10 ms·

I'm pulling my video editor Shave (http://shavevideo.com http://shavevideo.com) out of the Mac App Store for these reasons, though most specifically the lack of

by jawngee 14y ago

I'm pulling my video editor Shave (http://shavevideo.com http://shavevideo.com) out of the Mac App Store for these reasons, though most specifically the lack of paid upgrades. For a $10 video editor that, quite frankly, beats the pants off a lot of crap out there for day to day editing tasks, I can't afford to devote the time and resources it requires to maintain it without it having a baseline level of income. Not having an upgrade path to a major version number bump is ridiculous. Also, the lack of direct contact with customers is obnoxious at best, crippling at worst. But the sandboxing entitlements kill the best bits of functionality, so I have not much choice but to say "fuck it" and move on. I doubt Apple will miss me, though I'm the only other worthwhile editor on there other than iMovie and Final Cut in terms of actual editing functionality. The video category is a giant pile of shit save a few select pieces, mine included.

Terretta 14y ago
Have you tried purchasing the "latest" version of World of Warcraft? You can't. There is no standalone "latest version". You have to purchase the original, and each version since, and finally the current version. Correlate those game content / game mechanics updates with In-App Purchases, and it's clear how someone could offer "major upgrades" if they stop thinking in terms of version numbers and start thinking in terms of actual upgrade features. (See "Navigon" for an app that has done this.) And if the entire app architecture changes, make a new app.
- 89a 14y ago
  Think the problem is policing it. Apple doesn't want it to become the standard that people are being charged for bug fixes every version.
  - cloverich 14y ago
    Can't people decide not to purchase the app then? They have a content review system - 10 recent 1 star "Bug fixes cost $$$" and the app is dead, no? Or am I overlooking something?
    - ricardobeat 14y ago
      That's right. Then the app is dead and users are dissatisfied. No one wins.
- jawngee 14y ago
  The problem is getting customers of version 1 onto version 2. There is no way to do this with MAS. I have a mechanism built into Shave so I can push "news", but it's annoying and bad user experience.
  - spaghetti 14y ago
    Why can't you update the app and hide most of the new features behind an in-app-purchase paywall?
    - modernerd 14y ago
      New users who purchase the updated app would have to pay again to get the latest features.
      - spaghetti 14y ago
        I think the following set-up avoids that problem: app is always the same price to download and has a few basic features unlocked. App has an upgrade view or screen where users can unlock additional features via in-app-purchase. It works like this: developer releases the app for, say, $10. People buy it and use the basic features for a while. So far there's no upgrades available. Developer codes up a premium feature and updates the app in the store. Existing users can use the app as-is with the basic features that came with the $10 price tag. Existing users can also make an in-app-purchase for, say, $5 that unlocks the premium feature. When new users download the app for $10 they just get the basic features. Since another "version" of the app is available the new users can just buy the premium features if they so choose. Fast forward to version 5 of the app. Now there's 4 upgrades available via in-app-purchase. However users are only prompted to purchase the next version based on their in-app-purchase history. I don't think there's a problem for new users who purchase the updated app.
        jarek 14y ago
        This does away with everyone-is-on-newest-version paradigm of automatic updates that makes support easy - in fact, it makes it much worse. Instead of five old versions of the app, you might have 1 base + 12 permutations = 13 different combinations of functionality to support.
- illumin8 14y ago
  Developers could very well re-architect their application so that when you download the update to v2, you have to unlock the new features with an in-app purchase, but to be honest, it's a lot of extra work for the developer, and there is no way to make it less painful for the users, who will feel like they are getting nickel and dimed by the developer. Also, for those users that are brand new on the v2 version, it's a very bad experience when they have to immediately buy an in-app purchase just to unlock functionality that should be included. If you drop the price of the v2 version to accomodate this, then your original v1 userbase will complain that they paid twice as much. Here's an example: v1.0 of App X sells for $9.99 on the app store. Users buy it and are happy. v2.0 of App X comes out and to unlock the new features, you must pay $4.99 in-app purchase. Developer drops the price of the app to $4.99 so that new users don't have to pay $14.99 to get all the features. New users now complain that they have to immediately make an in-app purchase just to unlock the software - they don't notice that it's half price now because they never bought it previously. Existing users complain that they paid $9.99 and are now being nickel and dimed for updates, when the price is cut in half now. You can't win. Unfortunately, Apple has create a model that makes a lot of profit for them, and makes it relatively painless for the end user, but it's a model where the developers suffer and can't really support the large applications that receive many new features every year.
