Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
At some point it's going to be... "screw you Apple, I am moving on".

For an avalanche to happen it takes a lot of snowflakes, but when a tipping point is reached there is no stopping it.
I've collected and redacted a series of comments I've made elsewhere here on this subscription thing, especially as a consumer of high-quality music production apps from companies like Korg, Moog, Arturia, Virsyn etc. as well as many smaller developers.

I apologize for the length of what follows, but I feel very strongly about it. So, here goes :)

----------

I also will not buy subscription apps *EVER* - or desktop applications come to that. I'll gladly pay for upgrades. So, please, developers, don't do this.

I don't with Pro-Tools. I don't with desktop FX, (Slate, EastWest) etc. etc. I simply won't do it. Either I have it and "own" it (no, I know, not own, but have a perpetual license) or I won't buy it. Period.

Here's my bottom line. If an app is sold on a subscription-only basis, it's a lost sale (to me).

Developers (I am one too!) we love you. We want to support you. We'd love to see more revenue go your way. We're not saying we're "cheap" (we've spent $100's on your apps after all! :) ). We want to find a way to see your income increase. But not subscriptions (only)!

Now *IF* there's an option to buy a perpetual license too, then that's a different matter. I do that currently. And a paid annual update subscription. Or pay outright for upgrades (as in the case of Presonus with Studio One for example). No problem with *that* model.

If it's not imposed, if there's an option, and if there's a better way to recompense developers for major updates, that's all good. Of course!

The bottom line in my reasoning *isn't* that offering a subscription or rental service *alongside* a perpetual license is bad per se, but if it's the *only* way of having access to something... No! Having the option to purchase outright is the issue.

So, again, if an iPad music app *only* offers a subscription in the new model, it would be a non-"purchase" for me.

I'm not saying there's not a place for *any* kind of subscription model, as I say I pay an update fee for Pro Tools and Waves. BUT, my applications don't stop *working* or get withdrawn or the like when those subscriptions run out because I already have a perpetual license for them. If I'd wanted to I could have continued using PT 8 until now. But, I paid for an update to PT 10/11 and got 12 along with it and have paid for updates for another year.

*However*, if I don't care to pay that fee after another year, I can carry on using it for as long as I can maintain a working system on which to run it with which it's compatible. *That's* the rub here. It doesn't go away... I "bought" it. It's "mine" (yes, yes, I bought a perpetual license not the actual IP or code, sure, but that feels no different. If I never open my doors again to anyone or switch the Internet on ever again, I can carry on using it).

If apps provide both models, then, fine. If it's subscription only that means an effective renting or it stops somehow, then no. Never.


My life in my hands here: :) . I say this with some trepidation because I know it's controversial, and I'm only *here*, by saying this, putting forth a viewpoint. But, here goes. The principle of subscriptions ultimately gets to the issue of the right of ownership of private property, and, yes, fundamentally freedom from some form of servanthood (having to toe the line with strings attached in some way where you are not in control in what is otherwise a "free" situation).

Consider the tangle of those strings if you have subscriptions to not only 75 iPad apps, but also, 15 different desktop products.

It also begs the question "What constitutes a product?" (vs. a service - we pay for lots of services by "rental" / subscription - electricity, phones - different animal). These apps are more like products than they are services. One can imagine paying for an online service - such as, e.g. an online CRM tool. You neither host it nor own it - it's remote. Not yours. But the app is "in your possession" . Of course licensing in general may beg that question too.

What about your ebooks? You don't own those either. You may think you do, but various vendors - Amazon, B&N to name but two - have removed books from access by ereaders because of "licensing" issues, when readers *thought* they had purchased them. What's the difference? Electronics. You don't *license* a paperback... (or subscribe to it - or a guitar, or a piano...)

You can't will apps to your family. You can't will ebooks to your family. Same with any electronic music libraries you "own".

The principle of the right of ownership of private property was in the minds of the founding fathers of the US (and I say this as not a US citizen or taking sides here, but as a student of history :) ). The contrary concept - of there being no right of private property that one owns - could in some circumstances be therefore considered un-American - let alone any other basis of what might be considered fundamental "rights". (I'm not trying to take sides or be partisan to the US here, just pointing something out).

