14 ms·

As a user, I am pretty happy about most of the negative points listed in this article. Yes, manual reviews are my firewall against too much scamming. I dont wa

As a user, I am pretty happy about most of the negative points listed in this article. Yes, manual reviews are my firewall against too much scamming. I dont want app providers to notify me about their upcoming company party. It is already fishy enough that some app providers use their own notification system to push ads. And dont get me started on paying for updates! What comes next, paying for firmware updates for devices I already own? I think the guys behind this article really have to rethink their attitude.

viraptor 7y ago
> And dont get me started on paying for updates! I think this really depends on implementation. Paying for bugfixes? No, thanks. Paying for a major version bump like new ms office where you don't really need to upgrade and will be supported anyway? Sure.
- dchest 7y ago
  What about paying for compatibility with the latest macOS? Of course, no user would like to pay for that, but the reality of Apple universe is that developers have to spend a lot of time fixing compatibility issues caused by Apple.
  - millstone 7y ago
    What example do you have in mind? Compatibility updates ought to be free point releases.
    - dchest 7y ago
      Apple constantly deprecates and removes APIs and features. Some significant examples that require rewriting and retesting a lot of code: Objective-C garbage collection, QTKit, WebView. Dealing with all that in many cases takes more resources than introducing new features, but, just like you, people expect free compatibility updates.
      - millstone 7y ago
        No, the churn rate is super-low. GC was introduced ten years ago and finally killed this year. QTKit was introduced sixteen years ago and also killed this year. WebView I believe still works! The deprecation cycle is a decade or more, and in every case there's a paved migration path (GC->ARC, QTKit->AV Foundation, WebView is trickier but for good technical reasons). This strategy and timeframe seems eminently responsible.
        saagarjha 7y ago
        WebView → WKWebView?
    - u02sgb 7y ago
      Forever?
      - millstone 7y ago
        For as long as the product is actively maintained. It's reasonable to have a free 2.x.1 release for (say) Catalina compatibility, offered simultaneously with a 3.0 release that includes new features.
    - systemtest 7y ago
      1Password 6. After an upgrade of Safari the browser plugin was no longer compatible. Users had to upgrade to 1Password 7 for a single payment of €55 or a monthly subscription of €3,99 per month.
  - viraptor 7y ago
    Honestly... I don't mind new versions to cost extra for compatibility with new MacOS. It's a stupid environment. If you choose it, you've got money to spend on app refresh every other year. You can always stay on previous major version of the OS for a long time as well. Windows 10 will likely support your apps for at least a decade. There's choice. (I'm using Mac for work. I'm likely migrating to another system instead of Catalina)
  - dwaite 7y ago
    However, that developer investment is required if they plan to keep selling their application - hardly anyone will buy an app outright without modern platform support. If you are growing your market, you can make your app a flat charge. If you are maintaining and and expanding an app for an existing user base, subscription is a better way to go (and something Apple does support well).
- FollowSteph3 7y ago
  What about upgrades due to the environment and not the app. Like OS changes etc. That’s not bug fixes but those are very real issues with very costs.
- satanspastaroll 7y ago
  I'd argue that bugfixes belong to feature updates hand in hand, and should be accounted for in the pricing
epse 7y ago
Paying for updates has been the standard software model for ages, and with good reason. It still takes money to update and add new features. It still takes time. To some extent new users can pay for this, but then developers have to severely limit the time spent on updates in order to nod spend too much, or they risk not even making a profit on the first version. That is why most "big" software packages these days are either subscription based, or pay-per-update. We've all come to expect apps to get free updates, but it's not a sustainable business model.
- taurath 7y ago
  And Apple taking 30% of that... for what? Payment processing is a 4% thing. It’s in the app developers interest to make it not have errors. It’s just for access to the market. That is the only value Apple truly brings, outside of the brand and a privacy commitment
  - lotsofpulp 7y ago
    Considering no one else seems to be able to sell access to a similar market, it seems to be a valuable thing to sell.
    - kevingadd 7y ago
      How would you sell access to the iOS market? If you're just saying 'they have full control so they can set the price', well yeah, but that doesn't automatically make it reasonable to give up most of your control and hand out 30% of your revenue in order to pick up additional customers. It seems like today in 2019 more people are deciding the customers aren't as profitable as they look.
      - lotsofpulp 7y ago
        I’m saying they have full control of something buyers want, so they can charge 30%. If their revenue starts going down due to their customers deciding 30% isn’t worth it, then the seller (Apple) will have to consider dropping their price if they want to continue selling.
krsdcbl 7y ago
I don't quite understand how SaaS-everything is fine nowadays but if you call it "paying for updates" people will be outraged
makecheck 7y ago
I’m not sure you and I are looking at the same stores. The Mac App Store alone is chock full of scams, and many of them are quite obvious (just search for the name of any popular package but there are many more). Apple does an absolutely terrible job of finding these. Meanwhile, Apple is really good at finding the most annoying reasons to reject updates from legitimate developers.
burtonator 7y ago
You're taking the worse behavior of independent software developers and using those as an excuse to accept the atrocious behavior of Apple and their app store monopoly. Apple's recent kowtow to China and blocking apps China doesn't like is a great example. If an app spams you just uninstall it... If Apple kills an app you love there's nothing you can do...
- strunz 7y ago
  You're also using the best behavior of the developers who have made it through app store as evidence that the app store process is not beneficial to users. We don't really know how many bad apps and malware have been prevented by these practices, but I would bet it's a substantial amount. Just look at all the horrible crap in Google's play store.