  - chc 14y ago
    I think you misunderstood. He's suggesting that instead of releasing v2.0 on the App Store, you release an in-app purchase option in the original app that upgrades it to v2.0. A similar idea would be to release new features a la carte as in-app purchases instead of releasing new numbered versions. I'm not sure if the marketing hit would be worth it, but it is one way to a consistent revenue stream.
    - DigitalJack 14y ago
      Diner Dash follows this model. They update the app periodically and add new content available via in app purchase.
  - pgeorgi 14y ago
- mistercow 14y ago
  There are a lot of problems with that idea, but the biggest I can see is that the user experience is horrendous. You're basically describing a world of itemized crippleware, where buying an app that's more than a few years old involves a half hour-long process of adding on feature packs.
- deleted 14y ago
  [deleted]
- retr0rocket 14y ago
  did you just compare a game with a 15$ subscription and 40$ expansion packs for major updates and lvl bumps to a 10 dollar app? do you realize how asinine that is and how dumb you sound? if i want to get to current content in WoW i would of had to get Vanilla(50$ at release) + burning crusade (40$ at release) + wrath of the lich king(40$ at release) + cataclysm(40$ at release) PLUS every month im paying 15$ on subscription if i just buy vanila i would be limited to 1-60 content, not allowed full access to any of the later continents and cities, skills, talents, cant pvp properly, not allowed in arena, cant do any endgame, and am generally wasting my time. how is that at all conducive to what you are saying? for any real application that does work or major game that requires constant updates you cant expect support and update for 10$ that's completely unfeasible. you sound like someone who never played world of warcraft in his life, and it baffles me how you came up with such a nonsensical rebuttal
  - tg3 14y ago
    >do you realize how asinine that is and how dumb you sound? That was unnecessary and did not add to the conversation. And I'm not sure that I understand your point. Parent comment is saying that apps can follow the WoW model to create a consistent revenue stream without paid version number upgrades. As you mention, "for any real application that does work or major game that requires constant updates you cant expect support and update for 10$ that's completely unfeasible."
    - retr0rocket 14y ago
      you cant follow the wow model, the wow model requires constant fees every month, thats my whole point, when you play wow you pay blizzard constantly, and anytime there is a major update you pay another large chunk. you cant do that with a video editor, and its not like maps where you can segregate off chunks of content. like i said completely asinine, and unequatable in this circumstance, the fact that so many people agreed with such an obviously flawed argument speaks volumes.
- grayprog 14y ago
  Having version 2 as in-app purchase means your version 2 app has to include version 1 in it. Good luck with implementing that. What if my version 2 is a major rewrite and I change software architecture or want to use new features. Can you imaging writing an application with 2 different interfaces, database formats and feature sets, just to make it possible to upgrade with in-app purchase? No, thank you.
- cube13 14y ago
  World of Warcraft is a bad example of this. The client you have downloaded is always patched to the latest version, even if you haven't bought the expansions. Each expansion unlocks content. So once you buy The Burning Crusade, you get access to the Outlands zone. That only matters if you have a character that's level 58 or higher. Blizzard redid the entirety of the Vanilla WoW experience in the Cataclysm expansion. Even if you did not buy that expansion, the level 1-60 are still the new content.
jseliger 14y ago
Shave actually looks pretty appealing to me on OS X. Does it support 60fps (unlike iMovie), and will it accept input formats other than the iPhone's? (Sorry if I missed the answers on your website: I browsed through and didn't find them, but that might be my fault.)
- jawngee 14y ago
  It supports anything that QuickTime can play, some formats better than others. But I use it to edit DiVX. Note, that it will always save a quicktime movie, even if you are editing an AVI or MPEG, but it won't re-encode, it just changes containers. Email me jon@interfacelab.com and I'll hook you up with the latest version that supports AVCHD. Edit: Does not support WMV, even with Flip4Mac.
