8 ms·

The Mac App Store Needs Paid Upgrades

232 points by mynameisraj 15y ago

mikebracco 15y ago
I feel like the solution isn't paid upgrades but instead monthly/yearly subscription for access in the Mac App Store. The 'appification' of the web is eliminating the idea of major release "versions" of software...it's just an app in consumers' minds and it will always be the same product (with gradual improvement of course). As a result, just charge users for ongoing access to your app and keep them paying by providing regular updates.
- ghaff 15y ago
  As with other ideas mentioned, depends on the app. In general, I think people have a limited appetite for subscriptions because every subscription is a "money leak" to be monitored and managed. There is something of a trend in that direction but I'm skeptical that it becomes the standard way to pay for software.
  - J3L2404 15y ago
    Saas sucks for the user but is great for the developer because people forget to stop the service. Also that protects them from copyright violation, which most users of this site believe is their natural born right.
- RandallBrown 15y ago
  I had an idea for a subscription service that would give developers a share of the subscription based on how much their app was used compared to other apps. That may work perfectly for the Mac App Store. So I pay 10 dollars a month to have access to the MAS and I download 3 apps. I use App A 50% of the time, App B 20% of the time and App C 30% of the time. (To keep the math simple lets pretend Apple doesn't take their share). App A's developers would get $5 a month, App B's developers would get $2, while App C's gets $3. Maybe to handle the Pro apps like Final Cut you could have different subscription tiers? To users, this would be a simple netflix like subscription model. Developers would have an incentive to make their apps more useful and engaging. (I'm sure it could be abused too)
  - ghaff 15y ago
    Interesting idea and somewhat akin to how music streaming pays the artists (well, the labels mostly). The challenge, as you allude to, is that software is a lot less homogenous. You only do one thing with a song--listen to it. You use software in a lot of different contexts and it's not obvious that time running is going to give equitable results. And Pro-ishness is also very context-dependent. For me, Final Cut might be a hobby thing. For you, it might be something you depend on for your livelihood. That said, I do think we're going to see more experimentation with subscription models. Adobe's Creative Cloud is one example. I could imagine some sort of aggregator of games as well.
mmuro 15y ago
Perhaps the incentive is the wrong one. If the goal is to get users to upgrade, offer a launch sale that entices existing and new users to upgrade. I don't think it's so terrible that there is multiple versions out there. Reduce the price of the older version and setup the page to let people know there's a new one out there before buying.
kennywinker 15y ago
The consensus among all the devs I've talked to is that this feature will magically appear the next time Apple does a significant update to one of it's bigger ticket apps... Final Cut, Aperture, Logic, etc. I can't see any way they can get around this problem without adding paid updates. Until then 3rd party developers are high and dry.
- twiceaday 15y ago
  Shucks. They will just have to sell another version of the App (Angry Birds, Angry Birds Seasons, Angry Birds Rio) for full price.
  - kennywinker 15y ago
    Did you miss the headline? _Mac_ App Store. Full price upgrades works for Angry Birds, but anything less episodic or standalone and you have problems. See Tweetie 2, for an example. This issue is going to be rampant in the Mac App Store very very soon. It's been out for what, a year now? Time for a round of big updates... now you have two copies of all your apps.
    - msbarnett 15y ago
      > See Tweetie 2, for an example What's the example, exactly? Genuinely curious. I upgraded to Tweetie 2 as soon as it came out. My impression was that it was very successful right up until Twitter bought Atebits.
      - kennywinker 15y ago
        It's hard to say how much of that was noise, and what effect it had on sales / success, but there was a lot of hype about the paid upgrade leaving people unhappy. Example headlines (Google "tweetie 2 paid update" for more): "Tweetie 2 Pricing Controversy: An Interview with Tweetie's Creator ..." "Tweetie 2: 'New App' – Will Spit On Existing 'Old App' Users | iSource" "Still won't pay for Tweetie 2 upgrade? Try these Twitter apps ..." "Tweetie pricing fuss highlights App Store flaw | Macworld"
ianterrell 15y ago
It's not a 1-to-1 replacement or panacea, but in app purchases can mitigate the problem—i.e. free update with new features disabled until purchased.
- Splines 15y ago
  I was thinking the same thing, but I don't think that's sustainable, nor is it a good user experience. If you have X choices of IAP features available, are you going to test the 2^(X+1) configurations out there? Probably the best you could do with IAP is offer current version as IAP, and roll your n-1 features back into the main app as a free update on a periodic basis (i.e., want the latest and greatest, buy it now, or wait X months/years and get it for free). Nickle and diming your customers for features also leaves a bad taste in the mouth. As a customer, I appreciate Apple's model since I know all updates are free and any major version changes usually warrant a new app entry (I find it annoying, but understandable, that the previous version is sometimes retired from the App store), which makes the demarcation clear of what I need to pay for vs. what I don't.
  - metageek 15y ago
