6 ms·

Overall, nice. But it immediately hits a pet peeve of mine: requiring an in-app purchase to enable native features built into my device’s OS. In this case, $6

by davely 3y ago

Overall, nice. But it immediately hits a pet peeve of mine: requiring an in-app purchase to enable native features built into my device’s OS. In this case, $6 US for dark mode.

prepend 3y ago
I get annoyed by these things too based on some sort of perceived cost/value of the feature being available and implemented, but paygated. Id rather just have a “donate $6 to help dev” in app purchase as it seems more authentic. However, maybe there are really people who think dark mode is worth $6. Kids raised on Roblox seem to have no ethical issue with paying $5 for a digital hat that is just flipping a bit.
- spiderice 3y ago
  It isn’t flipping a bit, it’s designing an entire free to play game, getting millions of users, designing a hat, then flipping a bit. And about a million other things not mentioned.
  - jallen_dot_dev 3y ago
    Not to mention pretty much anything these days can be reduced down to "flipping a bit." As a software developer I flip bits for my employer, and in exchange, they tell my bank to flip some bits in their DB.
    - satvikpendem 3y ago
      Indeed, the sort of reductionistic argument that the GP is making is simply too simplistic to be useful. It's like saying making a chair is just rearranging atoms and therefore it should be free as well.
      - prepend 3y ago
        The difference is that making a chair involves labor and atoms. Enabling a digital hat involves neither. If a wizard could magically duplicate chairs, I’d have the same argument. Why charge $5 for something that costs $0 to replicate. The design of the hat and the system to run it costs something. The design of the chair and the workshop to build it costs something. Those are fixed costs. It’s the marginal cost that is very different. I’m not even against charging people for digital hats (I paid $5 after all), I’d just rather companies be more straightforward. Id rather pay $60 for a game once and not be microtransactioned. Id rather pay $6 (or not since I don’t like this app) once than pay to enable features that clearly cost nothing or very little to implement. App makers can charge whatever they like. And potential customers can complain about how much it sucks trying to convince app makers to build in a way I think is better for society (ie, straightforward prices for things rather than income streams from payments). But I could be wrong.
  - prepend 3y ago
    That particular hat is flipping a bit. Designing the game is a separate cost. I played many a game that cost $20 and had thousands of hats so there’s many successful business plans that don’t involve free to play and then charging $5 for flipping a bit to enable my character to have a hat.
- kumarm 3y ago
  >>donate $6 to help dev No other profession probably degrades themselves as much as developers. If his app is worth it, people would pay or else they don't. No developer need to beg for money if they are good at their craft.
  - satvikpendem 3y ago
    Agreed, no one who sells chairs will make them for free then ask for a $X "donation." But somehow people think devs should make their own stuff free too and ask for donations. If you like the product at a given price, buy it, and if you don't like either, don't buy it, same as any other good. And people will pay $60 for physical items but balk at $0.99 apps and digital goods, it's strange.
  - prepend 3y ago
    Id rather also pay for the software. My point is charging $6 for dark mode is still “begging.” I like the shareware model where people pay what they can, or what they perceive the value to be. I don’t think this is begging. Programming is kind of unique because the marginal cost of production is near zero. I think this is a feature, not a bug and why it’s possible to have single person dev companies that are quite lucrative.
    - satvikpendem 3y ago
      People who offer their labor as shareware will tend towards making 0 dollars. That's just the reality of it, if people don't have to pay, they won't. If you want to make money, you should...charge people money.
      - prepend 3y ago
        That’s not true at all. Check out id software. They made gobs of money through shareware. And of course there’s lots of open source developers who are excellent and donate their time with only expecting $0.
- coin 3y ago
  > that is just flipping a bit The bit is flipped at runtime or compile time. In the old days you'd pay for an upgrade and get a new binary with the feature compiled in. Nowadays the feature is compiled in and gated at runtime. In the end it's the same.
rollcat 3y ago
Agree. Apps using AppKit support dark mode by default, with zero input from the developer. This isn't even a matter of preference, but basic accessibility. If the author really wishes to put this feature behind a purchase, "follow system settings" should be the free default.
- tarentel 3y ago
  It does not work by default and it does require input from the developer. The UIKit API allows you to detect that you have it enabled but it doesn't magically redefine all the colors for you.
  - marcellus23 3y ago
    Not quite. If you use the UIKit system colors, it requires no work from the developer. The colors are semantic and automatically adapt to light/dark mode and high contrast mode. It only requires manual work if you have custom colors, or you do your own drawing.
hnand 3y ago
I'll think about a better approach of monetizing the app. I always struggle when trying to choose what should be behind an in-app purchase. In this case I just picked the least restrictive option of what the popular competitor apps do (you can still use the dark mode, but it gets switched back when the session ends). Judging from the feedback on these apps I assumed that people are fine with it.
- nikodunk 3y ago
  I think you made a good call. The counter-suggestion is “make a donate option” which generally is ignored by most and I doubt will pay you for your time. At $6 for dark mode, this is essentially a donate option anyway. People like free stuff.
- leesalminen 3y ago
  FWIW, I think the pricing scheme you’ve come up with is fine. People will complain about anything, even free stuff. It’s clear you put some thought into pricing and have avoided the subscription route which is what most people will complain about. I wouldn’t put much stock into the complaints here.
- zamnos 3y ago
  It's fine. Not all complaints deserve a response, some people just like complaining. The other thing is follow through is non-existent. Outside of a signed business contract, when an individual says "I'd pay if only X", assume they won't have the patience to wait for X to be implemented, and then find you again to pay you. It's far more likely they'll just deal with their problem a different way.
wahnfrieden 3y ago
apple has a rule against charging for platform-default available features
- joshmanders 3y ago
  Dark mode is not a platform-default available feature. It's a setting in the OS that tells apps that you may prefer a darker variant, but it's still up to the app to implement the work required to make that happen. That is a feature of the app and can be charged for, hence why he does it and the app is still in the app store approved.
  - wahnfrieden 3y ago
    in swiftui you get it by default by using any system component, it is NOT only a flag the developer receives. they have this rule against restricting icloud/cloudkit sync too, which the dev needs to opt into. the reason they can charge for it is that apple review is uneven and unpredictable.
hombre_fatal 3y ago
I don’t see the problem. The app is basically a generous demo lacking only creature comforts until you pay. That’s better than every other pay scheme I can think of since you have the option to do without.
- tinus_hn 3y ago
  I’m not complaining about a free/cheap app from a small developer but the guidelines say you’re not supposed to gate OS or hardware features behind in-app purchase, so it may lead to refusal at any time.
livinglist 3y ago
At $6, you really are not paying to use the dark mode, you are paying to appreciate the value it brings to you, nobody is forcing you to use the app.
iknowstuff 3y ago
You get a full app for free, no subscription, and still complain? man you are so cheap.
- davely 3y ago
  I think I was clear in my criticism with regard to the app pricing, which has nothing to do with your points.

