8 ms·

Update – We’re unable to offer upgrade pricing for Mac App Store purchases

80 points by nickmain 13y ago

yapcguy 13y ago
"We are not allowed to distribute updates through other channels to apps which were purchased from the App Store." The solution is simple. All Mac developers should stop selling through the App Store, regain control of the distribution channel, and leave the Mac App Store barren of quality applications. Until Mac developers have leverage, Apple will continue taking their 30% cut and enforcing rules which suit them and not the developers. EDIT: Just wanted to add... What are developers going to do when Apple says every single new API in Mavericks can only be used if the app is sold through the Mac App Store? This has already happened with the iCloud SDK, so it's likely they will continue on this path. What if one day Apple says you can only have a developer certificate if your apps are sold exclusively through the Mac App Store?
- kennymeyers 13y ago
  What an incredibly simple solution you've devised. I'm not sure why it hasn't been adopted!? It's so simple! Either way, I've alerted the committee of the Nobel Prize of Economics about your discovery.
- routelastresort 13y ago
  ... or switch back to Linux, and just download everything you need, without encumbrances like this. I recently switched back on all of my OSX and Windows machine, and it feels great. Only through years of contributions to open source projects, and hanging my head in shame can I ever be redeemed. Oh, and Steam is only going to get better!
  - __--__ 13y ago
    I still haven't found a linux distro that doesn't eventually resort to me fudging with xrandr for a week trying to get multiple monitors working correctly. Granted, this was 3 years ago. Have any linux distros solved the problem of configuring multiple monitors using a gui yet?
    - drivebyacct2 13y ago
      >Granted, this was 3 years ago. Choked on the water I was drinking. Is this a serious poast?
    - eropple 13y ago
      > Have any linux distros solved the problem of configuring multiple monitors using a gui yet? For two monitors on one video card, things are pretty okay on Ubuntu and derivatives. More than that, especially 3+ with non-uniform geometries, and you will have fun. If you have multiple video cards, you will have even more fun.
      - ngoldbaum 13y ago
        "fun"
      - rurounijones 13y ago
        I have two nVidia cards in SLI powering 3 monitors. Setup was pretty simple using the binary nVidia drivers on Kubuntu, 0 config file wrangling. Now, having those three monitors in non-uniform geometries is something I wouldn't even consider tackling [EDIT] Kubuntu 12.04 All monitors in a single X Session and automatic application window sizing works as you would expect in KDE (i.e. Maximising a window maximises to the current monitor only and being able to drag to right side of one monitor causes the window to use up half of the current monitor)
        eropple 13y ago
        Can you get them all in the same X session? I've never tried SLI, I generally just upgrade to a beefier main card and use a second card to drive extra monitors. I have an HD6970 and an HD6450 on 4 monitors that work great under OS X (Hackintosh'd) and Windows and things go extremely sideways under Ubuntu.
        dripton 13y ago
        I had 3 monitors / 2 Nvidia cards working fine in Kubuntu 11.04 and 12.04. All one X session. It was easy. But that was with uniform geometry. (I had 3 identical monitors.) Haven't tried non-uniform.
  - peterkelly 13y ago
    I used Linux as my main OS for 7 years before switching to a mac. I just got fed up with all the hardware compatibility problems and stuff that didn't work without spending hours messing around with library dependencies etc. I'm not going back in a hurry.
    - sdoering 13y ago
      I switched to linux and it was great. but one thing keeps bugging me. Every now and then, after and update my nvidia-drivers are lost, I loose my second screen and have to go nuts, while searching for a way to tell my laptop, that there is a secondary screen (that is much bigger and better and makes working with the laptop ok). So this is the only thing in my experience, that really sucks. The rest (compared to WIN) is really, really great.
    - goblinfoblin 13y ago
      How long ago did you switch back, because recently this seems to happen less and less. If you're smart and pick a laptop which has proven linux compatibility it really doesn't happen anymore. I remember 5 years ago getting speakers to mute on my laptop when I plugged headphones in was impossible but I haven't seen a similar problem in my last few laptops.
  - b3b0p 13y ago
    I have no problem with using Linux instead of Mac OS X. I would love to in fact, but I have a laptop. One of the greatest features of my laptop is that I can close it up and take it with me. I can then open it up and continue work. The problem I run into with Linux is that sleep, suspend, and hibernate do not seem to work or work reliably. This is what is holding me back from jumping to Linux for the most part.
- signed0 13y ago
  You don't have to wait for Mavericks, it has already happened. Apps that are sold through the App Store can not make use of the the media keys on Apple keyboards, which is why VLC can use them and other apps can't. Edit: other than iTunes