    I think ianterrell's idea was that, if you're going from, say, version 2 to version 3, you release version 3 for free, but all the new version 3 features are a single in-app purchase. No nickel and diming. One result of this approach is that everybody gets bugfixes for free, which users are sure to like better than a model where they have to pay for fixes. One thing you have to decide is what to do if you then release version 4, and someone never paid for 3. Does he have to pay for 3 and 4 separately, or can he just buy 4 and get the 3 features for free? (I'm pretty sure you don't want to let him buy 4 and not have 3; that's where you start getting configuration explosion.) The latter has precedent in the packaged world, with vendors that would give you the same discount when upgrading from any earlier version.
    - disappearance 15y ago
      Surely one edition only. All new features are paid for as content upgrades currently are. If you overhaul your code you release it first as a free demo (old language; beta), then discontinue it as you release a feature-matched-update to the single paid for version you maintain. This reduces new features to an individual cost upgrade and ensures your existing users aren't left with an unsupported version. This is actually a very good result for the consumer. (I'm thinking premium applications such as Audio, Photoshop etc.)
deedubaya 15y ago
As a developer with Apps in the MAS, I can see where this makes sense from the developer's perspective. But I think it is a mater of laziness on the dev's part. Let me explain: From a users perspective, this would suck. It is an antiquated system. "I have to pay for an upgrade just so it works on the new OS?" Think of how many times you've had to do this in the past, and how you felt. Apple will act in the best interest of Joe User, not Joe Developer. Instead of paid upgrades, dev's should be providing In-App purchases for new features. Maintenance of the App should be provided for free. Win-win for all. Now stop bitching about what the MAS should have, and start using the solution Apple has given you! :)
- phillmv 15y ago
  Can you currently do in-app purchases on the Mac App Store? That was my first thought as well.
  - sharth 15y ago
    Yes. You can. However, I would much prefer the world Wil describes over a world with in-app purchases. I would much rather pay the 20$ or whatever to upgrade my software, than be nickel and dimed all over the place.
    - deedubaya 15y ago
      I agree on the nickel and dimeing, but that is a matter of implementation. Imagine In-app purchase options for options X, Y, an Z, $0.99 each. I only use X, so I'm only going to buy that. You use all the features though, so the developer provides an In-App option for all three features for $1.99. Still feel nickel and dimed?
      - JohnQPasserby 15y ago
        Yes. To put it bluntly, when I see features priced that way it looks like artificial price inflation to get more money. Especially in software that already has a purchase price.
killion 15y ago
I really like how most applications in the iOS store have been about upgrades. When a new version comes out I get it automatically without paying. Camera+ is a great example. Because the user base for the platform has been growing the potential install base for your application grows with it. The graph in Wil's post shows that the same application had a huge sales surge just because more people were exposed to it. If a new version of Delicious Library comes out his existing customers will be very happy with the new features and bring more customers in with them. I bet Apple would even promote the new app and a huge sales spike would happen again. In my mind the new model isn't how to get the most money from your customers, it's getting the most customers.
- kennywinker 15y ago
  The constant expansion model works for some apps, but not for all of them. I appreciate the free upgrades as much as the next guy, but without the paid-upgrade option niche products will suffer.
- lowlevel 15y ago
  I find the current 'goat users into paying X/per year to keep things current' model so distasteful that I will seek any and all possible alternatives before I consider buying any app. I tend to think developers would sell a lot more if people only had to pay once... but who knows.
phillmv 15y ago
I want to say something about sharecropping, but I have a hard time thinking of the appropriate analogy. It's making me think about the service model as being a superior revenue stream, for-better-or-for-worse. From a user's perspective, the MAS already acts as a service; the subsidy is just being paid for at the developer's end of the scale. I love the iTunes/MA stores as a marketing and distribution channel, but I hate how heavy handedly Apple behaves with enforcing business models. I think there's an argument to be made that we can avoid the Android marketplace crapware without forcing everyone to become serfs.
- benihana 15y ago
  >without forcing everyone to become serfs. Calling people who willingly cede less than a third of their profits for access to the giant infrastructure and advertising Apple has at their disposal is a bit of hyperbole. It's a mutually beneficial arrangement for both parties, which both parties are free to sever at any time. Doesn't seem like serfdom to me.
  - kennywinker 15y ago
    Obvious hyperbole is obvious. IMO, the analogy stands. I'm not the only one who thinks so http://www.codinghorror.com/blog/2011/10/serving-at-the-pleasure-of-the-king.html http://www.codinghorror.com/blog/2011/10/serving-at-the-plea...
    - tptacek 15y ago
      Wil Shipley makes a living selling a popular Mac application both on and off the Mac App Store. Jeff Atwood has from what I can tell never shipped shrink-wrap software as an ISV on any platform (I don't mean that derisively).
      - kennywinker 15y ago
        I don't see them disagreeing. They're both saying "here are some issues I see with the Apple/Developer relationship".
megakwood 15y ago
You could use in-app purchases to unlock new features.
abruzzi 15y ago
Something similar that the Mac App store is killing is the competitive crossgrade. It used to be a boon to buy Logic at full price, then be able to buy its competitors like Digital Performer or Cubase for half price. Currently the App Store can't support that.
