10 ms·

In this same vein, apps that goto v2 then v3 under new app names (i.e Omnifocus) also feel a bit scammy. I understand the monetize angle, but they could be alie

In this same vein, apps that goto v2 then v3 under new app names (i.e Omnifocus) also feel a bit scammy. I understand the monetize angle, but they could be alienating users with large repurchase fees.

dawnerd 8y ago
Tweetbot has done that too - conveniently right before twitter cut off some api access making the app just an expensive ad free twitter client. I have no doubt they quickly pushed out v4 just to get a bump of cash. V5 just came out too (although this time a free upgrade).
- bdcravens 8y ago
  v5 does prompt for an IAP (they're calling it a tip) Personally I paid the highest option ($4.99) because I know I've gotten plenty of value out of it, but I suspect most won't and there'll be pitchfork gathering about their "spammy popups"
  - lancewiggs 8y ago
    I paid for the upgrade just before deprecation of the API and except Tweetbot, and now their spammy pop ups are turning my admiration to annoyance and worse. The only reason I see for it is that they have decided they product (through Twitter’s actions) is doomed and are trying to milk has hard as they can.
oflannabhra 8y ago
I’m not sure what is scammy about that. That is how software was purchased for decades. ie, photoshop 1-7 & CS 1-6. It’s not like version x-1 stops working and forces you to purchase the new one.
- prklmn 8y ago
  A lot of times if you update iOS, the app does stop working.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
  - Endy 8y ago
    Then don't update iOS and turn off updates if you have a mission-critical program running on a particular device?
    - MOARDONGZPLZ 8y ago
      Lots of updates include security updates. You're saying I should choose to be less secure so I don't have to pay for an app? That's asinine.
      - unreal37 8y ago
        No, he's saying you should pay to update to the latest version. This notion that something you bought 8 years ago needs to continue to work, even though the operating system that it runs on changes, is just not reality.
        Endy 8y ago
        That's not what I'm getting at. I believe in crystallized design. Once something is fixed, don't go breaking it. If any changes for any reason break something I need, I'm not introducing those changes into my system, because I need it to work, and I need it to work the way it works right now on my setup - not the way some other fool thinks it should work in the future. So yes, I do believe that something I installed 8 years ago, which has worked perfectly for the last 8 years and has become foundational to my workflow, needs to continue working the exact same way it has.
        stouset 8y ago
mcphage 8y ago
> they could be alienating users with large repurchase fees You’re under no obligation to repurchase the new version.
xoa 8y ago
Can you please expand your reasoning about this? Developing major new versions of software costs money, it has never been the case in the entire history of the computer market that one general retail purchase of commercial software would get you all updates of all kinds forever. It's normal that all minor updates are free, and the next major version is a paid upgrade at a marginal difference to full retail. This is economics that both matches people's common sense ("I'm paying for the improvements and another period of minor support, but not what I already paid for") and has favorable economic incentives (upgrades are not guaranteed, the developer does in fact need to convince people it's worth it). In one of Apple's biggest most stupid and infuriating utter fuckups of all time with the App Store, they eliminated this whole mechanism by offering no upgrade support. But the need to get ongoing revenue for updated versions didn't go away, so devs do what is allowed within Apple's stupid system. They either make it subscription, or they create a "new" app where the major version number is part of the name and sell it again, maybe averaging out the price (or offering a reduced fee for the first week say), or some other suboptimal system (new features get introduced incrementally as IAPs say). It's not even the slightest remotest bit "scammy" though. To take your own example OmniFocus v3 is a major update following years and years of support of v2, it's completely reasonable it'd be a paid upgrade. And the Mac version, on Omni's store, is a paid upgrade (or a free upgrade if you bought it in the last year, outside of Apple's garbage market you can do stuff like that) for owners of v2 (they can keep using v2 of course). It's just "OmniFocus" regardless though, this is hardly some weird thing. It's just that on the App Store they are forced by Apple to do something else.
- nawtacawp 8y ago