  - yapcguy 13y ago
    Yep, it's a double-edged sword. The App Store may offer things like the iCloud SDK but will restrict apps from using features that compete with Apples own apps, as well as any cool hacks which apps outside the App Store are free to make use of. My take is that Apple is herding developers into the App Store, enticing them with SDK features and the promise of riches, and at some point they will change the default gatekeeper setting so that users see great big warning signs and are too scared of running non App Store software. We're probably still a few years away from this happening, but the writing is on the wall.
    - TheZenPsycho 13y ago
      Big fat warning is already the default, isn't it?
      - glhaynes 13y ago
        By default it only warns if the app is unsigned.
  - deleted 13y ago
    [deleted]
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
- zedpm 13y ago
  Yep. My business recently ported (well, _I_ ported) our main product from Windows to OSX. After reading up a bit on the App Store and the Apple developer ecosystem, we decided to completely avoid all of it and distribute our software on our own. Having a third party dictate major business decisions in this manner is absurd and ought to be avoided when possible. It's not clear what we'll do if Apple takes steps to force developers to join up and use the App Store (which isn't outside the realm of possibility).
  - yapcguy 13y ago
    Good decision. It's quite a pathetic situation when Mac developers have to resort to filing bug reports, yes bug reports, to try and address the issue of upgrade pricing. https://twitter.com/danielpunkass/status/375377881012396032 https://twitter.com/danielpunkass/status/375377881012396032
- Steko 13y ago
  Your solution is bonkers and has zero chance of happening. You know what Valve charges to put you on the Steam store? 30% or more. You know why some people do it? Because they make more money doing it. You know why some people don't? Because they make more money not doing it.
  - thejosh 13y ago
    valve doesn't limit you on the functionality that your game can use.
    - Steko 13y ago
      That's bullshit, they have all kinds of limits on what they allow.
      - selectstar 13y ago
        Such as?
jeena 13y ago
It was so obvious when I read about it here http://brooksreview.net/2013/08/omnikeymaster-upgrade-pricing-for-mac-app-store-customers/ http://brooksreview.net/2013/08/omnikeymaster-upgrade-pricin... just the other day. Why would Apple build a distribution channel and then let people upgrade apps outside of it without getting their cut? I think this was obvious for the Omni guys too, they just wanted this problem to get some publicity.
- stinky613 13y ago
  They kind of have to because the App Store doesn't allow paid upgrades. There's no way to offer two prices (upgrade price and full retail price) for an app. EDIT: The in-between choice would be moving to SaaS (see Adobe), but that's another discussion entirely
  - pudquick 13y ago
    As a counterpoint, the App Store also implicitly encourages an "infinite major versions updates" pricing model vs. minor point release updates = free, major = paid upgrade. In order to do something like that in the App Store, you have to make your next major version listed as a completely separate app ID. Almost no one does this because everyone in the App Store ecosystem expects new version = hit Update All - and the few times I've seen this done, it resulted in nothing but negative App Store reviews. By not providing anything other than a single purchase price, Apple has not just discouraged the upgrade price model - they've discouraged everything but a one-time flat price or admitting to the customers that they're truly a SaaS model (by forcing the developer to do it as an in-app subscription purchase). I prefer this simplicity.
stevoski 13y ago
The Mac App Store does provide something of value: app hosting, oh-so-easy purchasing (just enter a password, as Apple has your credit card details on file), app delivery, license management. But the downsides. Boy, the downsides. And they take a 30% cut of the gross price. It would be really nice if there was an alternative App store, which offered the similar benefits, was cheaper for developers, was curated, but was more developer-friendly.
- jeena 13y ago
  There is http://appbodega.com/ http://appbodega.com/ but, yeah, nobody buys there anything.
  - bradleyland 13y ago
    Which underscores the single greatest value of the App Store: the market. Apple has built a population of dedicated users who are willing to spend money. They did this by building a product that asks consumers to spend a little more to get a little more. Now they've created a channel through which developers can access those consumers directly through the host operating system, and they charge a fee for that. When you look at alternative marketplaces, it becomes clear that the value of the App Store is more than just "app hosting, oh-so-easy purchasing (just enter a password, as Apple has your credit card details on file), app delivery, license management".
yaddayadda 13y ago
Seems like this is a case study for "Android is for startups" http://blog.audobox.com/android-is-for-startups/ http://blog.audobox.com/android-is-for-startups/