cjensen 15y ago
The Mac software scene has always had lots of indie developers. Let's look at that scene for some facts... The indies generally charge an upgrade fee for "major" versions, and give free upgrades for "minor" updates. Most, like Wil, do the right thing. Delicious Library hasn't had a major release in years, but it is maintained. Others (for example, in my experience "DVD Remaster Pro" and Parallels Desktop), clearly abuse the major update system as a revenue source. They release fake major releases with lots of new skin but few features every six months or a year to rake in the dough. Honestly, it's a mess. But the solution to me is obvious: Angry Birds from Rovio. Rovio didn't just release the thing and stop. They keep adding significant features (the game is probably 10X as large as when I bought it for the iPad). Customers feed back with great reviews. Rovio is rewarded with continuing sales and stays in the top seller lists. Meanwhile, apps like "Plants v. Zombies" are static and drop off the top lists quickly after a quick burst of popularity.
- dorianj 15y ago
  Angry Birds is one of the most popular applications for the iOS platform ever. It has sales in the millions, and this model isn't comprable for indie software that doesn't have that big of a potential market. Rovio also just released Angry Birds in Space, which is a separate app, meaning they'll get new income from it. But because it's a $0.99, giving existing customers a discount isn't important.
- wil_shipley 15y ago
  A game is a different animal. If you add some new levels to a game people have finished, they’ll dive back in. That’s news. If you’re making a productivity app, and you dribble out features, the press is going to ignore you. Can you imagine anyone running a story like, “Delicious Library 2.8 is out, and it includes a pretty new way to look at tables”? It’s just not going to happen, unless your name is Apple. The press hit we get on a major release is part of what gives us the important spike in sales. It creates “buzz.” There’s a reason why even Apple doesn’t, like, just release iOS 5 feature-by-feature – they want to spring the whole thing on the world, so they get a ton of attention.
adavies42 15y ago
delicious 1, delicious 2, delicious ∞--is wil a marathon fan?
jobu 15y ago
The App Store also also needs automatic/forced free updates. It sucks releasing something with a bug, creating an update that fixes it within a month, and still having users complaining about the bug several months later.
- stevejabs 15y ago
  You could add a nag screen to your app that would show if you have a heartbeat API call that returns that the user is using an outdated version.
  - deedubaya 15y ago
    I do this. 90% of my users upgrade within 5 days of an update being released as a result. "Hey! You're using an outdated version of [APPX]. Click okay to upgrade via the App Store, or Cancel to continue"
- konstruktor 15y ago
  From the customer's perspective, it would kind of suck to buy an app because of a certain feature that, from your point of view, gets broken by an upgrade, and be forced to do that upgrade, because the developer fixed a bug or feature that is of no concern to you. Remember, the user is buying a license for the current version of a piece of software, not a SaaS subscription. Example: I was searching for a tool for file deduplication. Looking at some older screenshots and the current trial of a certain tool, I realized that this was now less geared towards power users, with UI changes that made the tool look better for inspecting a few duplicated pictures but unsuitable for using lots (thousands) of files. Imagine being the user who bought the tool for more serious use, and is forced to "upgrade".
hack_edu 15y ago
The Mac App Store has been a huge boon to Mac software developers It has? Whenever I look, I tend to see trivial little apps of the same depth and quality as your typical iOS App Store app. Feels like a ghetto to me.
- RandallBrown 15y ago
  are you a Mac software developer? It has boosted sales of lots of already exisiting apps and gave a platform for many other apps to be shown off.
archildress 15y ago
On a similar note, the Mac App Store really needs an option for free trials if it wants to become the premiere marketplace for apps.
- MarkMc 15y ago
  Yes! Especially with more expensive software. My software costs £150: No-one wants to fork out this kind of cash without a free trial so I get very few sales through the Mac App Store.
ricardobeat 15y ago
I think this is mostly a mismatch in expectations. "pay full price, suckers" only rings true if it's not actually a major release - small features, security/compatibility updates should be free. A new version should offer enough benefits to be worth the price.
- EvanKelly 15y ago
  I don't know if I agree with this sentiment. Take the author's app, "Delicious Library 2". The main functionality of this app is to catalog your things in an easy and streamlined way. I'd reckon that most people are paying the ~$35 for this app to do just that. If the developers develop a whole new set of features (while still building off the core functionality) that they could call "Delicious Library 3", but are actually fully compatible with Delicious Library 2, why should they have to ask their users to pay full price for an upgrade, when they already have the core functionality which is the draw for the new users to pay full price. I've seen positives and negatives to this model in video gaming. I love seeing a full-feature expansion to a game I own, and don't mind paying $5 - $20 in addition to the $60 I already paid, but I wouldn't be happy paying $60 again for the "complete" edition just to get the expansions, but that "complete" edition is great for people who haven't already purchased the game.
- wil_shipley 15y ago
  I’d rather offer existing customers a discount, since I figure some percentage of what they’re getting is the old functionality, and they’ve been there for me in the past. Put differently: if I’ve written an app that 50% new, don’t I deserve to get paid by existing customers for that work?