  The issue is how the process is perceived by the user. The average user is not going to understand why a new app has to be installed/purchased. It is perceived by mass as a bit scammy. Personally, I would rather pay a yearly subscription similiar to adobe than to have to repurchase every new update.
  - rayiner 8y ago
    > The issue is how the process is perceived by the user Goddamn kids. Paying for “Omnifocus 3” seems totally intuitive to me. Paying for major version updates is just how things were back before free/ad-sponsered crap killed the market for software.
blub 8y ago
It's not scammy, but it's certainly expensive in the case of OmniFocus. Now I have the option of paying ~20 EUR for 2->3 and it's not really worth the price for the kind of features one gets. Another annoying thing is that IAPs aren't subject to family sharing, so one is essentially buying a really expensive todo app (40-50 €) that only runs on one or two devices. They do have an unique feature as far as I know: local encryption. In the end v2 is still working fine, so I can't complain too much.
- wrboyce 8y ago
  OmniFocus is far more than a basic todo app, if you are using it as one then I think you are using the wrong tool (or at the very least, a very expensive and unnecessary tool).
- prepend 8y ago
  I was a big fan of OmniGraffle years ago and paid either $200 or $100 for it. Then I got hit with something like this and never bought another Omni product. I do pay for lots of other software with cleaner models (Jetbrains is a good example).
  - blub 8y ago
    The exact same thing happened to me with OmniGraffle. The old version still works, which is great, but OmniGroup probably won't get any more money from me for that particular product. Customers like us will likely pose some problems for companies like Omni, so I don't see why several people are trying to dismiss these stories.
wincy 8y ago
I’m annoyed about 1Blocker coming out with 1Blocker X a couple weeks after I bought the app. And now, even though 1Blocker works fine, they updated it to spam me anytime I open it with adverts about their new program. I understand it costs money to develop but I literally just paid them.
- jrowley 8y ago
  And I mean the name, 1Blocker - I think it was marketed at some point in time as the only blocker you'll ever need, just for them to release a new version with a new name.
- prepend 8y ago
  It cost them money to code in the annoy-o-tron ads :)
  - wincy 8y ago
    Hah yeah of course it did! It's weird, the worst that would happen back in the day was a program on your PC would get abandoned. On iOS, you're liable to download an "update" to something (like Galaxy on Fire 2 HD, which WAS a great space game for iOS) and suddenly it's been acquired by a new company, and the $9 you spent has been turned into a F2P garbage, ad-ridden experience.
bdcravens 8y ago
I don't agree this is even remotely the same. The expectation of free updates for life isn't always reasonable.
- prepend 8y ago
  As a user of hundreds of programs with no direct cost for updates decades after purchase, I find this perfectly reasonable. I didn’t say free as this cost is included in the price at purchase. Vendors can be explicit about their fees and updates and let me choose to buy or not buy. There’s lots of markets with natural charge points for updates (windows and office for example). A vendor not calling out the price for updates and then renaming and stopping updates is sleazy definitely and maybe scammy. There are lots of models for software with pros and cons. The only thing that really tweaks me is the bait and switch after my purchase. Or the exploitation of an implicit allowance to my detriment. Theoretically Mac has been providing updates to purchases made in 2000[0]. Granted, they used to charge and I doubt you have hardware that will still run the updates. Microsoft patched Server 2003 in 2017 [1]. Not to mention the reason why lots of OSS is still used because it allows “free updates for life.” There’s no such thing as true free (tnstaafl), but there are lots of companies willing to be clear about update costs. [0] https://robservatory.com/a-useless-analysis-of-os-x-release-dates/ https://robservatory.com/a-useless-analysis-of-os-x-release-... [1] https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/security-updates/securitybulletins/2014/ms14-064 https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/security-updates/securitybu...
  - bdcravens 8y ago
    We're talking 2 different things. You're pointing to examples of bug and security fixes. When I say updates, I'm referring to new and improved functionality. (in other words, probably a terminology issue: "update" vs "upgrade") Software like Omnifocus 3 adds new functionality, or as you put it, "natural charge points for updates".
    - prepend 8y ago
      Mac OS has feature updates. Those were just two examples and it’s not just security. I’m not against charging for feature updates, I’m against companies lying “Omnifocus costs $xx” and then changing their mind later to charge a new price even if you only want security updates.