- radley 13y ago
  Hardly - we have the same problem with the Play Store
hayksaakian 13y ago
Why not offer rebates to users of the old version instead?
- wmf 13y ago
  It's likely that Apple would veto that as well.
  - hayksaakian 13y ago
    How much control do they really have over your business? If amazon can redirect its customers to its site to work around this level of control, why can't they do the same and give licensed users apple gift cards to cover the upgrade vs full price difference?
- ser0 13y ago
  When the publisher rebates, they are losing out on the Apple cut/tax. So if they rebate 50% of a $100 item, Apple still takes $30 on the full sale price. This means that the rebate needs to be reduced to 35% for those that buy on the App Store, which still creates two classes of repeat customers.
protomyth 13y ago
The problem is Apple doesn't currently care about paid upgrades. They don't sell software that way (witness the new Logic). Developers need to do things to ensure the loyalty of old customers while pricing their software so they can make a living. So the starting price + upgrade pricing model works great. Customer feel like they got a bargain for being loyal and the developer gets to eat. Apple doesn't need to do that. So they won't build it for developers. Given the iCloud API thing, I would imagine this is going to continue to get more restrictive.
- peterkelly 13y ago
  > The problem is Apple doesn't currently care about paid upgrades Given that they would make 30% of the upgrade price, I'm surprised they're not actively encouraging this.
  - Alphasite_ 13y ago
    You seem to be under the mistaken impression that apple cares about the money, at the scale the MAS operates at, its nothing to write home about. So i doubt very much that they plan on changing anything at the current time.
  - protomyth 13y ago
    They would prefer to make 30% of the full price and not deal with the ongoing costs to support upgrades.
kybernetyk 13y ago
> We are not allowed to distribute updates through other channels to apps which were purchased from the App Store. > Update: Unfortunately, we’ve had to remove OmniKeyMaster from our website and can no longer offer upgrade pricing to App Store customers. So, what happened here? Did Apple threaten to close Omni's app store account? Because: The Omni Key Master is an app that is not distributed through the app store. Also when a user buys an upgrage he will only receive updates through Omni's website and not the app store. So the upgraded apps should be out of Apple's reach. So what happened here? Did Apple legal write a strongly worded email to Omni?
gojomo 13y ago
It'd be ugly and put other burdens on the pricing strategy and support permutations, but perhaps app-makers so trapped could approximate their desired result via: (1) offer a reduced-functionality "version N" to everyone, but for the desired 'upgrade' price. (Essentially, this might only have the features of the prior N-1 version.) (2) offer an in-app purchase unlocking full/pro features, priced at the delta between their desired "full Version N price" and what was already paid (3) give owners of the previous "N-1 Version" a code that gives them the in-app purchase benefits for free Maybe Apple would still object... but since the entire process happens inside Apple's system, paying Apple's commissions, advancing the use of Apple's in-app purchase mechanisms, maybe they'd be OK with it.
- timeuser 13y ago
  How do you propose accomplishing (3) that isn't a difficult confusing mess for users and verifies they are indeed an owner of the n-1 version?
  - jacalata 13y ago
    If you planned ahead, you could keep a version log somewhere inside the software showing which versions they'd had installed. Or, you could have each new version installed 'phone home', maybe ask users to 'register now for free/cheap upgrades later!'. All of them have drawbacks, but would get a significant chunk of the desired experience.
    - timeuser 13y ago
      The drawbacks are pretty significant. A lot of users really aren't that savvy or motivated to register ahead or deal with some complicated upgrade process. If you have an app that's been in the store for a while it's even more problematic since more users have old app versions. Anyone that gets a new device and wants to install the upgraded app would have to install the old app version or go through some other odd process if they want to activate the upgrade. Also it seems likely Apple won't allow these upgrade schemes any more than they are allowing Omni to do upgrades around the App Store.
josephlord 13y ago
It is additional work but I believe something should be possible on iOS7 and Mavericks. If I remember correctly you will now be able to get the original purchase receipt including the date of the purchase not just the receipts for the in-app purchases. If you can separate out some or all of the feature upgrades and disable them when the original purchase was before date of upgrade release unless an in-app purchase is made for the upgrade price. Won't this work? I realise that it doesn't come without effort to set it up and to test the software in two modes but at least bug fixes can go to everyone without two releases. Up to now I don't think there has been a way to identify when the initial app purchase happened.