- deleted 15y ago
  [deleted]
cdog46 15y ago
no
stretchwithme 15y ago
I was just thinking about this last week. Eventually, nearly all your users have already paid, leaving you unable to charge them for enhancing the app. You may have a huge installed base and eventually have no incentive to improve the product.
Terretta 15y ago
Apple’s not keeping iWork up-to-date despite sitting on one hundred billion dollars. And here I was blissfully unaware that Pages and Keynote had rotted into uselessness simply because of the calendar year.
- grecy 15y ago
  > And here I was blissfully unaware that Pages and Keynote had rotted into uselessness simply because of the calendar year. This is a very good point. In this consumerist society, if a "new" version is not produced at least once a year, obviously the old one is not worth having.
- wil_shipley 15y ago
  Have you used Pages recently? It’s got a button in the default toolbar to “Publish on iWork” which has never been out of beta and is now cancelled. It doesn’t work in HiDPI modes of Lion. It doesn’t support Lion’s keyboard macros. I wrote one letter in it last week and ended up filing three different bugs. So, yes, software does “rot,” if it’s not kept up-to-date with the latest operating systems and, to an extent, the latest user interface metaphors.
Tloewald 15y ago
I assumed that Apple would add upgrades way back when but I now think the in app purchase model is better. Consider the reason for upgrades: new features? Sell them. Compatibility or big fixes? Why aren't these free for all customers? The one missing thing I think Apple needs is a neat mechanism for allowing existing apps to be upgrades into app store apps.
- jacalata 15y ago
  Compatibility or bug fixes aren't free for all users because just like features, the developer had to spend time building them and needs to get paid for that time.
  - gergles 15y ago
    And the customer fucking paid for a program that worked right the first time. Customers are absolutely 100% entitled to bug fixes for free.
  - cynix 15y ago
    I build a house for you for $X. You find out that the lights don't work and ask me to fix it. Would you be happy if I told you "Oh, sorry I messed up the electrical connections. It'll cost you $Y though, because I have to spend time fixing them and I need to get paid for that time."?
    - tomflack 15y ago
      In perpetuity? When a major OS upgrade breaks the app completely after being in use with no problems for 5 years? Again we find that conflating real-world examples with technology issues is a bad way of understanding them. With a house you typically have a warranty period and afterwards are required to pay for fixes yourself. There is a lot of grey here that paid updates help deal with. The users will vote with their wallets if they feel they're being thoroughly fleeced.
      - cynix 15y ago
phil 15y ago
Who's got the open radar for this one?
freiervogel 15y ago
Considered charging less for the full product (say $10), and simply having multiple versions available as you post major new releases? That way, users always have a way to downgrade to previous versions as needed, you probably get more customers due to the entry price, and everyone just understands that the latest version is available for $10 more. That seems to be the whole app store model: lower prices, more sales -- no "upgrades" in the classic sense. And, with a low enough entry price, I think users would be accepting. If they don't buy the latest, as a developer you're no worse off than you are today (where they get the latest for free).
gurkendoktor 15y ago
Can't we just hop over to a subscription model altogether, now that we pretty much have the infrastructure? It would lower up-front costs. I bet piracy would go down too. It would give developers an incentive to keep even small apps bug-free. It would make more sense for apps like Instapaper where the server needs to keep running. Everyone would get exactly what they pay for, and nobody would have to keep using an older version for artificial (financial) reasons. The only downside I can see is that people cannot decide to stick with an older version because they actually like it better. But that's something that Apple customers are probably used to (e.g. surprise 10.6 users, no OTA contacts & calender sync for you anymore!). And for Apple, it may decrease vendor lock-in because people have no sunk costs anymore.
msg 15y ago
I'm sorry I didn't read the whole thread and I know this is late. Why not provide two versions of Delicious Library Inf? One costs $20. It only works/installs correctly if you have the original app. The other one costs $40. It is a standalone app. Make a minor bugfix update that says "hey" to the users of Delicious Library 2, and link to the expansion. Sell both.
warmfuzzykitten 15y ago
"I've looked at clouds from both sides now..." I've been an app developer and an app buyer. As a developer, of course I want to get more money from my installed base. They're easy to find; marketing costs are essentially zero. As a buyer, I've always looked at "upgrades" as a scam to suck more money out of my pocket for a product I've already paid for. I hate it more when I'm paying to get bugs fixed - bugs as a money-making opportunity! - and even more if I'm blackmailed into upgrading by the threat of dropping support for my existing product, which, of course, will stop working about 10 seconds later. I have some software that seems to be "upgraded" for a "discounted price" every two or three months! How about you stop treating software like fresh fruit delivered with a worm in it and start treating it like, say, new cars? Sell it with a warranty. Allow me to extend the warranty, up to a point, for a reasonable price that covers maintenance only. If I have a reason to buy a shiny, new 2013 BozoWare, and the reason isn't that the 2012 model is already broken, I just may. Some people buy new cars every year; everybody buys a new one sometime.

