3 ms·

I agree. I'm really sick of Apple's handling of their App Store. It's been nearly 14 years and the only app distribution models Apple permits are pay once (with

I agree. I'm really sick of Apple's handling of their App Store. It's been nearly 14 years and the only app distribution models Apple permits are pay once (with possible IAP), free with IAP, and subscription. Still no ability for developers to provide paid upgrades or "active subscription gives you updates" models. I think Apple has done more than anyone to turn software into a rental business where every calendar and to-do app now needs its own subscription. I love using the payment and subscription management systems in iOS - it's much better than many bespoke systems - but it's not worth having to put up with their subscription-philia.

judge2020 5y ago
> Still no ability for developers to provide paid upgrades or "active subscription gives you updates" models. While not via the app store itself, you're expected to lock new features behind a new in-app purchase sku, while still providing (security|stability) updates to users who aren't going to pay for new features.
- ytpete 5y ago
  That doesn't seem like quite the same model though - a new customer has to purchase the base app plus all IAPs in order to gain the full feature set. Whereas in the traditional paid upgrades model, when you pay the full app price you get all current features and then you can pay smaller incremental prices in the future for new-feature updates.
  - brimble 5y ago
    You can still structure the IAPs to account for that, no? There's nothing stopping you from creating arbitrary bundles of IAPs, and pricing those bundles separately. One's an upgrade and presented to people who've already bought the last version, another's for new users, and priced higher, but includes the stuff from the earlier version(s).
- outcoldman 5y ago
  I tried to sell my app in the ways: 1. Free and IAP for Pro features. I knew there are going to be only like 20% of users who would purchase it. And I was fine with that. With this model I got a lot of bad reviews, and some of the felt like fake reviews (my guess from some fake competitive apps, that can generate those fake reviews, like we are talking about in the link - Openly). 2. Because I tired of fake reviews and bad ratings, I have changed the model to something like 50% pay for basic app, 50% for Pro features. Easy change, considering I did not need to change anything in the code. Just change the prices. But now there were real reviews of people who complained about why do you need to pay for Pro if they already purchased the app. Or support emails saying "They purchased a Pro version of the app, but app still asks them to purchase Pro". Which was confusing at first, but at the end I realized that if user pays for an app, he already thinks it is a Pro version. My guess because there are other apps that use "Lite" (free with ads) and "Pro" (paid and no ads) in their names. 3. After that I have removed IAP and made app 100% paid. Ratings recovered from 3.8 to 4.5. I believe I still make the same amount of money. But the idea to give a free version of the app, just did not work for me, I guess.
  - starting_fresh 5y ago
    I like that you are selling a frontend for the OS URI handler for 10$. And then there is someone scamming you out of your revenue. A tech savvy standup comedian should be able to get a bit out of this :-)
    - outcoldman 5y ago
      My app makes about 1-2k a month. My guess that those free with IAP apps can make easily the same amount. That will be a very good salary for someone, for example, in India. And scamming with a little profit makes it easier to stay away from some of the eyes.
  - criddell 5y ago
    I think some apps create two entries in the app store. One is often something like HN Lite which is the free version and then HN Pro for the paid version. But then I guess you have the problem of reviews being split over the two "different" apps.
Karunamon 5y ago
>Still no ability for developers to provide paid upgrades or "active subscription gives you updates" models. As a user, I'm glad that neither of those things are supported. Given how often upgrades either remove functionality or otherwise make my experience worse, I am glad that developers are required to push an entirely new application if they want users to pay again, rather than being able to coast on their old ratings and reviews. This gives me ultimate power to determine which version of the application I wish to run. Additionally, I am quite over the nickel and diming of every other bloody application being a subscription.
lern_too_spel 5y ago
Can't you offer an upgrade IAP if you know they have purchased the previous version via IAP?
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
tedunangst 5y ago
If devs really wanted to, they could list a v2 upgrade product separately in the store, no? $10 for v2, $5 for v2 upgrade. Upgrade app has no functionality except "paste key" button, which unlocks everything after tapping "copy key" in v1 app. Or however you want to pass data between them.
- a_t48 5y ago
  There's a good chance this would not pass several app store guidelines and be rejected.
- 2muchcoffeeman 5y ago
  C’mon, would you buy that?
- eddyg 5y ago
  App Store bundles are a potential solution, especially since developers can now unlist an app so it can't be found unless there's a direct link to it. It's not perfect, but it's a workable approach. Say you've had FooBarWizard in the App Store for a couple years at 99¢ and want to offer "upgrade pricing" to the all-new FooBarWizard 2 (which will be $1.99). Add FooBarWizard 2 in the App Store. Publish a new version of FooBarWizard that includes an announcement that "FooBarWizard 2 is now available in a specially-priced upgrade bundle" (a one-time pop-up or something, and then a mention on the Settings screen, for example) so existing customers know about it. Create a bundle in the App Store with FooBarWizard and FooBarWizard 2 priced at $1.99, then unlist FooBarWizard. The price of the bundle has to be at least as high as the most expensive app in the bundle. The net cost to the user is the difference between the bundle price and what was paid for the original app. So an existing user can buy the bundle and get FooBarWizard 2 for the "upgrade price" of $1. (A "new user" that tries to buy the 2-item bundle that only has 1 item pays $1.99 and still only gets FooBarWizard 2, because the original FooBarWizard is unlisted.)
lkxijlewlf 5y ago
> I think Apple has done more than anyone to turn software into a rental business where every calendar and to-do app now needs its own subscription. All part of the plan: https://appleinsider.com/articles/18/08/14/apple-met-with-developers-to-2017-to-push-app-subscriptions https://appleinsider.com/articles/18/08/14/apple-met-with-de...
kderbyma 5y ago
I think of apple as anti-software. they sell physical/digital products. but they don't do software.