by davely 3y ago

Overall, nice. But it immediately hits a pet peeve of mine: requiring an in-app purchase to enable native features built into my device’s OS. In this case, $6 US for dark mode.

prepend 3y ago

I get annoyed by these things too based on some sort of perceived cost/value of the feature being available and implemented, but paygated. Id rather just have a “donate $6 to help dev” in app purchase as it seems more authentic. However, maybe there are really people who think dark mode is worth $6. Kids raised on Roblox seem to have no ethical issue with paying $5 for a digital hat that is just flipping a bit.

spiderice 3y ago
It isn’t flipping a bit, it’s designing an entire free to play game, getting millions of users, designing a hat, then flipping a bit. And about a million other things not mentioned.
- jallen_dot_dev 3y ago
  Not to mention pretty much anything these days can be reduced down to "flipping a bit." As a software developer I flip bits for my employer, and in exchange, they tell my bank to flip some bits in their DB.
  - satvikpendem 3y ago
    Indeed, the sort of reductionistic argument that the GP is making is simply too simplistic to be useful. It's like saying making a chair is just rearranging atoms and therefore it should be free as well.
    - prepend 3y ago
      The difference is that making a chair involves labor and atoms. Enabling a digital hat involves neither. If a wizard could magically duplicate chairs, I’d have the same argument. Why charge $5 for something that costs $0 to replicate. The design of the hat and the system to run it costs something. The design of the chair and the workshop to build it costs something. Those are fixed costs. It’s the marginal cost that is very different. I’m not even against charging people for digital hats (I paid $5 after all), I’d just rather companies be more straightforward. Id rather pay $60 for a game once and not be microtransactioned. Id rather pay $6 (or not since I don’t like this app) once than pay to enable features that clearly cost nothing or very little to implement. App makers can charge whatever they like. And potential customers can complain about how much it sucks trying to convince app makers to build in a way I think is better for society (ie, straightforward prices for things rather than income streams from payments). But I could be wrong.
- prepend 3y ago
  That particular hat is flipping a bit. Designing the game is a separate cost. I played many a game that cost $20 and had thousands of hats so there’s many successful business plans that don’t involve free to play and then charging $5 for flipping a bit to enable my character to have a hat.
kumarm 3y ago
>>donate $6 to help dev No other profession probably degrades themselves as much as developers. If his app is worth it, people would pay or else they don't. No developer need to beg for money if they are good at their craft.
- satvikpendem 3y ago
  Agreed, no one who sells chairs will make them for free then ask for a $X "donation." But somehow people think devs should make their own stuff free too and ask for donations. If you like the product at a given price, buy it, and if you don't like either, don't buy it, same as any other good. And people will pay $60 for physical items but balk at $0.99 apps and digital goods, it's strange.
- prepend 3y ago
  Id rather also pay for the software. My point is charging $6 for dark mode is still “begging.” I like the shareware model where people pay what they can, or what they perceive the value to be. I don’t think this is begging. Programming is kind of unique because the marginal cost of production is near zero. I think this is a feature, not a bug and why it’s possible to have single person dev companies that are quite lucrative.
  - satvikpendem 3y ago
    People who offer their labor as shareware will tend towards making 0 dollars. That's just the reality of it, if people don't have to pay, they won't. If you want to make money, you should...charge people money.
    - prepend 3y ago
      That’s not true at all. Check out id software. They made gobs of money through shareware. And of course there’s lots of open source developers who are excellent and donate their time with only expecting $0.
coin 3y ago
> that is just flipping a bit The bit is flipped at runtime or compile time. In the old days you'd pay for an upgrade and get a new binary with the feature compiled in. Nowadays the feature is compiled in and gated at runtime. In the end it's the same.

