4 ms·

People expect updates once they've purchased an app for a few bucks. They tend not to pay more, and developers who release v2 and v3 as completely separate apps

by prawn 9y ago

People expect updates once they've purchased an app for a few bucks. They tend not to pay more, and developers who release v2 and v3 as completely separate apps are often criticised. Not to mention, export/importing data can be a new issue across apps. An upgrade could be released as an IAP, but asking for more once you've released a paid app is risky also. I tend to avoid subscription software too, but I can fully understand why developers lean towards it as a way of getting a strong return and justifying further development, taking on staff for support, etc. If the app isn't up to it, then consumers can find an alternative that can scrape by with a single price, right?

Razengan 9y ago
Pay-once apps compete with each other for my wallet only once. I can purchase them all over a given period of time. Subscription-based apps constantly compete with EVERYTHING else that I have to pay for every month. If I’m already subscribing to many apps, it reduces the chances of me subscribing to your app, even if it does not directly compete with those apps in the same category. i.e. photo-editing apps start competing with text-editing apps and games and music apps, perpetually, if they all switch to a subscription model. How is that sane? If my monthly budget needs some breathing room and I [temporarily] cancel a subscription, I lose features or even access to my existing data. It doesn’t matter how long I had been paying for, not even if I had been a subscriber for years before cancelling. If developers demand a subscription model then users should demand a “loyalty” perk, where you get to retain access to an app for N weeks after cancelling if you had previously subscribed for X months. Also, you’d think that with the total number of computing users increasing for all platforms across the world, the overall sales of apps, or at least the potential buyers to market to, must be increasing as well, compared to when we didn’t even have subscriptions in the App Store.
- checker659 9y ago
  Oh, ok. So, if your health insurance expires, you're still going to go ask for coverage, because your insurance only expired two weeks back and you were on it for the last 5 years?
  - sooheon 9y ago
    Try your best to step back and appreciate the differences between healthcare coverage and apps.
- prawn 9y ago
  "Also, you’d think that with the total number of computing users increasing for all platforms across the world..." A certain percentage of those computing users are developers creating new apps. It's hyper-competitive. If you can get a subscription product off the ground, you can double down on the product and support and get some advantages over small-time developers struggling along still servicing a userbase that paid a couple of bucks, one time, years ago. (For the record, none of our apps are subscription based. I'm just saying I can completely understand the appeal from the developers' side.)
mschuster91 9y ago
> People expect updates once they've purchased an app for a few bucks. ... and the App Store model does not allow a developer to e.g. maintain three different branches of a product (oldstable, stable, beta), with purchases tied to the branch. This makes a "classic" release flow like 1.0 is released, then 1.1 is released, then 1.2, then 2.0 (with new features, whatever), and then a patch 1.3, impossible. Unfortunately, this "only ever have a single released/maintained version" approach (that was famously pioneered by Apple in iOS itself!) has caught the entire industry - there is no way to avoid e.g. a major update because it brings a royally fucked up UI, lost/rearranged features or whatever without risking security issues. This is really really bad for enterprise customers where things like "UI overhauls" can lead to a massive, expensive training for all the users or at the very least an increased amount of helpdesk tickets.
- comex 9y ago
  Actually, many developers do exactly that by releasing each major version ("branch") as a separate app.
  - mschuster91 9y ago
    That's a hack though. Also, how do you do stuff like giving out "upgrade discounts" or discount vouchers? That's not possible at all.
    - Razengan 9y ago
      I believe some apps have done that by requiring some sort of proof of purchase for an older version, and maybe paying the developers directly at a discount, who then prove the user with a code to redeem on the App Store. Convoluted currently, but not impossible.
    - Razengan 9y ago
      Releasing major versions as separate apps is actually desirable for a number of reasons: • The users decide if and when they want to upgrade. • If a trial for a newer version is available, users can try it out before upgrading. • Users can keep older versions if they prefer the older UI etc. They’re not forced to like all and any major changes just to keep using the app. There’ve been plenty of [in]famous cases where people complained about new versions of popular apps and websites. • Generally a predictable timeframe for yearly updates. • Users don’t have to pay every month even when an app is getting no updates. • Developers are not under any pressure to release updates for the sake of updating to justify a monthly subscription. Subscription-based software generally loses some or all of these advantages. Subscription-based apps seem to favor developers more than users. Greedy developers, in my unsugarcoated opinion.