  - crag 14y ago
    I use Shave.. and thanks. What are you gonna do about Perian shutting down?
    - jawngee 14y ago
      This bummed me out, not only for Shave, but as a user. But, you know, Apple's direction with media is a little f'd in my estimation. AVFoundation is dope, but it's a huge step back from QuickTime. Shave 2 is written using it, and so far (and it has a long ways to go), it's not half what the QuickTime version is.
rossjudson 14y ago
The App Store sells millions of cookies. You eat the cookie. You don't upgrade the cookie. You're absolutely right about the lack of upgrade path. Wonder how Apple will deal with this when their Keynote/Pages/Numbers sales taper off? At some point they'll want to refresh those designs and finance a fresh major version, and they'll want to charge for it. I bet you'll see the paid upgrade features (or maintenance features) then. One thing to realize is that the entitlement system is critically necessary and inevitable. It's really a case of taking the pain now, or taking it later. Might as well rip off that particular band-aid now. It won't get easier.
- lukifer 14y ago
  Apple can afford to stick to their guns on this, as most of their money is made on hardware. I highly doubt that GarageBand for iPhone makes a profit, for instance. They'll just release the new version at the same price. Most devs, even some big ones, don't have that luxury.
- dan1234 14y ago
  Well Mountain Lion was released as a new 'appp' rather than an update to the Lion app, so it seems Apple want people to release their major updates as new releases. I wouldn't be surprised if they continue to update the iLife products such as as iPhoto as they always came free with the OS and I don't think many people bought the iLife pack separately but I'm really not sure how they'll handle keynote/pages/numbers.
ToesByNoon 14y ago
Looks interesting, might have to take a look, don't have a great tool for this. I'd give you $20 if it could remux mkv to mp4 and transcode audio. Just saying..
franzus 14y ago
One of the most annoying things about the app store are the review times. With our app (http://armadilloapp.com http://armadilloapp.com) we had to wait over 5 weeks to get into the store. 2 weeks till the first review, then there was a rejection where I had consult Apple's DTS which took another week to get resolved plus another 2 weeks waiting for a new review. Now we have version 1.0 in the app store and have version 1.1 waiting for review since almost 3 weeks. In v1.1 we have added some new features people were requesting and a few minor bug fixes. Now all we can do is tell our customers: "Version 1.1 will be out soon - as soon as Apple decides it's time for a review". It's really a shame that Apple takes 30% of our sales for such a bad service.
- magoon 14y ago
  I second this. The review times can cause real problems for development, and it is a concern that gets very little attention these days.
- leviathan 14y ago
  I'm in the same boat; I have a small iphone app that's been waiting to get into the store for 2 months now. Rejections are such random nitpicks and take forever to get resolved. They rejected the app repeatedly for the following reasons: - didn't like one of the supplied screenshots. - in-app purchase does not provide a restore button (which I've never seen in any other app btw) - the restore button of an in-app purchase is not labeled restore. The average wait between rejection and re-review is 2 weeks. I think this is a typical example of bikeshedding, I have another (retired) app that is still in the store, it's full of bugs, and crashes constantly, but the functionality is so big and complicated that it was accepted instantly without any rejection. But this is a very simple utility app, so they want to nitpick over all small details.
ricardobeat 14y ago
Shave does less than iMovie for $10 more. Maybe that's why it's not providing decent income? It's hard to compete with free, even more a good free app.
- jawngee 14y ago
  iMovie isn't free. It's $14.99. It's also slow as shit where Shave is fast as you know what - for a very specific type of editing. Trust me, I've done the comparison of same editing tasks in both and I can do in a minute in Shave what takes 20-30 minutes to do in iMovie. It's the reason I wrote it in the first place. And good luck opening a DiVX or another weird codec in iMovie. Or editing an Mpeg-2/4 movie without having to re-encode. Or editing at all without re-encoding.
  - ricardobeat 14y ago
    iMovie comes bundled with any new mac for free. So, your customers are users with very specific editing needs, willing to pay for something they already have (disregarding performance), and/or that need to edit DivX or weird codecs. That sounds like a pretty tiny market compared to users who want a step up from iMovie; building a quality app for your own needs doesn't guarantee a market for it. That's just my point of view, you have the numbers.
gte910h 14y ago
Check out Tweetie and Tweetie 2 Just make a new version, increment the version number, and be on your way. FileEditor 2012, etc