Subscription models could be considered in *some* sense a slippery slope into some aspect of a further erosion of that right.

(And then there's privacy too... Ongoing having to give account of ones "use" or not of an app in some sense).

A subscription model, where the model includes updates, implies several things that do not fit into a known value proposition unless there is a contract between the consumer - us - and the developer and against which we can take action if the money is, effectively, taken without fulfillment of that promise.

1.) Paying for something on a promise when you have no idea when it will get updated unless Apple force the issue and stipulates what the update would comprise - in general terms of course, but some measure of known value.

2.) Paying for a promised update without any idea whether the value of what you are paying for on that promise will be worth anything to *you*.

3.) Paying for continuous use of something as though it is a service when it is not.

Ultimately, it amounts to a form of servitude of the buyer to the seller, who, err, isn't really selling, but holding you under a gun.

To assume that Apple will be able to hold the large number of developers in check is a very large assumption - and not the issue in any case.

The better value proposition is for the seller to produce a quality product to start with, and then offer the update at a known price (which the app store does not currently support doing properly - and should as the means forward IMO). If the update is of value, the consumer will purchase it. *That*'s the incentive for the developer - i.e. to determinedly make something of value to the customer that they are confident the customer will spend more money on, not put the customer under ongoing servitude to them. It's the cart before the horse and could be said to be trading on a number of wrong premises.

Other means exist for developers to get funding for new projects: outside investment in them, other product lines, other work. Presonus take this approach, and in general it has been exceedingly well received by their loyal customer base who stump up for the upgrades because they can *see* the value put before them, choose to pay for the upgrade, and do so!

In my mind it would be disastrous if any of the big players did this. If Korg introduced it for example, and it even hinted at retro-affecting any of their apps, that would be a bad move and cause me to remove them which would be one of the worst things imaginable for my use of iOS as a music platform (not sure how it would or could, but it might - we'll have to wait and see), but certainly any new apps from Korg that were subscription would be a non-starter. That would be a crying shame...! :-(

Same if Arturia did it. Or Moog. Or Cakewalk. Or Virsyn. Or....

It would greatly, *greatly* diminish my use of an iPad as a creative tool and might even mean an effective end to it being functional.

It would, I think, only serve to encourage the smaller developers to do the same.

Now, I'm *hoping* that it won't be retroactive. But, even if only for new apps, it'd mean no more cash going to those manufacturers moving forward for any apps that were subscription only. Not a dime. Would effectively kill ongoing iOS music making potential as far as new app purchases is concerned for me.

And, I'll add this... I've been writing software for 36 years. So, not coming at this from a lack of perspective about software development!

OK. I'm ducking now... :-D

I think it can't be both. Who in his/her right mind would subscribe if they could just buy an app.
 
I pay for Dropbox and I use it all the time. I'm not running my own cloud server so it is convenient to use Dropbox and virtually every company and app interfaces with it, making my data ubiquitous.

That's it. And that used to be enough, but now apps and software devs are trying to block out universal access for services like Dropbox in favor of their own services that they want us to pay for. No thanks, I've already got a service that works for me.

You are spot on. I won't be upgrading TextExpander for a very long while for two reasons:

1.) The subscription fee doesn't give me any benefits that I need

2.) The fact that they took out Dropbox support is inexcusable. You're right, that appears to be becoming a trend, and it's asinine. We're seeing software companies who seemingly don't know very much about cloud storage starting to offer it as a "bonus" with their subscription service. I don't want/need a bunch of little storage lockers in the cloud for each app! I hate it when companies try to reinvent the wheel when it's completely unnecessary.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Supermallet
For an avalanche to happen it takes a lot of snowflakes, but when a tipping point is reached there is no stopping it.


I think it can't be both. Who in his/her right mind would subscribe if they could just buy an app.


This "works" (not for me but for those who buy into it) on the desktop because of the price differential - spreading the cost. Say an application suite costs $500 if you buy a perpetual license - but you can buy a monthly subscription for $15, and get the pieces you need "as you need them". This seems attractive to some.