232 points by mynameisraj 15y ago

I feel like the solution isn't paid upgrades but instead monthly/yearly subscription for access in the Mac App Store. The 'appification' of the web is eliminating the idea of major release "versions" of software...it's just an app in consumers' minds and it will always be the same product (with gradual improvement of course). As a result, just charge users for ongoing access to your app and keep them paying by providing regular updates.

ghaff 15y ago
As with other ideas mentioned, depends on the app. In general, I think people have a limited appetite for subscriptions because every subscription is a "money leak" to be monitored and managed. There is something of a trend in that direction but I'm skeptical that it becomes the standard way to pay for software.
- J3L2404 15y ago
  Saas sucks for the user but is great for the developer because people forget to stop the service. Also that protects them from copyright violation, which most users of this site believe is their natural born right.
RandallBrown 15y ago
I had an idea for a subscription service that would give developers a share of the subscription based on how much their app was used compared to other apps. That may work perfectly for the Mac App Store. So I pay 10 dollars a month to have access to the MAS and I download 3 apps. I use App A 50% of the time, App B 20% of the time and App C 30% of the time. (To keep the math simple lets pretend Apple doesn't take their share). App A's developers would get $5 a month, App B's developers would get $2, while App C's gets $3. Maybe to handle the Pro apps like Final Cut you could have different subscription tiers? To users, this would be a simple netflix like subscription model. Developers would have an incentive to make their apps more useful and engaging. (I'm sure it could be abused too)
- ghaff 15y ago
  Interesting idea and somewhat akin to how music streaming pays the artists (well, the labels mostly). The challenge, as you allude to, is that software is a lot less homogenous. You only do one thing with a song--listen to it. You use software in a lot of different contexts and it's not obvious that time running is going to give equitable results. And Pro-ishness is also very context-dependent. For me, Final Cut might be a hobby thing. For you, it might be something you depend on for your livelihood. That said, I do think we're going to see more experimentation with subscription models. Adobe's Creative Cloud is one example. I could imagine some sort of aggregator of games as well.

mmuro 15y ago

Perhaps the incentive is the wrong one. If the goal is to get users to upgrade, offer a launch sale that entices existing and new users to upgrade. I don't think it's so terrible that there is multiple versions out there. Reduce the price of the older version and setup the page to let people know there's a new one out there before buying.

kennywinker 15y ago

The consensus among all the devs I've talked to is that this feature will magically appear the next time Apple does a significant update to one of it's bigger ticket apps... Final Cut, Aperture, Logic, etc. I can't see any way they can get around this problem without adding paid updates. Until then 3rd party developers are high and dry.

twiceaday 15y ago
Shucks. They will just have to sell another version of the App (Angry Birds, Angry Birds Seasons, Angry Birds Rio) for full price.
- kennywinker 15y ago
  Did you miss the headline? _Mac_ App Store. Full price upgrades works for Angry Birds, but anything less episodic or standalone and you have problems. See Tweetie 2, for an example. This issue is going to be rampant in the Mac App Store very very soon. It's been out for what, a year now? Time for a round of big updates... now you have two copies of all your apps.
  - msbarnett 15y ago
    > See Tweetie 2, for an example What's the example, exactly? Genuinely curious. I upgraded to Tweetie 2 as soon as it came out. My impression was that it was very successful right up until Twitter bought Atebits.
    - kennywinker 15y ago
      It's hard to say how much of that was noise, and what effect it had on sales / success, but there was a lot of hype about the paid upgrade leaving people unhappy. Example headlines (Google "tweetie 2 paid update" for more): "Tweetie 2 Pricing Controversy: An Interview with Tweetie's Creator ..." "Tweetie 2: 'New App' – Will Spit On Existing 'Old App' Users | iSource" "Still won't pay for Tweetie 2 upgrade? Try these Twitter apps ..." "Tweetie pricing fuss highlights App Store flaw | Macworld"

ianterrell 15y ago

It's not a 1-to-1 replacement or panacea, but in app purchases can mitigate the problem—i.e. free update with new features disabled until purchased.