by jawngee 14y ago

Terretta 14y ago

Have you tried purchasing the "latest" version of World of Warcraft? You can't. There is no standalone "latest version". You have to purchase the original, and each version since, and finally the current version. Correlate those game content / game mechanics updates with In-App Purchases, and it's clear how someone could offer "major upgrades" if they stop thinking in terms of version numbers and start thinking in terms of actual upgrade features. (See "Navigon" for an app that has done this.) And if the entire app architecture changes, make a new app.

89a 14y ago
Think the problem is policing it. Apple doesn't want it to become the standard that people are being charged for bug fixes every version.
- cloverich 14y ago
  Can't people decide not to purchase the app then? They have a content review system - 10 recent 1 star "Bug fixes cost $$$" and the app is dead, no? Or am I overlooking something?
  - ricardobeat 14y ago
    That's right. Then the app is dead and users are dissatisfied. No one wins.
jawngee 14y ago
The problem is getting customers of version 1 onto version 2. There is no way to do this with MAS. I have a mechanism built into Shave so I can push "news", but it's annoying and bad user experience.
- spaghetti 14y ago
  Why can't you update the app and hide most of the new features behind an in-app-purchase paywall?
  - modernerd 14y ago
    New users who purchase the updated app would have to pay again to get the latest features.
    - spaghetti 14y ago
      I think the following set-up avoids that problem: app is always the same price to download and has a few basic features unlocked. App has an upgrade view or screen where users can unlock additional features via in-app-purchase. It works like this: developer releases the app for, say, $10. People buy it and use the basic features for a while. So far there's no upgrades available. Developer codes up a premium feature and updates the app in the store. Existing users can use the app as-is with the basic features that came with the $10 price tag. Existing users can also make an in-app-purchase for, say, $5 that unlocks the premium feature. When new users download the app for $10 they just get the basic features. Since another "version" of the app is available the new users can just buy the premium features if they so choose. Fast forward to version 5 of the app. Now there's 4 upgrades available via in-app-purchase. However users are only prompted to purchase the next version based on their in-app-purchase history. I don't think there's a problem for new users who purchase the updated app.
      - jarek 14y ago
        This does away with everyone-is-on-newest-version paradigm of automatic updates that makes support easy - in fact, it makes it much worse. Instead of five old versions of the app, you might have 1 base + 12 permutations = 13 different combinations of functionality to support.
illumin8 14y ago
Developers could very well re-architect their application so that when you download the update to v2, you have to unlock the new features with an in-app purchase, but to be honest, it's a lot of extra work for the developer, and there is no way to make it less painful for the users, who will feel like they are getting nickel and dimed by the developer. Also, for those users that are brand new on the v2 version, it's a very bad experience when they have to immediately buy an in-app purchase just to unlock functionality that should be included. If you drop the price of the v2 version to accomodate this, then your original v1 userbase will complain that they paid twice as much. Here's an example: v1.0 of App X sells for $9.99 on the app store. Users buy it and are happy. v2.0 of App X comes out and to unlock the new features, you must pay $4.99 in-app purchase. Developer drops the price of the app to $4.99 so that new users don't have to pay $14.99 to get all the features. New users now complain that they have to immediately make an in-app purchase just to unlock the software - they don't notice that it's half price now because they never bought it previously. Existing users complain that they paid $9.99 and are now being nickel and dimed for updates, when the price is cut in half now. You can't win. Unfortunately, Apple has create a model that makes a lot of profit for them, and makes it relatively painless for the end user, but it's a model where the developers suffer and can't really support the large applications that receive many new features every year.
- chc 14y ago
  I think you misunderstood. He's suggesting that instead of releasing v2.0 on the App Store, you release an in-app purchase option in the original app that upgrades it to v2.0. A similar idea would be to release new features a la carte as in-app purchases instead of releasing new numbered versions. I'm not sure if the marketing hit would be worth it, but it is one way to a consistent revenue stream.