jchimney 13y ago
Yup, Apple needs to fix this. Doesn't seem like a difficult engineering problem on the surface. Just fix it.
kcase 13y ago
Not being able to offer the same discounted upgrade pricing to all our customers no matter where they purchased is obviously disappointing for us. But it just means we're back to the same state of affairs as I outlined in my original blog post from the launch of the Mac App Store: http://www.omnigroup.com/blog/entry/mac_app_store_or_omnis_online_store_your_choice/ http://www.omnigroup.com/blog/entry/mac_app_store_or_omnis_o... As I said in that original post: "The Mac App Store is the most convenient way to buy our software, letting you purchase, download, and install our apps with just one step, and easily update our apps at the same time as you update other apps you've purchased from the the store. "But to be clear, the Mac App Store is not the only way to buy our software: we'll continue to offer direct sales and updates through our own website as well. Through our website, we can offer much more flexible terms and options: trial and beta downloads, upgrade pricing, and discounts for volume, bundle, and educational purchases. "No matter which way you buy our software, you'll be getting the same product: all of our Mac App Store apps are exactly the same as the apps we sell through our website (except for a few minor changes made to work with the store). We'll also keep future updates to our apps in sync—apps you've purchased directly through us will continue to update themselves as they always have, while App Store updates will appear on the App Store (after a slight delay due to the App Store's review process). And either way, you'll have the same great support from our team here at Omni."
- timeuser 13y ago
  Can you offer any more detail on what you were specifically forbidden from doing? Is it that you aren't allowed to offer updates outside of the App Store to App Store purchased apps? Or is it the method you were using with OmniKeyMaster that was disallowed? Do you think Apple would allow other ways of supporting upgrade pricing between two versions of an App Store app possibly through in app purchase or similar?
Spooky23 13y ago
Boo hoo. The people paying $80 for todo list management don't need upgrade pricing. If they do, maybe charging a less insane price would make the App Store issue moot. Building stuff for Apple products is like dating and being madly in love with someone who doesn't love you. Everything is great until they don't need you anymore. Remember the independent resellers of Apple products, who operated actual physical stores selling Macs before they were cool again? You may not, because Apple basically shot them in the head when try opened Apple Retail stores. Remember the Mac OEMs? Apple is building two sales channels, one that makes them 30%, one that makes them 0%. They've told you that they make many more dollars with walled garden products built on iOS, and are porting key iOS features to Mac OS -- features that also require that sales channel that makes them richer. So if you develop software for Mac, you shouldn't be surprised when Apple abuses you -- Apple doesn't need you.
- general_failure 13y ago
  That was beautiful. Thank you.
- pornel 13y ago
  > The people paying $80 for todo list management don't need upgrade pricing. Omni makes good products that are (IMHO) worth $80, and paying full price for an upgrade is unfair whether that's an $80 app or a $3.99 app. The problem isn't that software costs $80, it's that giving up freedom to use AppStore ends up hurting users and developers.
  - bradleyland 13y ago
    I'm not sure this is the kind of thing that can be categorized as fair or unfair. The upgrade-pricing model follows the rationale that users pay a higher up-front cost for software, then each upgrade is a maintenance fee to support continued improvement of the software. The flat-cost model spreads the cost of continued software development equally over all users. The feeling of whether or not this is "fair" depends upon whether you're a new user or an existing user. With the upgrade-pricing model, new users are confronted with a much lower price point, which is unavailable to them. This can be a significant psychological barrier to purchase execution. However, existing users are more likely to feel appreciated and stick with the product because they receive favorable pricing. With the flat-cost model, you have the inverse. New users no longer feel marginalized, but existing users may consider alternatives at each time-of-purchase for upgrades. Apple's vision of flat-cost pricing dictates that the price point should be held as low as possible, increasing accessibility from a broader market. With software, there are no incremental costs, so your price point is a matter of supply/demand tuning. There are countless blog articles on this subject. While there isn't consensus on which model (flat-cost vs upgrade-pricing) is the most successful, each has its pros and cons for consumers. I don't think either could be characterized as fair or unfair.
ryan-allen 13y ago
Maybe they could do rebates? Like you purchase an app via the app-store and if they have a record of you owning it they can refund some of the money?