dawnerd 8y ago

Tweetbot has done that too - conveniently right before twitter cut off some api access making the app just an expensive ad free twitter client. I have no doubt they quickly pushed out v4 just to get a bump of cash. V5 just came out too (although this time a free upgrade).

bdcravens 8y ago
v5 does prompt for an IAP (they're calling it a tip) Personally I paid the highest option ($4.99) because I know I've gotten plenty of value out of it, but I suspect most won't and there'll be pitchfork gathering about their "spammy popups"
- lancewiggs 8y ago
  I paid for the upgrade just before deprecation of the API and except Tweetbot, and now their spammy pop ups are turning my admiration to annoyance and worse. The only reason I see for it is that they have decided they product (through Twitter’s actions) is doomed and are trying to milk has hard as they can.

oflannabhra 8y ago

I’m not sure what is scammy about that. That is how software was purchased for decades. ie, photoshop 1-7 & CS 1-6. It’s not like version x-1 stops working and forces you to purchase the new one.

prklmn 8y ago
A lot of times if you update iOS, the app does stop working.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- Endy 8y ago
  Then don't update iOS and turn off updates if you have a mission-critical program running on a particular device?
  - MOARDONGZPLZ 8y ago
    Lots of updates include security updates. You're saying I should choose to be less secure so I don't have to pay for an app? That's asinine.
    - unreal37 8y ago
      No, he's saying you should pay to update to the latest version. This notion that something you bought 8 years ago needs to continue to work, even though the operating system that it runs on changes, is just not reality.
      - Endy 8y ago
        That's not what I'm getting at. I believe in crystallized design. Once something is fixed, don't go breaking it. If any changes for any reason break something I need, I'm not introducing those changes into my system, because I need it to work, and I need it to work the way it works right now on my setup - not the way some other fool thinks it should work in the future. So yes, I do believe that something I installed 8 years ago, which has worked perfectly for the last 8 years and has become foundational to my workflow, needs to continue working the exact same way it has.
        stouset 8y ago

mcphage 8y ago

> they could be alienating users with large repurchase fees You’re under no obligation to repurchase the new version.

xoa 8y ago

Can you please expand your reasoning about this? Developing major new versions of software costs money, it has never been the case in the entire history of the computer market that one general retail purchase of commercial software would get you all updates of all kinds forever. It's normal that all minor updates are free, and the next major version is a paid upgrade at a marginal difference to full retail. This is economics that both matches people's common sense ("I'm paying for the improvements and another period of minor support, but not what I already paid for") and has favorable economic incentives (upgrades are not guaranteed, the developer does in fact need to convince people it's worth it). In one of Apple's biggest most stupid and infuriating utter fuckups of all time with the App Store, they eliminated this whole mechanism by offering no upgrade support. But the need to get ongoing revenue for updated versions didn't go away, so devs do what is allowed within Apple's stupid system. They either make it subscription, or they create a "new" app where the major version number is part of the name and sell it again, maybe averaging out the price (or offering a reduced fee for the first week say), or some other suboptimal system (new features get introduced incrementally as IAPs say). It's not even the slightest remotest bit "scammy" though. To take your own example OmniFocus v3 is a major update following years and years of support of v2, it's completely reasonable it'd be a paid upgrade. And the Mac version, on Omni's store, is a paid upgrade (or a free upgrade if you bought it in the last year, outside of Apple's garbage market you can do stuff like that) for owners of v2 (they can keep using v2 of course). It's just "OmniFocus" regardless though, this is hardly some weird thing. It's just that on the App Store they are forced by Apple to do something else.

nawtacawp 8y ago
The issue is how the process is perceived by the user. The average user is not going to understand why a new app has to be installed/purchased. It is perceived by mass as a bit scammy. Personally, I would rather pay a yearly subscription similiar to adobe than to have to repurchase every new update.
- rayiner 8y ago
  > The issue is how the process is perceived by the user Goddamn kids. Paying for “Omnifocus 3” seems totally intuitive to me. Paying for major version updates is just how things were back before free/ad-sponsered crap killed the market for software.