  - DigitalJack 14y ago
    Diner Dash follows this model. They update the app periodically and add new content available via in app purchase.
- pgeorgi 14y ago
mistercow 14y ago
There are a lot of problems with that idea, but the biggest I can see is that the user experience is horrendous. You're basically describing a world of itemized crippleware, where buying an app that's more than a few years old involves a half hour-long process of adding on feature packs.
deleted 14y ago
[deleted]
retr0rocket 14y ago
did you just compare a game with a 15$ subscription and 40$ expansion packs for major updates and lvl bumps to a 10 dollar app? do you realize how asinine that is and how dumb you sound? if i want to get to current content in WoW i would of had to get Vanilla(50$ at release) + burning crusade (40$ at release) + wrath of the lich king(40$ at release) + cataclysm(40$ at release) PLUS every month im paying 15$ on subscription if i just buy vanila i would be limited to 1-60 content, not allowed full access to any of the later continents and cities, skills, talents, cant pvp properly, not allowed in arena, cant do any endgame, and am generally wasting my time. how is that at all conducive to what you are saying? for any real application that does work or major game that requires constant updates you cant expect support and update for 10$ that's completely unfeasible. you sound like someone who never played world of warcraft in his life, and it baffles me how you came up with such a nonsensical rebuttal
- tg3 14y ago
  >do you realize how asinine that is and how dumb you sound? That was unnecessary and did not add to the conversation. And I'm not sure that I understand your point. Parent comment is saying that apps can follow the WoW model to create a consistent revenue stream without paid version number upgrades. As you mention, "for any real application that does work or major game that requires constant updates you cant expect support and update for 10$ that's completely unfeasible."
  - retr0rocket 14y ago
    you cant follow the wow model, the wow model requires constant fees every month, thats my whole point, when you play wow you pay blizzard constantly, and anytime there is a major update you pay another large chunk. you cant do that with a video editor, and its not like maps where you can segregate off chunks of content. like i said completely asinine, and unequatable in this circumstance, the fact that so many people agreed with such an obviously flawed argument speaks volumes.
grayprog 14y ago
Having version 2 as in-app purchase means your version 2 app has to include version 1 in it. Good luck with implementing that. What if my version 2 is a major rewrite and I change software architecture or want to use new features. Can you imaging writing an application with 2 different interfaces, database formats and feature sets, just to make it possible to upgrade with in-app purchase? No, thank you.
cube13 14y ago
World of Warcraft is a bad example of this. The client you have downloaded is always patched to the latest version, even if you haven't bought the expansions. Each expansion unlocks content. So once you buy The Burning Crusade, you get access to the Outlands zone. That only matters if you have a character that's level 58 or higher. Blizzard redid the entirety of the Vanilla WoW experience in the Cataclysm expansion. Even if you did not buy that expansion, the level 1-60 are still the new content.

jseliger 14y ago

Shave actually looks pretty appealing to me on OS X. Does it support 60fps (unlike iMovie), and will it accept input formats other than the iPhone's? (Sorry if I missed the answers on your website: I browsed through and didn't find them, but that might be my fault.)

jawngee 14y ago
It supports anything that QuickTime can play, some formats better than others. But I use it to edit DiVX. Note, that it will always save a quicktime movie, even if you are editing an AVI or MPEG, but it won't re-encode, it just changes containers. Email me jon@interfacelab.com and I'll hook you up with the latest version that supports AVCHD. Edit: Does not support WMV, even with Flip4Mac.
- crag 14y ago
  I use Shave.. and thanks. What are you gonna do about Perian shutting down?
  - jawngee 14y ago
    This bummed me out, not only for Shave, but as a user. But, you know, Apple's direction with media is a little f'd in my estimation. AVFoundation is dope, but it's a huge step back from QuickTime. Shave 2 is written using it, and so far (and it has a long ways to go), it's not half what the QuickTime version is.