80 points by nickmain 13y ago

"We are not allowed to distribute updates through other channels to apps which were purchased from the App Store." The solution is simple. All Mac developers should stop selling through the App Store, regain control of the distribution channel, and leave the Mac App Store barren of quality applications. Until Mac developers have leverage, Apple will continue taking their 30% cut and enforcing rules which suit them and not the developers. EDIT: Just wanted to add... What are developers going to do when Apple says every single new API in Mavericks can only be used if the app is sold through the Mac App Store? This has already happened with the iCloud SDK, so it's likely they will continue on this path. What if one day Apple says you can only have a developer certificate if your apps are sold exclusively through the Mac App Store?

kennymeyers 13y ago
What an incredibly simple solution you've devised. I'm not sure why it hasn't been adopted!? It's so simple! Either way, I've alerted the committee of the Nobel Prize of Economics about your discovery.
routelastresort 13y ago
... or switch back to Linux, and just download everything you need, without encumbrances like this. I recently switched back on all of my OSX and Windows machine, and it feels great. Only through years of contributions to open source projects, and hanging my head in shame can I ever be redeemed. Oh, and Steam is only going to get better!
- __--__ 13y ago
  I still haven't found a linux distro that doesn't eventually resort to me fudging with xrandr for a week trying to get multiple monitors working correctly. Granted, this was 3 years ago. Have any linux distros solved the problem of configuring multiple monitors using a gui yet?
  - drivebyacct2 13y ago
    >Granted, this was 3 years ago. Choked on the water I was drinking. Is this a serious poast?
  - eropple 13y ago
    > Have any linux distros solved the problem of configuring multiple monitors using a gui yet? For two monitors on one video card, things are pretty okay on Ubuntu and derivatives. More than that, especially 3+ with non-uniform geometries, and you will have fun. If you have multiple video cards, you will have even more fun.
    - ngoldbaum 13y ago
      "fun"
    - rurounijones 13y ago
      I have two nVidia cards in SLI powering 3 monitors. Setup was pretty simple using the binary nVidia drivers on Kubuntu, 0 config file wrangling. Now, having those three monitors in non-uniform geometries is something I wouldn't even consider tackling [EDIT] Kubuntu 12.04 All monitors in a single X Session and automatic application window sizing works as you would expect in KDE (i.e. Maximising a window maximises to the current monitor only and being able to drag to right side of one monitor causes the window to use up half of the current monitor)
      - eropple 13y ago
        Can you get them all in the same X session? I've never tried SLI, I generally just upgrade to a beefier main card and use a second card to drive extra monitors. I have an HD6970 and an HD6450 on 4 monitors that work great under OS X (Hackintosh'd) and Windows and things go extremely sideways under Ubuntu.
        dripton 13y ago
        I had 3 monitors / 2 Nvidia cards working fine in Kubuntu 11.04 and 12.04. All one X session. It was easy. But that was with uniform geometry. (I had 3 identical monitors.) Haven't tried non-uniform.
- peterkelly 13y ago
  I used Linux as my main OS for 7 years before switching to a mac. I just got fed up with all the hardware compatibility problems and stuff that didn't work without spending hours messing around with library dependencies etc. I'm not going back in a hurry.
  - sdoering 13y ago
    I switched to linux and it was great. but one thing keeps bugging me. Every now and then, after and update my nvidia-drivers are lost, I loose my second screen and have to go nuts, while searching for a way to tell my laptop, that there is a secondary screen (that is much bigger and better and makes working with the laptop ok). So this is the only thing in my experience, that really sucks. The rest (compared to WIN) is really, really great.
  - goblinfoblin 13y ago
    How long ago did you switch back, because recently this seems to happen less and less. If you're smart and pick a laptop which has proven linux compatibility it really doesn't happen anymore. I remember 5 years ago getting speakers to mute on my laptop when I plugged headphones in was impossible but I haven't seen a similar problem in my last few laptops.
- b3b0p 13y ago
  I have no problem with using Linux instead of Mac OS X. I would love to in fact, but I have a laptop. One of the greatest features of my laptop is that I can close it up and take it with me. I can then open it up and continue work. The problem I run into with Linux is that sleep, suspend, and hibernate do not seem to work or work reliably. This is what is holding me back from jumping to Linux for the most part.
signed0 13y ago
You don't have to wait for Mavericks, it has already happened. Apps that are sold through the App Store can not make use of the the media keys on Apple keyboards, which is why VLC can use them and other apps can't. Edit: other than iTunes
- yapcguy 13y ago
  Yep, it's a double-edged sword. The App Store may offer things like the iCloud SDK but will restrict apps from using features that compete with Apples own apps, as well as any cool hacks which apps outside the App Store are free to make use of. My take is that Apple is herding developers into the App Store, enticing them with SDK features and the promise of riches, and at some point they will change the default gatekeeper setting so that users see great big warning signs and are too scared of running non App Store software. We're probably still a few years away from this happening, but the writing is on the wall.
  - TheZenPsycho 13y ago
    Big fat warning is already the default, isn't it?
    - glhaynes 13y ago
      By default it only warns if the app is unsigned.
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
zedpm 13y ago
Yep. My business recently ported (well, _I_ ported) our main product from Windows to OSX. After reading up a bit on the App Store and the Apple developer ecosystem, we decided to completely avoid all of it and distribute our software on our own. Having a third party dictate major business decisions in this manner is absurd and ought to be avoided when possible. It's not clear what we'll do if Apple takes steps to force developers to join up and use the App Store (which isn't outside the realm of possibility).
- yapcguy 13y ago
  Good decision. It's quite a pathetic situation when Mac developers have to resort to filing bug reports, yes bug reports, to try and address the issue of upgrade pricing. https://twitter.com/danielpunkass/status/375377881012396032 https://twitter.com/danielpunkass/status/375377881012396032
Steko 13y ago
Your solution is bonkers and has zero chance of happening. You know what Valve charges to put you on the Steam store? 30% or more. You know why some people do it? Because they make more money doing it. You know why some people don't? Because they make more money not doing it.
- thejosh 13y ago
  valve doesn't limit you on the functionality that your game can use.
  - Steko 13y ago
    That's bullshit, they have all kinds of limits on what they allow.
    - selectstar 13y ago
      Such as?