viraptor 7y ago

> And dont get me started on paying for updates! I think this really depends on implementation. Paying for bugfixes? No, thanks. Paying for a major version bump like new ms office where you don't really need to upgrade and will be supported anyway? Sure.

dchest 7y ago
What about paying for compatibility with the latest macOS? Of course, no user would like to pay for that, but the reality of Apple universe is that developers have to spend a lot of time fixing compatibility issues caused by Apple.
- millstone 7y ago
  What example do you have in mind? Compatibility updates ought to be free point releases.
  - dchest 7y ago
    Apple constantly deprecates and removes APIs and features. Some significant examples that require rewriting and retesting a lot of code: Objective-C garbage collection, QTKit, WebView. Dealing with all that in many cases takes more resources than introducing new features, but, just like you, people expect free compatibility updates.
    - millstone 7y ago
      No, the churn rate is super-low. GC was introduced ten years ago and finally killed this year. QTKit was introduced sixteen years ago and also killed this year. WebView I believe still works! The deprecation cycle is a decade or more, and in every case there's a paved migration path (GC->ARC, QTKit->AV Foundation, WebView is trickier but for good technical reasons). This strategy and timeframe seems eminently responsible.
      - saagarjha 7y ago
        WebView → WKWebView?
  - u02sgb 7y ago
    Forever?
    - millstone 7y ago
      For as long as the product is actively maintained. It's reasonable to have a free 2.x.1 release for (say) Catalina compatibility, offered simultaneously with a 3.0 release that includes new features.
  - systemtest 7y ago
    1Password 6. After an upgrade of Safari the browser plugin was no longer compatible. Users had to upgrade to 1Password 7 for a single payment of €55 or a monthly subscription of €3,99 per month.
- viraptor 7y ago
  Honestly... I don't mind new versions to cost extra for compatibility with new MacOS. It's a stupid environment. If you choose it, you've got money to spend on app refresh every other year. You can always stay on previous major version of the OS for a long time as well. Windows 10 will likely support your apps for at least a decade. There's choice. (I'm using Mac for work. I'm likely migrating to another system instead of Catalina)
- dwaite 7y ago
  However, that developer investment is required if they plan to keep selling their application - hardly anyone will buy an app outright without modern platform support. If you are growing your market, you can make your app a flat charge. If you are maintaining and and expanding an app for an existing user base, subscription is a better way to go (and something Apple does support well).
FollowSteph3 7y ago
What about upgrades due to the environment and not the app. Like OS changes etc. That’s not bug fixes but those are very real issues with very costs.
satanspastaroll 7y ago
I'd argue that bugfixes belong to feature updates hand in hand, and should be accounted for in the pricing

epse 7y ago

Paying for updates has been the standard software model for ages, and with good reason. It still takes money to update and add new features. It still takes time. To some extent new users can pay for this, but then developers have to severely limit the time spent on updates in order to nod spend too much, or they risk not even making a profit on the first version. That is why most "big" software packages these days are either subscription based, or pay-per-update. We've all come to expect apps to get free updates, but it's not a sustainable business model.

taurath 7y ago
And Apple taking 30% of that... for what? Payment processing is a 4% thing. It’s in the app developers interest to make it not have errors. It’s just for access to the market. That is the only value Apple truly brings, outside of the brand and a privacy commitment
- lotsofpulp 7y ago
  Considering no one else seems to be able to sell access to a similar market, it seems to be a valuable thing to sell.
  - kevingadd 7y ago
    How would you sell access to the iOS market? If you're just saying 'they have full control so they can set the price', well yeah, but that doesn't automatically make it reasonable to give up most of your control and hand out 30% of your revenue in order to pick up additional customers. It seems like today in 2019 more people are deciding the customers aren't as profitable as they look.
    - lotsofpulp 7y ago
      I’m saying they have full control of something buyers want, so they can charge 30%. If their revenue starts going down due to their customers deciding 30% isn’t worth it, then the seller (Apple) will have to consider dropping their price if they want to continue selling.

krsdcbl 7y ago

I don't quite understand how SaaS-everything is fine nowadays but if you call it "paying for updates" people will be outraged

makecheck 7y ago

I’m not sure you and I are looking at the same stores. The Mac App Store alone is chock full of scams, and many of them are quite obvious (just search for the name of any popular package but there are many more). Apple does an absolutely terrible job of finding these. Meanwhile, Apple is really good at finding the most annoying reasons to reject updates from legitimate developers.

burtonator 7y ago

You're taking the worse behavior of independent software developers and using those as an excuse to accept the atrocious behavior of Apple and their app store monopoly. Apple's recent kowtow to China and blocking apps China doesn't like is a great example. If an app spams you just uninstall it... If Apple kills an app you love there's nothing you can do...

strunz 7y ago
You're also using the best behavior of the developers who have made it through app store as evidence that the app store process is not beneficial to users. We don't really know how many bad apps and malware have been prevented by these practices, but I would bet it's a substantial amount. Just look at all the horrible crap in Google's play store.