rossjudson 14y ago

The App Store sells millions of cookies. You eat the cookie. You don't upgrade the cookie. You're absolutely right about the lack of upgrade path. Wonder how Apple will deal with this when their Keynote/Pages/Numbers sales taper off? At some point they'll want to refresh those designs and finance a fresh major version, and they'll want to charge for it. I bet you'll see the paid upgrade features (or maintenance features) then. One thing to realize is that the entitlement system is critically necessary and inevitable. It's really a case of taking the pain now, or taking it later. Might as well rip off that particular band-aid now. It won't get easier.

lukifer 14y ago
Apple can afford to stick to their guns on this, as most of their money is made on hardware. I highly doubt that GarageBand for iPhone makes a profit, for instance. They'll just release the new version at the same price. Most devs, even some big ones, don't have that luxury.
dan1234 14y ago
Well Mountain Lion was released as a new 'appp' rather than an update to the Lion app, so it seems Apple want people to release their major updates as new releases. I wouldn't be surprised if they continue to update the iLife products such as as iPhoto as they always came free with the OS and I don't think many people bought the iLife pack separately but I'm really not sure how they'll handle keynote/pages/numbers.

ToesByNoon 14y ago

Looks interesting, might have to take a look, don't have a great tool for this. I'd give you $20 if it could remux mkv to mp4 and transcode audio. Just saying..

franzus 14y ago

One of the most annoying things about the app store are the review times. With our app (http://armadilloapp.com http://armadilloapp.com) we had to wait over 5 weeks to get into the store. 2 weeks till the first review, then there was a rejection where I had consult Apple's DTS which took another week to get resolved plus another 2 weeks waiting for a new review. Now we have version 1.0 in the app store and have version 1.1 waiting for review since almost 3 weeks. In v1.1 we have added some new features people were requesting and a few minor bug fixes. Now all we can do is tell our customers: "Version 1.1 will be out soon - as soon as Apple decides it's time for a review". It's really a shame that Apple takes 30% of our sales for such a bad service.

magoon 14y ago
I second this. The review times can cause real problems for development, and it is a concern that gets very little attention these days.
leviathan 14y ago
I'm in the same boat; I have a small iphone app that's been waiting to get into the store for 2 months now. Rejections are such random nitpicks and take forever to get resolved. They rejected the app repeatedly for the following reasons: - didn't like one of the supplied screenshots. - in-app purchase does not provide a restore button (which I've never seen in any other app btw) - the restore button of an in-app purchase is not labeled restore. The average wait between rejection and re-review is 2 weeks. I think this is a typical example of bikeshedding, I have another (retired) app that is still in the store, it's full of bugs, and crashes constantly, but the functionality is so big and complicated that it was accepted instantly without any rejection. But this is a very simple utility app, so they want to nitpick over all small details.

ricardobeat 14y ago

Shave does less than iMovie for $10 more. Maybe that's why it's not providing decent income? It's hard to compete with free, even more a good free app.

jawngee 14y ago
iMovie isn't free. It's $14.99. It's also slow as shit where Shave is fast as you know what - for a very specific type of editing. Trust me, I've done the comparison of same editing tasks in both and I can do in a minute in Shave what takes 20-30 minutes to do in iMovie. It's the reason I wrote it in the first place. And good luck opening a DiVX or another weird codec in iMovie. Or editing an Mpeg-2/4 movie without having to re-encode. Or editing at all without re-encoding.
- ricardobeat 14y ago
  iMovie comes bundled with any new mac for free. So, your customers are users with very specific editing needs, willing to pay for something they already have (disregarding performance), and/or that need to edit DivX or weird codecs. That sounds like a pretty tiny market compared to users who want a step up from iMovie; building a quality app for your own needs doesn't guarantee a market for it. That's just my point of view, you have the numbers.

gte910h 14y ago

Check out Tweetie and Tweetie 2 Just make a new version, increment the version number, and be on your way. FileEditor 2012, etc