Monthly In App Subscriptions are the Jamba ring tones of the 00s. Instant NO for me, especially those apps that get hardly any updates, why pay monthly to use it. It’s downright rude
But this is a discussion about free apps, so those more and better free apps just cost them even more money and don’t pay for themselves. Instead the 30% from commercial apps pay for the storage and bandwidth to distribute the free apps, as well as the fulfillment costs for the paid apps.They get 30% of every sale in the app store - and the more and better apps they have, the more attractive it makes their app store. That's far from nothing.
So are subscriptions.I understand why people feel strongly about this, but gosh, it is repetitive.
Both the app developer and Apple benefit from a switch from single to recurring purchases. You the consumer ends up paying more.Subscription models were driven by apple App Store policies to drive additional spending and App Store fees toward apple. It was not some invisible neutral market force but an idea from the top to extract even more value from those at the bottom.
I really hope society evolves away from this horrifically misguided market based thinking
I love this. You’re right, there was effort, and enjoyment.BUT, nothing, Nothing, NOTHING, N-O-T-H-I-N-G will ever match the feeling of me hopping in my truck as a 20 year old, driving over an hour to CompUSA, talking with the Apple employee in the back corner of the store (who I still talk with today), buying software and Mac OS X or iLife and iWork **IN A BOX** and driving home like a kid at Christmas just waiting to take the disc out and install it while watching the blue Aqua progress bar tell me how quickly it would be before I got to use my new software.
Those were the good ’ol days. At least then, with that much time, effort, and gas put into getting a new piece of software, you stuck with an app and its upgrades for several years instead of the cycle of finding the latest and greatest every other month.
I was.Ew, you used to be a moderator here?
At least it would make sense, if the selection is based on revenue.Oh it’s based on financial year? It should state that in the title. Thanks for clarifying.
For all the hype over ray tracing, super performance for gaming, Game Mode, and all that marketing fluff; Hello Kitty becomes a game of the year…. terrific.You know it's a crappy award when Hello Kitty Adventure won goty.
Well yes. I didn’t realise that, and it’s not titled that, there’s no reference to the financial year. I assumed it was most popular or best quality, not most revenue generating. Another lesson in one should never assume.At least it would make sense, if the selection is based on revenue.
Perhaps survival of the fittest should play a stake here.I was.
What part of Apple is inexpensive? Their earliest products were expensive and they're probably the least expensive right now, but they're still expensive.
I've worked with the 18-20 year old crowd lately. This is a group that can't pay their bills, but has money for US$500 tattoos and US$200 worth of in-game upgrades. They have to take a daily pay withdrawal to eat.
Can they afford the computer they need to develop free software?
Shareholders are the customers, end users are the consumers, and games etc. are the content. The more content consumers consume, the richer the customers get.Both the app developer and Apple benefit from a switch from single to recurring purchases. You the consumer ends up paying more.
Is there an app award for that?Perhaps survival of the fittest should play a stake here.
I’m sure we can whip one up 😂Is there an app award for that?