Splines 15y ago
I was thinking the same thing, but I don't think that's sustainable, nor is it a good user experience. If you have X choices of IAP features available, are you going to test the 2^(X+1) configurations out there? Probably the best you could do with IAP is offer current version as IAP, and roll your n-1 features back into the main app as a free update on a periodic basis (i.e., want the latest and greatest, buy it now, or wait X months/years and get it for free). Nickle and diming your customers for features also leaves a bad taste in the mouth. As a customer, I appreciate Apple's model since I know all updates are free and any major version changes usually warrant a new app entry (I find it annoying, but understandable, that the previous version is sometimes retired from the App store), which makes the demarcation clear of what I need to pay for vs. what I don't.
- metageek 15y ago
  I think ianterrell's idea was that, if you're going from, say, version 2 to version 3, you release version 3 for free, but all the new version 3 features are a single in-app purchase. No nickel and diming. One result of this approach is that everybody gets bugfixes for free, which users are sure to like better than a model where they have to pay for fixes. One thing you have to decide is what to do if you then release version 4, and someone never paid for 3. Does he have to pay for 3 and 4 separately, or can he just buy 4 and get the 3 features for free? (I'm pretty sure you don't want to let him buy 4 and not have 3; that's where you start getting configuration explosion.) The latter has precedent in the packaged world, with vendors that would give you the same discount when upgrading from any earlier version.
  - disappearance 15y ago
    Surely one edition only. All new features are paid for as content upgrades currently are. If you overhaul your code you release it first as a free demo (old language; beta), then discontinue it as you release a feature-matched-update to the single paid for version you maintain. This reduces new features to an individual cost upgrade and ensures your existing users aren't left with an unsupported version. This is actually a very good result for the consumer. (I'm thinking premium applications such as Audio, Photoshop etc.)

deedubaya 15y ago

As a developer with Apps in the MAS, I can see where this makes sense from the developer's perspective. But I think it is a mater of laziness on the dev's part. Let me explain: From a users perspective, this would suck. It is an antiquated system. "I have to pay for an upgrade just so it works on the new OS?" Think of how many times you've had to do this in the past, and how you felt. Apple will act in the best interest of Joe User, not Joe Developer. Instead of paid upgrades, dev's should be providing In-App purchases for new features. Maintenance of the App should be provided for free. Win-win for all. Now stop bitching about what the MAS should have, and start using the solution Apple has given you! :)

phillmv 15y ago
Can you currently do in-app purchases on the Mac App Store? That was my first thought as well.
- sharth 15y ago
  Yes. You can. However, I would much prefer the world Wil describes over a world with in-app purchases. I would much rather pay the 20$ or whatever to upgrade my software, than be nickel and dimed all over the place.
  - deedubaya 15y ago
    I agree on the nickel and dimeing, but that is a matter of implementation. Imagine In-app purchase options for options X, Y, an Z, $0.99 each. I only use X, so I'm only going to buy that. You use all the features though, so the developer provides an In-App option for all three features for $1.99. Still feel nickel and dimed?
    - JohnQPasserby 15y ago
      Yes. To put it bluntly, when I see features priced that way it looks like artificial price inflation to get more money. Especially in software that already has a purchase price.

killion 15y ago

I really like how most applications in the iOS store have been about upgrades. When a new version comes out I get it automatically without paying. Camera+ is a great example. Because the user base for the platform has been growing the potential install base for your application grows with it. The graph in Wil's post shows that the same application had a huge sales surge just because more people were exposed to it. If a new version of Delicious Library comes out his existing customers will be very happy with the new features and bring more customers in with them. I bet Apple would even promote the new app and a huge sales spike would happen again. In my mind the new model isn't how to get the most money from your customers, it's getting the most customers.

kennywinker 15y ago
The constant expansion model works for some apps, but not for all of them. I appreciate the free upgrades as much as the next guy, but without the paid-upgrade option niche products will suffer.
lowlevel 15y ago
I find the current 'goat users into paying X/per year to keep things current' model so distasteful that I will seek any and all possible alternatives before I consider buying any app. I tend to think developers would sell a lot more if people only had to pay once... but who knows.

phillmv 15y ago

I want to say something about sharecropping, but I have a hard time thinking of the appropriate analogy. It's making me think about the service model as being a superior revenue stream, for-better-or-for-worse. From a user's perspective, the MAS already acts as a service; the subsidy is just being paid for at the developer's end of the scale. I love the iTunes/MA stores as a marketing and distribution channel, but I hate how heavy handedly Apple behaves with enforcing business models. I think there's an argument to be made that we can avoid the Android marketplace crapware without forcing everyone to become serfs.

benihana 15y ago
>without forcing everyone to become serfs. Calling people who willingly cede less than a third of their profits for access to the giant infrastructure and advertising Apple has at their disposal is a bit of hyperbole. It's a mutually beneficial arrangement for both parties, which both parties are free to sever at any time. Doesn't seem like serfdom to me.
- kennywinker 15y ago
  Obvious hyperbole is obvious. IMO, the analogy stands. I'm not the only one who thinks so http://www.codinghorror.com/blog/2011/10/serving-at-the-pleasure-of-the-king.html http://www.codinghorror.com/blog/2011/10/serving-at-the-plea...
  - tptacek 15y ago
    Wil Shipley makes a living selling a popular Mac application both on and off the Mac App Store. Jeff Atwood has from what I can tell never shipped shrink-wrap software as an ISV on any platform (I don't mean that derisively).
    - kennywinker 15y ago
      I don't see them disagreeing. They're both saying "here are some issues I see with the Apple/Developer relationship".

megakwood 15y ago

You could use in-app purchases to unlock new features.

abruzzi 15y ago

Something similar that the Mac App store is killing is the competitive crossgrade. It used to be a boon to buy Logic at full price, then be able to buy its competitors like Digital Performer or Cubase for half price. Currently the App Store can't support that.