jeena 13y ago

It was so obvious when I read about it here http://brooksreview.net/2013/08/omnikeymaster-upgrade-pricing-for-mac-app-store-customers/ http://brooksreview.net/2013/08/omnikeymaster-upgrade-pricin... just the other day. Why would Apple build a distribution channel and then let people upgrade apps outside of it without getting their cut? I think this was obvious for the Omni guys too, they just wanted this problem to get some publicity.

stinky613 13y ago
They kind of have to because the App Store doesn't allow paid upgrades. There's no way to offer two prices (upgrade price and full retail price) for an app. EDIT: The in-between choice would be moving to SaaS (see Adobe), but that's another discussion entirely
- pudquick 13y ago
  As a counterpoint, the App Store also implicitly encourages an "infinite major versions updates" pricing model vs. minor point release updates = free, major = paid upgrade. In order to do something like that in the App Store, you have to make your next major version listed as a completely separate app ID. Almost no one does this because everyone in the App Store ecosystem expects new version = hit Update All - and the few times I've seen this done, it resulted in nothing but negative App Store reviews. By not providing anything other than a single purchase price, Apple has not just discouraged the upgrade price model - they've discouraged everything but a one-time flat price or admitting to the customers that they're truly a SaaS model (by forcing the developer to do it as an in-app subscription purchase). I prefer this simplicity.

stevoski 13y ago

The Mac App Store does provide something of value: app hosting, oh-so-easy purchasing (just enter a password, as Apple has your credit card details on file), app delivery, license management. But the downsides. Boy, the downsides. And they take a 30% cut of the gross price. It would be really nice if there was an alternative App store, which offered the similar benefits, was cheaper for developers, was curated, but was more developer-friendly.

jeena 13y ago
There is http://appbodega.com/ http://appbodega.com/ but, yeah, nobody buys there anything.
- bradleyland 13y ago
  Which underscores the single greatest value of the App Store: the market. Apple has built a population of dedicated users who are willing to spend money. They did this by building a product that asks consumers to spend a little more to get a little more. Now they've created a channel through which developers can access those consumers directly through the host operating system, and they charge a fee for that. When you look at alternative marketplaces, it becomes clear that the value of the App Store is more than just "app hosting, oh-so-easy purchasing (just enter a password, as Apple has your credit card details on file), app delivery, license management".