judge2020 5y ago

> Still no ability for developers to provide paid upgrades or "active subscription gives you updates" models. While not via the app store itself, you're expected to lock new features behind a new in-app purchase sku, while still providing (security|stability) updates to users who aren't going to pay for new features.

ytpete 5y ago
That doesn't seem like quite the same model though - a new customer has to purchase the base app plus all IAPs in order to gain the full feature set. Whereas in the traditional paid upgrades model, when you pay the full app price you get all current features and then you can pay smaller incremental prices in the future for new-feature updates.
- brimble 5y ago
  You can still structure the IAPs to account for that, no? There's nothing stopping you from creating arbitrary bundles of IAPs, and pricing those bundles separately. One's an upgrade and presented to people who've already bought the last version, another's for new users, and priced higher, but includes the stuff from the earlier version(s).
outcoldman 5y ago
I tried to sell my app in the ways: 1. Free and IAP for Pro features. I knew there are going to be only like 20% of users who would purchase it. And I was fine with that. With this model I got a lot of bad reviews, and some of the felt like fake reviews (my guess from some fake competitive apps, that can generate those fake reviews, like we are talking about in the link - Openly). 2. Because I tired of fake reviews and bad ratings, I have changed the model to something like 50% pay for basic app, 50% for Pro features. Easy change, considering I did not need to change anything in the code. Just change the prices. But now there were real reviews of people who complained about why do you need to pay for Pro if they already purchased the app. Or support emails saying "They purchased a Pro version of the app, but app still asks them to purchase Pro". Which was confusing at first, but at the end I realized that if user pays for an app, he already thinks it is a Pro version. My guess because there are other apps that use "Lite" (free with ads) and "Pro" (paid and no ads) in their names. 3. After that I have removed IAP and made app 100% paid. Ratings recovered from 3.8 to 4.5. I believe I still make the same amount of money. But the idea to give a free version of the app, just did not work for me, I guess.
- starting_fresh 5y ago
  I like that you are selling a frontend for the OS URI handler for 10$. And then there is someone scamming you out of your revenue. A tech savvy standup comedian should be able to get a bit out of this :-)
  - outcoldman 5y ago
    My app makes about 1-2k a month. My guess that those free with IAP apps can make easily the same amount. That will be a very good salary for someone, for example, in India. And scamming with a little profit makes it easier to stay away from some of the eyes.
- criddell 5y ago
  I think some apps create two entries in the app store. One is often something like HN Lite which is the free version and then HN Pro for the paid version. But then I guess you have the problem of reviews being split over the two "different" apps.

Karunamon 5y ago

>Still no ability for developers to provide paid upgrades or "active subscription gives you updates" models. As a user, I'm glad that neither of those things are supported. Given how often upgrades either remove functionality or otherwise make my experience worse, I am glad that developers are required to push an entirely new application if they want users to pay again, rather than being able to coast on their old ratings and reviews. This gives me ultimate power to determine which version of the application I wish to run. Additionally, I am quite over the nickel and diming of every other bloody application being a subscription.

lern_too_spel 5y ago

Can't you offer an upgrade IAP if you know they have purchased the previous version via IAP?

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

tedunangst 5y ago

If devs really wanted to, they could list a v2 upgrade product separately in the store, no? $10 for v2, $5 for v2 upgrade. Upgrade app has no functionality except "paste key" button, which unlocks everything after tapping "copy key" in v1 app. Or however you want to pass data between them.

a_t48 5y ago
There's a good chance this would not pass several app store guidelines and be rejected.
2muchcoffeeman 5y ago
C’mon, would you buy that?
eddyg 5y ago
App Store bundles are a potential solution, especially since developers can now unlist an app so it can't be found unless there's a direct link to it. It's not perfect, but it's a workable approach. Say you've had FooBarWizard in the App Store for a couple years at 99¢ and want to offer "upgrade pricing" to the all-new FooBarWizard 2 (which will be $1.99). Add FooBarWizard 2 in the App Store. Publish a new version of FooBarWizard that includes an announcement that "FooBarWizard 2 is now available in a specially-priced upgrade bundle" (a one-time pop-up or something, and then a mention on the Settings screen, for example) so existing customers know about it. Create a bundle in the App Store with FooBarWizard and FooBarWizard 2 priced at $1.99, then unlist FooBarWizard. The price of the bundle has to be at least as high as the most expensive app in the bundle. The net cost to the user is the difference between the bundle price and what was paid for the original app. So an existing user can buy the bundle and get FooBarWizard 2 for the "upgrade price" of $1. (A "new user" that tries to buy the 2-item bundle that only has 1 item pays $1.99 and still only gets FooBarWizard 2, because the original FooBarWizard is unlisted.)

lkxijlewlf 5y ago

> I think Apple has done more than anyone to turn software into a rental business where every calendar and to-do app now needs its own subscription. All part of the plan: https://appleinsider.com/articles/18/08/14/apple-met-with-developers-to-2017-to-push-app-subscriptions https://appleinsider.com/articles/18/08/14/apple-met-with-de...

kderbyma 5y ago

I think of apple as anti-software. they sell physical/digital products. but they don't do software.