cjensen 15y ago

The Mac software scene has always had lots of indie developers. Let's look at that scene for some facts... The indies generally charge an upgrade fee for "major" versions, and give free upgrades for "minor" updates. Most, like Wil, do the right thing. Delicious Library hasn't had a major release in years, but it is maintained. Others (for example, in my experience "DVD Remaster Pro" and Parallels Desktop), clearly abuse the major update system as a revenue source. They release fake major releases with lots of new skin but few features every six months or a year to rake in the dough. Honestly, it's a mess. But the solution to me is obvious: Angry Birds from Rovio. Rovio didn't just release the thing and stop. They keep adding significant features (the game is probably 10X as large as when I bought it for the iPad). Customers feed back with great reviews. Rovio is rewarded with continuing sales and stays in the top seller lists. Meanwhile, apps like "Plants v. Zombies" are static and drop off the top lists quickly after a quick burst of popularity.

dorianj 15y ago
Angry Birds is one of the most popular applications for the iOS platform ever. It has sales in the millions, and this model isn't comprable for indie software that doesn't have that big of a potential market. Rovio also just released Angry Birds in Space, which is a separate app, meaning they'll get new income from it. But because it's a $0.99, giving existing customers a discount isn't important.
wil_shipley 15y ago
A game is a different animal. If you add some new levels to a game people have finished, they’ll dive back in. That’s news. If you’re making a productivity app, and you dribble out features, the press is going to ignore you. Can you imagine anyone running a story like, “Delicious Library 2.8 is out, and it includes a pretty new way to look at tables”? It’s just not going to happen, unless your name is Apple. The press hit we get on a major release is part of what gives us the important spike in sales. It creates “buzz.” There’s a reason why even Apple doesn’t, like, just release iOS 5 feature-by-feature – they want to spring the whole thing on the world, so they get a ton of attention.

adavies42 15y ago

delicious 1, delicious 2, delicious ∞--is wil a marathon fan?

jobu 15y ago

The App Store also also needs automatic/forced free updates. It sucks releasing something with a bug, creating an update that fixes it within a month, and still having users complaining about the bug several months later.

stevejabs 15y ago
You could add a nag screen to your app that would show if you have a heartbeat API call that returns that the user is using an outdated version.
- deedubaya 15y ago
  I do this. 90% of my users upgrade within 5 days of an update being released as a result. "Hey! You're using an outdated version of [APPX]. Click okay to upgrade via the App Store, or Cancel to continue"
konstruktor 15y ago
From the customer's perspective, it would kind of suck to buy an app because of a certain feature that, from your point of view, gets broken by an upgrade, and be forced to do that upgrade, because the developer fixed a bug or feature that is of no concern to you. Remember, the user is buying a license for the current version of a piece of software, not a SaaS subscription. Example: I was searching for a tool for file deduplication. Looking at some older screenshots and the current trial of a certain tool, I realized that this was now less geared towards power users, with UI changes that made the tool look better for inspecting a few duplicated pictures but unsuitable for using lots (thousands) of files. Imagine being the user who bought the tool for more serious use, and is forced to "upgrade".

hack_edu 15y ago

The Mac App Store has been a huge boon to Mac software developers It has? Whenever I look, I tend to see trivial little apps of the same depth and quality as your typical iOS App Store app. Feels like a ghetto to me.

RandallBrown 15y ago
are you a Mac software developer? It has boosted sales of lots of already exisiting apps and gave a platform for many other apps to be shown off.

archildress 15y ago

On a similar note, the Mac App Store really needs an option for free trials if it wants to become the premiere marketplace for apps.

MarkMc 15y ago
Yes! Especially with more expensive software. My software costs £150: No-one wants to fork out this kind of cash without a free trial so I get very few sales through the Mac App Store.

ricardobeat 15y ago

I think this is mostly a mismatch in expectations. "pay full price, suckers" only rings true if it's not actually a major release - small features, security/compatibility updates should be free. A new version should offer enough benefits to be worth the price.

EvanKelly 15y ago
I don't know if I agree with this sentiment. Take the author's app, "Delicious Library 2". The main functionality of this app is to catalog your things in an easy and streamlined way. I'd reckon that most people are paying the ~$35 for this app to do just that. If the developers develop a whole new set of features (while still building off the core functionality) that they could call "Delicious Library 3", but are actually fully compatible with Delicious Library 2, why should they have to ask their users to pay full price for an upgrade, when they already have the core functionality which is the draw for the new users to pay full price. I've seen positives and negatives to this model in video gaming. I love seeing a full-feature expansion to a game I own, and don't mind paying $5 - $20 in addition to the $60 I already paid, but I wouldn't be happy paying $60 again for the "complete" edition just to get the expansions, but that "complete" edition is great for people who haven't already purchased the game.
wil_shipley 15y ago
I’d rather offer existing customers a discount, since I figure some percentage of what they’re getting is the old functionality, and they’ve been there for me in the past. Put differently: if I’ve written an app that 50% new, don’t I deserve to get paid by existing customers for that work?
deleted 15y ago
[deleted]

cdog46 15y ago

stretchwithme 15y ago

I was just thinking about this last week. Eventually, nearly all your users have already paid, leaving you unable to charge them for enhancing the app. You may have a huge installed base and eventually have no incentive to improve the product.