So what about iOS? I'm not talking here about the typical $1 flappy birds kind of application, but serious music production apps that cost $25 - $50. Again, it *might* appeal to some to subscribe for $1 a month or something.

I'm not advocating this for the lengthy reasons I stated contrary, but I'm seeking to answer your question, even with apps.
 
This "works" (not for me but for those who buy into it) on the desktop because of the price differential - spreading the cost. Say an application suite costs $500 if you buy a perpetual license - but you can buy a monthly subscription for $15, and get the pieces you need "as you need them". This seems attractive to some.

So what about iOS? I'm not talking here about the typical $1 flappy birds kind of application, but serious music production apps that cost $25 - $50. Again, it *might* appeal to some to subscribe for $1 a month or something.

I'm not advocating this for the lengthy reasons I stated contrary, but I'm seeking to answer your question, even with apps.
People that are involved in work that needs apps like that use them everyday all day. If you need app of such caliber just for a month you don't really need it. Subscriptions are **** regardless. I'm not interested in few specific case that it might work for some people when it will not for most.
 
I don't understand why so many are parroting the "$1 subscription fee per month per app" thing. If Apple is offering hundreds of subscription price points, it's safe to say there will be lower tiers than a buck a month. I can easily imagine suitable single apps going for something like 10 or 20 cents a month, or $0,99 or $1,99 a year.

If developers can mix and match payment schemes, this has the potential to be good for both sides. An app that before made $4,99 once might cost $0,99 to buy plus $0,49 a month after the first month. Developer gets something from even those users who drop the app immediately, who in turn are more likely to give the app a try at that lower price point, and if the app is useful to them they have several months to evaluate its worth before they're paying more than the original price. And if they decide it's worth it - which puts pressure on the devs to keep their app enticing - the devs can look forward to making more than their original $4,99 per user.

Mind you, this is coming from someone who refused to move to Day One 2.0 even after paying for it, for the simple reason that they dropped Dropbox sync in the new app. Even with subscriptions, developers will still be able to alienate their customers through such changes, costing them that 85/15 split after one year.
 
Last edited:
What would really help is upgrade pricing! Seriously; that's a no-brainer feature that I think just about every developer with a paid app supports.
That doesn't make sense. How would you continue to support older versions with critical but otherwise not upgrade-cost-required fixes? A new version of iOS could be released that breaks your older app, and your customers would be pissed if you told them the only fix required them to buy the upgrade when they otherwise don't feel the new features are worth the upgrade price.

And anyway, "upgrade" pricing already exists. Developers can add extra functionality to an app as a paid, In App Purchase (the kind you can restore). Users can keep using the base app or "upgrade" at any time by buying the add-on content. Or, if it's a total overhaul, you just release a brand new "version 2" app on the store. Users can buy it to replace their older app or just keep using the old app.
[doublepost=1465493705][/doublepost]Regarding ads.. ugh. I hope there is a paid version of the app store that is ad-free.

One of the reasons I've stuck with Apple over Google is that Apple respects that I purchased their premium tech and doesn't try to make money off of me and my data while I'm using it. But ads have really been picking up in their services, and I strongly dislike this trend. Their products are supposed to make my life better, but all ads do it waste my time.
 
I cannot think of any software that requires users pay for all updates, including minor revisions with bug fixes. Usually you pay for the version updates (1.0->2.0 as someone said earlier), and all incremental updates are free. That's a good system, it forces devs to come up with a strong set of features to convince people to buy the latest update. And if I don't like the update changes, I don't have to update. Subscription pricing means devs can coast more, and Apple's little incentive of adjusting their cut on subs after the first year means more and more devs have a reason to start charging for subscriptions.

That's a bit more how stand-alone software used to be made for desktops. Now, there are backend services with ongoing costs, security threats requiring continual vigilance and proactive measures, new iOS and hardware features distinct from an app's own feature roadmap, scalability updates(*), etc. That's all so that the existing app can continue to function optimally.

(*) For example, code that can handle 10,000 users could cost $5,000 to develop, and code to handle 1,000,000 users could cost $25,000 to develop, so there's only so much that economically can be done by app launch, with more work happening as users scale up. It's not always obvious how app usage will scale, as users may use the software differently than developers plan or imagine.