yaddayadda 13y ago

Seems like this is a case study for "Android is for startups" http://blog.audobox.com/android-is-for-startups/ http://blog.audobox.com/android-is-for-startups/

radley 13y ago
Hardly - we have the same problem with the Play Store

hayksaakian 13y ago

Why not offer rebates to users of the old version instead?

wmf 13y ago
It's likely that Apple would veto that as well.
- hayksaakian 13y ago
  How much control do they really have over your business? If amazon can redirect its customers to its site to work around this level of control, why can't they do the same and give licensed users apple gift cards to cover the upgrade vs full price difference?
ser0 13y ago
When the publisher rebates, they are losing out on the Apple cut/tax. So if they rebate 50% of a $100 item, Apple still takes $30 on the full sale price. This means that the rebate needs to be reduced to 35% for those that buy on the App Store, which still creates two classes of repeat customers.

protomyth 13y ago

The problem is Apple doesn't currently care about paid upgrades. They don't sell software that way (witness the new Logic). Developers need to do things to ensure the loyalty of old customers while pricing their software so they can make a living. So the starting price + upgrade pricing model works great. Customer feel like they got a bargain for being loyal and the developer gets to eat. Apple doesn't need to do that. So they won't build it for developers. Given the iCloud API thing, I would imagine this is going to continue to get more restrictive.

peterkelly 13y ago
> The problem is Apple doesn't currently care about paid upgrades Given that they would make 30% of the upgrade price, I'm surprised they're not actively encouraging this.
- Alphasite_ 13y ago
  You seem to be under the mistaken impression that apple cares about the money, at the scale the MAS operates at, its nothing to write home about. So i doubt very much that they plan on changing anything at the current time.
- protomyth 13y ago
  They would prefer to make 30% of the full price and not deal with the ongoing costs to support upgrades.

kybernetyk 13y ago

> We are not allowed to distribute updates through other channels to apps which were purchased from the App Store. > Update: Unfortunately, we’ve had to remove OmniKeyMaster from our website and can no longer offer upgrade pricing to App Store customers. So, what happened here? Did Apple threaten to close Omni's app store account? Because: The Omni Key Master is an app that is not distributed through the app store. Also when a user buys an upgrage he will only receive updates through Omni's website and not the app store. So the upgraded apps should be out of Apple's reach. So what happened here? Did Apple legal write a strongly worded email to Omni?

gojomo 13y ago

It'd be ugly and put other burdens on the pricing strategy and support permutations, but perhaps app-makers so trapped could approximate their desired result via: (1) offer a reduced-functionality "version N" to everyone, but for the desired 'upgrade' price. (Essentially, this might only have the features of the prior N-1 version.) (2) offer an in-app purchase unlocking full/pro features, priced at the delta between their desired "full Version N price" and what was already paid (3) give owners of the previous "N-1 Version" a code that gives them the in-app purchase benefits for free Maybe Apple would still object... but since the entire process happens inside Apple's system, paying Apple's commissions, advancing the use of Apple's in-app purchase mechanisms, maybe they'd be OK with it.

timeuser 13y ago
How do you propose accomplishing (3) that isn't a difficult confusing mess for users and verifies they are indeed an owner of the n-1 version?
- jacalata 13y ago
  If you planned ahead, you could keep a version log somewhere inside the software showing which versions they'd had installed. Or, you could have each new version installed 'phone home', maybe ask users to 'register now for free/cheap upgrades later!'. All of them have drawbacks, but would get a significant chunk of the desired experience.
  - timeuser 13y ago
    The drawbacks are pretty significant. A lot of users really aren't that savvy or motivated to register ahead or deal with some complicated upgrade process. If you have an app that's been in the store for a while it's even more problematic since more users have old app versions. Anyone that gets a new device and wants to install the upgraded app would have to install the old app version or go through some other odd process if they want to activate the upgrade. Also it seems likely Apple won't allow these upgrade schemes any more than they are allowing Omni to do upgrades around the App Store.

josephlord 13y ago

It is additional work but I believe something should be possible on iOS7 and Mavericks. If I remember correctly you will now be able to get the original purchase receipt including the date of the purchase not just the receipts for the in-app purchases. If you can separate out some or all of the feature upgrades and disable them when the original purchase was before date of upgrade release unless an in-app purchase is made for the upgrade price. Won't this work? I realise that it doesn't come without effort to set it up and to test the software in two modes but at least bug fixes can go to everyone without two releases. Up to now I don't think there has been a way to identify when the initial app purchase happened.