Terretta 15y ago

Apple’s not keeping iWork up-to-date despite sitting on one hundred billion dollars. And here I was blissfully unaware that Pages and Keynote had rotted into uselessness simply because of the calendar year.

grecy 15y ago
> And here I was blissfully unaware that Pages and Keynote had rotted into uselessness simply because of the calendar year. This is a very good point. In this consumerist society, if a "new" version is not produced at least once a year, obviously the old one is not worth having.
wil_shipley 15y ago
Have you used Pages recently? It’s got a button in the default toolbar to “Publish on iWork” which has never been out of beta and is now cancelled. It doesn’t work in HiDPI modes of Lion. It doesn’t support Lion’s keyboard macros. I wrote one letter in it last week and ended up filing three different bugs. So, yes, software does “rot,” if it’s not kept up-to-date with the latest operating systems and, to an extent, the latest user interface metaphors.

Tloewald 15y ago

I assumed that Apple would add upgrades way back when but I now think the in app purchase model is better. Consider the reason for upgrades: new features? Sell them. Compatibility or big fixes? Why aren't these free for all customers? The one missing thing I think Apple needs is a neat mechanism for allowing existing apps to be upgrades into app store apps.

jacalata 15y ago
Compatibility or bug fixes aren't free for all users because just like features, the developer had to spend time building them and needs to get paid for that time.
- gergles 15y ago
  And the customer fucking paid for a program that worked right the first time. Customers are absolutely 100% entitled to bug fixes for free.
- cynix 15y ago
  I build a house for you for $X. You find out that the lights don't work and ask me to fix it. Would you be happy if I told you "Oh, sorry I messed up the electrical connections. It'll cost you $Y though, because I have to spend time fixing them and I need to get paid for that time."?
  - tomflack 15y ago
    In perpetuity? When a major OS upgrade breaks the app completely after being in use with no problems for 5 years? Again we find that conflating real-world examples with technology issues is a bad way of understanding them. With a house you typically have a warranty period and afterwards are required to pay for fixes yourself. There is a lot of grey here that paid updates help deal with. The users will vote with their wallets if they feel they're being thoroughly fleeced.
    - cynix 15y ago

phil 15y ago

Who's got the open radar for this one?

freiervogel 15y ago

Considered charging less for the full product (say $10), and simply having multiple versions available as you post major new releases? That way, users always have a way to downgrade to previous versions as needed, you probably get more customers due to the entry price, and everyone just understands that the latest version is available for $10 more. That seems to be the whole app store model: lower prices, more sales -- no "upgrades" in the classic sense. And, with a low enough entry price, I think users would be accepting. If they don't buy the latest, as a developer you're no worse off than you are today (where they get the latest for free).

gurkendoktor 15y ago

Can't we just hop over to a subscription model altogether, now that we pretty much have the infrastructure? It would lower up-front costs. I bet piracy would go down too. It would give developers an incentive to keep even small apps bug-free. It would make more sense for apps like Instapaper where the server needs to keep running. Everyone would get exactly what they pay for, and nobody would have to keep using an older version for artificial (financial) reasons. The only downside I can see is that people cannot decide to stick with an older version because they actually like it better. But that's something that Apple customers are probably used to (e.g. surprise 10.6 users, no OTA contacts & calender sync for you anymore!). And for Apple, it may decrease vendor lock-in because people have no sunk costs anymore.

msg 15y ago

I'm sorry I didn't read the whole thread and I know this is late. Why not provide two versions of Delicious Library Inf? One costs $20. It only works/installs correctly if you have the original app. The other one costs $40. It is a standalone app. Make a minor bugfix update that says "hey" to the users of Delicious Library 2, and link to the expansion. Sell both.

warmfuzzykitten 15y ago

"I've looked at clouds from both sides now..." I've been an app developer and an app buyer. As a developer, of course I want to get more money from my installed base. They're easy to find; marketing costs are essentially zero. As a buyer, I've always looked at "upgrades" as a scam to suck more money out of my pocket for a product I've already paid for. I hate it more when I'm paying to get bugs fixed - bugs as a money-making opportunity! - and even more if I'm blackmailed into upgrading by the threat of dropping support for my existing product, which, of course, will stop working about 10 seconds later. I have some software that seems to be "upgraded" for a "discounted price" every two or three months! How about you stop treating software like fresh fruit delivered with a worm in it and start treating it like, say, new cars? Sell it with a warranty. Allow me to extend the warranty, up to a point, for a reasonable price that covers maintenance only. If I have a reason to buy a shiny, new 2013 BozoWare, and the reason isn't that the 2012 model is already broken, I just may. Some people buy new cars every year; everybody buys a new one sometime.