan (I think) on flyers and free samples.

Dylan16807 9y ago

It's not the developer's responsibility, but yes an app from 2008 should never stop working.

ars 9y ago

Users don't expect new features to be added forever. But they do expect that the program will work forever, even if the OS or devices change. If it helps, then take that $0.99 and earn interest on it forever, that interest should be enough to pay for updates.

exclusiv 9y ago

So true. I acquired the rights to older desktop software a few years ago that had been in use for about 10 yrs by a lot of users. The original creators only charged $50 one time. Some users thought it was $50 per computer so they would pay several times. The owner told me the support costs are too unwieldy and he wanted out. So convincing the prior users that they should pay $10-40/mo was a challenge. For many that objected, I told them the truth - that the prior creators could no longer sustain it at that price and it was actually severely underpriced. I told them they are free to use the desktop version as long as they want but that we can't support it and we are doing a membership model which will be supported - for devices now and in the future and we'll be adding new features as we had been. That helped to convert most. I agree with you that the expectations aren't inline with what it takes because a lot of software is subsidized by ads and we had a long history of desktop apps working for many years. Many users will understand if you position your response properly, assuming you don't have a better, cheaper competitor! :) Our audience is older and we still get contended on price because people will think of the value they get for what they pay for Netflix or Office. They usually understand when you say that specialty software cannot exist unless it's priced higher and that we aren't a megacorp like Microsoft.