jchimney 13y ago

Yup, Apple needs to fix this. Doesn't seem like a difficult engineering problem on the surface. Just fix it.

kcase 13y ago

Not being able to offer the same discounted upgrade pricing to all our customers no matter where they purchased is obviously disappointing for us. But it just means we're back to the same state of affairs as I outlined in my original blog post from the launch of the Mac App Store: http://www.omnigroup.com/blog/entry/mac_app_store_or_omnis_online_store_your_choice/ http://www.omnigroup.com/blog/entry/mac_app_store_or_omnis_o... As I said in that original post: "The Mac App Store is the most convenient way to buy our software, letting you purchase, download, and install our apps with just one step, and easily update our apps at the same time as you update other apps you've purchased from the the store. "But to be clear, the Mac App Store is not the only way to buy our software: we'll continue to offer direct sales and updates through our own website as well. Through our website, we can offer much more flexible terms and options: trial and beta downloads, upgrade pricing, and discounts for volume, bundle, and educational purchases. "No matter which way you buy our software, you'll be getting the same product: all of our Mac App Store apps are exactly the same as the apps we sell through our website (except for a few minor changes made to work with the store). We'll also keep future updates to our apps in sync—apps you've purchased directly through us will continue to update themselves as they always have, while App Store updates will appear on the App Store (after a slight delay due to the App Store's review process). And either way, you'll have the same great support from our team here at Omni."

timeuser 13y ago
Can you offer any more detail on what you were specifically forbidden from doing? Is it that you aren't allowed to offer updates outside of the App Store to App Store purchased apps? Or is it the method you were using with OmniKeyMaster that was disallowed? Do you think Apple would allow other ways of supporting upgrade pricing between two versions of an App Store app possibly through in app purchase or similar?

Spooky23 13y ago

Boo hoo. The people paying $80 for todo list management don't need upgrade pricing. If they do, maybe charging a less insane price would make the App Store issue moot. Building stuff for Apple products is like dating and being madly in love with someone who doesn't love you. Everything is great until they don't need you anymore. Remember the independent resellers of Apple products, who operated actual physical stores selling Macs before they were cool again? You may not, because Apple basically shot them in the head when try opened Apple Retail stores. Remember the Mac OEMs? Apple is building two sales channels, one that makes them 30%, one that makes them 0%. They've told you that they make many more dollars with walled garden products built on iOS, and are porting key iOS features to Mac OS -- features that also require that sales channel that makes them richer. So if you develop software for Mac, you shouldn't be surprised when Apple abuses you -- Apple doesn't need you.

general_failure 13y ago
That was beautiful. Thank you.
pornel 13y ago
> The people paying $80 for todo list management don't need upgrade pricing. Omni makes good products that are (IMHO) worth $80, and paying full price for an upgrade is unfair whether that's an $80 app or a $3.99 app. The problem isn't that software costs $80, it's that giving up freedom to use AppStore ends up hurting users and developers.
- bradleyland 13y ago
  I'm not sure this is the kind of thing that can be categorized as fair or unfair. The upgrade-pricing model follows the rationale that users pay a higher up-front cost for software, then each upgrade is a maintenance fee to support continued improvement of the software. The flat-cost model spreads the cost of continued software development equally over all users. The feeling of whether or not this is "fair" depends upon whether you're a new user or an existing user. With the upgrade-pricing model, new users are confronted with a much lower price point, which is unavailable to them. This can be a significant psychological barrier to purchase execution. However, existing users are more likely to feel appreciated and stick with the product because they receive favorable pricing. With the flat-cost model, you have the inverse. New users no longer feel marginalized, but existing users may consider alternatives at each time-of-purchase for upgrades. Apple's vision of flat-cost pricing dictates that the price point should be held as low as possible, increasing accessibility from a broader market. With software, there are no incremental costs, so your price point is a matter of supply/demand tuning. There are countless blog articles on this subject. While there isn't consensus on which model (flat-cost vs upgrade-pricing) is the most successful, each has its pros and cons for consumers. I don't think either could be characterized as fair or unfair.

ryan-allen 13y ago

Maybe they could do rebates? Like you purchase an app via the app-store and if they have a record of you owning it they can refund some of the money?