rollcat 3y ago

Agree. Apps using AppKit support dark mode by default, with zero input from the developer. This isn't even a matter of preference, but basic accessibility. If the author really wishes to put this feature behind a purchase, "follow system settings" should be the free default.

tarentel 3y ago
It does not work by default and it does require input from the developer. The UIKit API allows you to detect that you have it enabled but it doesn't magically redefine all the colors for you.
- marcellus23 3y ago
  Not quite. If you use the UIKit system colors, it requires no work from the developer. The colors are semantic and automatically adapt to light/dark mode and high contrast mode. It only requires manual work if you have custom colors, or you do your own drawing.

hnand 3y ago

I'll think about a better approach of monetizing the app. I always struggle when trying to choose what should be behind an in-app purchase. In this case I just picked the least restrictive option of what the popular competitor apps do (you can still use the dark mode, but it gets switched back when the session ends). Judging from the feedback on these apps I assumed that people are fine with it.

nikodunk 3y ago
I think you made a good call. The counter-suggestion is “make a donate option” which generally is ignored by most and I doubt will pay you for your time. At $6 for dark mode, this is essentially a donate option anyway. People like free stuff.
leesalminen 3y ago
FWIW, I think the pricing scheme you’ve come up with is fine. People will complain about anything, even free stuff. It’s clear you put some thought into pricing and have avoided the subscription route which is what most people will complain about. I wouldn’t put much stock into the complaints here.
zamnos 3y ago
It's fine. Not all complaints deserve a response, some people just like complaining. The other thing is follow through is non-existent. Outside of a signed business contract, when an individual says "I'd pay if only X", assume they won't have the patience to wait for X to be implemented, and then find you again to pay you. It's far more likely they'll just deal with their problem a different way.

wahnfrieden 3y ago

apple has a rule against charging for platform-default available features

joshmanders 3y ago
Dark mode is not a platform-default available feature. It's a setting in the OS that tells apps that you may prefer a darker variant, but it's still up to the app to implement the work required to make that happen. That is a feature of the app and can be charged for, hence why he does it and the app is still in the app store approved.
- wahnfrieden 3y ago
  in swiftui you get it by default by using any system component, it is NOT only a flag the developer receives. they have this rule against restricting icloud/cloudkit sync too, which the dev needs to opt into. the reason they can charge for it is that apple review is uneven and unpredictable.

hombre_fatal 3y ago

I don’t see the problem. The app is basically a generous demo lacking only creature comforts until you pay. That’s better than every other pay scheme I can think of since you have the option to do without.

tinus_hn 3y ago
I’m not complaining about a free/cheap app from a small developer but the guidelines say you’re not supposed to gate OS or hardware features behind in-app purchase, so it may lead to refusal at any time.

livinglist 3y ago

At $6, you really are not paying to use the dark mode, you are paying to appreciate the value it brings to you, nobody is forcing you to use the app.

iknowstuff 3y ago

You get a full app for free, no subscription, and still complain? man you are so cheap.

davely 3y ago
I think I was clear in my criticism with regard to the app pricing, which has nothing to do with your points.