by prawn 9y ago

Razengan 9y ago

Pay-once apps compete with each other for my wallet only once. I can purchase them all over a given period of time. Subscription-based apps constantly compete with EVERYTHING else that I have to pay for every month. If I’m already subscribing to many apps, it reduces the chances of me subscribing to your app, even if it does not directly compete with those apps in the same category. i.e. photo-editing apps start competing with text-editing apps and games and music apps, perpetually, if they all switch to a subscription model. How is that sane? If my monthly budget needs some breathing room and I [temporarily] cancel a subscription, I lose features or even access to my existing data. It doesn’t matter how long I had been paying for, not even if I had been a subscriber for years before cancelling. If developers demand a subscription model then users should demand a “loyalty” perk, where you get to retain access to an app for N weeks after cancelling if you had previously subscribed for X months. Also, you’d think that with the total number of computing users increasing for all platforms across the world, the overall sales of apps, or at least the potential buyers to market to, must be increasing as well, compared to when we didn’t even have subscriptions in the App Store.

checker659 9y ago
Oh, ok. So, if your health insurance expires, you're still going to go ask for coverage, because your insurance only expired two weeks back and you were on it for the last 5 years?
- sooheon 9y ago
  Try your best to step back and appreciate the differences between healthcare coverage and apps.
prawn 9y ago
"Also, you’d think that with the total number of computing users increasing for all platforms across the world..." A certain percentage of those computing users are developers creating new apps. It's hyper-competitive. If you can get a subscription product off the ground, you can double down on the product and support and get some advantages over small-time developers struggling along still servicing a userbase that paid a couple of bucks, one time, years ago. (For the record, none of our apps are subscription based. I'm just saying I can completely understand the appeal from the developers' side.)

mschuster91 9y ago

> People expect updates once they've purchased an app for a few bucks. ... and the App Store model does not allow a developer to e.g. maintain three different branches of a product (oldstable, stable, beta), with purchases tied to the branch. This makes a "classic" release flow like 1.0 is released, then 1.1 is released, then 1.2, then 2.0 (with new features, whatever), and then a patch 1.3, impossible. Unfortunately, this "only ever have a single released/maintained version" approach (that was famously pioneered by Apple in iOS itself!) has caught the entire industry - there is no way to avoid e.g. a major update because it brings a royally fucked up UI, lost/rearranged features or whatever without risking security issues. This is really really bad for enterprise customers where things like "UI overhauls" can lead to a massive, expensive training for all the users or at the very least an increased amount of helpdesk tickets.

comex 9y ago
Actually, many developers do exactly that by releasing each major version ("branch") as a separate app.
- mschuster91 9y ago
  That's a hack though. Also, how do you do stuff like giving out "upgrade discounts" or discount vouchers? That's not possible at all.
  - Razengan 9y ago
    I believe some apps have done that by requiring some sort of proof of purchase for an older version, and maybe paying the developers directly at a discount, who then prove the user with a code to redeem on the App Store. Convoluted currently, but not impossible.
  - Razengan 9y ago
    Releasing major versions as separate apps is actually desirable for a number of reasons: • The users decide if and when they want to upgrade. • If a trial for a newer version is available, users can try it out before upgrading. • Users can keep older versions if they prefer the older UI etc. They’re not forced to like all and any major changes just to keep using the app. There’ve been plenty of [in]famous cases where people complained about new versions of popular apps and websites. • Generally a predictable timeframe for yearly updates. • Users don’t have to pay every month even when an app is getting no updates. • Developers are not under any pressure to release updates for the sake of updating to justify a monthly subscription. Subscription-based software generally loses some or all of these advantages. Subscription-based apps seem to favor developers more than users. Greedy developers, in my unsugarcoated opinion.