blub 8y ago

It's not scammy, but it's certainly expensive in the case of OmniFocus. Now I have the option of paying ~20 EUR for 2->3 and it's not really worth the price for the kind of features one gets. Another annoying thing is that IAPs aren't subject to family sharing, so one is essentially buying a really expensive todo app (40-50 €) that only runs on one or two devices. They do have an unique feature as far as I know: local encryption. In the end v2 is still working fine, so I can't complain too much.

wrboyce 8y ago
OmniFocus is far more than a basic todo app, if you are using it as one then I think you are using the wrong tool (or at the very least, a very expensive and unnecessary tool).
prepend 8y ago
I was a big fan of OmniGraffle years ago and paid either $200 or $100 for it. Then I got hit with something like this and never bought another Omni product. I do pay for lots of other software with cleaner models (Jetbrains is a good example).
- blub 8y ago
  The exact same thing happened to me with OmniGraffle. The old version still works, which is great, but OmniGroup probably won't get any more money from me for that particular product. Customers like us will likely pose some problems for companies like Omni, so I don't see why several people are trying to dismiss these stories.

wincy 8y ago

I’m annoyed about 1Blocker coming out with 1Blocker X a couple weeks after I bought the app. And now, even though 1Blocker works fine, they updated it to spam me anytime I open it with adverts about their new program. I understand it costs money to develop but I literally just paid them.

jrowley 8y ago
And I mean the name, 1Blocker - I think it was marketed at some point in time as the only blocker you'll ever need, just for them to release a new version with a new name.
prepend 8y ago
It cost them money to code in the annoy-o-tron ads :)
- wincy 8y ago
  Hah yeah of course it did! It's weird, the worst that would happen back in the day was a program on your PC would get abandoned. On iOS, you're liable to download an "update" to something (like Galaxy on Fire 2 HD, which WAS a great space game for iOS) and suddenly it's been acquired by a new company, and the $9 you spent has been turned into a F2P garbage, ad-ridden experience.

bdcravens 8y ago

I don't agree this is even remotely the same. The expectation of free updates for life isn't always reasonable.

prepend 8y ago
As a user of hundreds of programs with no direct cost for updates decades after purchase, I find this perfectly reasonable. I didn’t say free as this cost is included in the price at purchase. Vendors can be explicit about their fees and updates and let me choose to buy or not buy. There’s lots of markets with natural charge points for updates (windows and office for example). A vendor not calling out the price for updates and then renaming and stopping updates is sleazy definitely and maybe scammy. There are lots of models for software with pros and cons. The only thing that really tweaks me is the bait and switch after my purchase. Or the exploitation of an implicit allowance to my detriment. Theoretically Mac has been providing updates to purchases made in 2000[0]. Granted, they used to charge and I doubt you have hardware that will still run the updates. Microsoft patched Server 2003 in 2017 [1]. Not to mention the reason why lots of OSS is still used because it allows “free updates for life.” There’s no such thing as true free (tnstaafl), but there are lots of companies willing to be clear about update costs. [0] https://robservatory.com/a-useless-analysis-of-os-x-release-dates/ https://robservatory.com/a-useless-analysis-of-os-x-release-... [1] https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/security-updates/securitybulletins/2014/ms14-064 https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/security-updates/securitybu...
- bdcravens 8y ago
  We're talking 2 different things. You're pointing to examples of bug and security fixes. When I say updates, I'm referring to new and improved functionality. (in other words, probably a terminology issue: "update" vs "upgrade") Software like Omnifocus 3 adds new functionality, or as you put it, "natural charge points for updates".
  - prepend 8y ago
    Mac OS has feature updates. Those were just two examples and it’s not just security. I’m not against charging for feature updates, I’m against companies lying “Omnifocus costs $xx” and then changing their mind later to charge a new price even if you only want security updates.