Having distinct versions of an app running, e.g. 1.0 and 2.0, that stand on their own is one thing, but having them share a backend, and interoperate between users with the different versions, is a fairly complex and expensive proposition.


While I have no problem with the concept of the subscription model, it does not always fit well into software. Subscription is great for anything that is consumable (music, movies, etc.) where I am accessing unique content.

In addition, the subscription model does fit well with software that is core to my needs and where I expect frequent updates. Examples of this might include Anti-Malware (think: Norton/McAfee), or even Office 365... where the functionality is something I use every day.

In general, though, software that is tangential to my daily needs does NOT [necessarily] lend itself well to a subscription model. With a guaranteed revenue stream and no commitment to update developers have the potential to just sit on a product indefinitely. A better approach to this is indeed upgrade pricing. If a developer continues to offer a quality product with new/expanded/improved/simplified features then I have incentive to pay for it!

Completely agree! One would expect a change in functionality, with more content or functionality, to justify ongoing payment, whereas an app with static content and basic functionality probably shouldn't even try a subscription.
 
Apps are dead on iOS - Apple killed a good thing by forcing terms like family share and removing discoverability features from the store. Resurrection is all but impossible now because Apple is just forcing more of their stupid ideas (they claim are improvements) on developers who cannot sell on the platform without Apple's captive "fiefdumb" - lack of competition kills innovation every time.
How about allowing developers to charge for upgrades? This is how software companies have survived since the beginning of software "time" but for some reason Apple thinks software companies can survive without it.

The only thing that will save iOS now is for Apple to open the platform to direct distribution.
 
  • Like
Reactions: trifid
Too little too late, Apple is behind or downgrading in practically every product category and metric.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: developer13245
I personally don't get the appeal of upgrade pricing (which is essentially a sort of IAP in itself).

Say I purchase a basic scanner app for $4 with the option to unlock up to 3 additional features at $3 each. You are now looking at several possible permutations of the same app. Likewise, I don't like the incentive it breeds in the app developer. Do I still continue to issue bug fixes for free, or hide them behind the paywall?

With a subscription-based pricing, there are only 2 variations. You either have the app or you don't. And every subscriber will always have the latest, most-updated version of the app, so there is no disparity in terms of functionality or user experience. It's just easier to everyone involved. I as the user don't need to agonise over whether to upgrade or not, much less debate whether the update is worth the money. I just update, because I am already paying for it at any rate.

In the same vein, the developer doesn't need to agonise over what features to withhold and park behind the paywall. All subscribers automatically get access to the latest and newest features. No segmentation or fragmentation feature-wise.

Also, people keep citing recurring monthly costs. Who is to say that will be the only option available? A smaller app might charge only an annual recurring fee, like what Dark Sky for Android is currently doing ($4 a year).

Subscription-based pricing sounds like the simplest and most elegant model available.
 
  • Like
Reactions: MarkCollette
I've collected and redacted a series of comments I've made elsewhere here on this subscription thing, especially as a consumer of high-quality music production apps from companies like Korg, Moog, Arturia, Virsyn etc. as well as many smaller developers.

I apologize for the length of what follows, but I feel very strongly about it. So, here goes :)

----------

I also will not buy subscription apps *EVER* - or desktop applications come to that. I'll gladly pay for upgrades. So, please, developers, don't do this.

I don't with Pro-Tools. I don't with desktop FX, (Slate, EastWest) etc. etc. I simply won't do it. Either I have it and "own" it (no, I know, not own, but have a perpetual license) or I won't buy it. Period.

Here's my bottom line. If an app is sold on a subscription-only basis, it's a lost sale (to me).

Developers (I am one too!) we love you. We want to support you. We'd love to see more revenue go your way. We're not saying we're "cheap" (we've spent $100's on your apps after all! :) ). We want to find a way to see your income increase. But not subscriptions (only)!

Now *IF* there's an option to buy a perpetual license too, then that's a different matter. I do that currently. And a paid annual update subscription. Or pay outright for upgrades (as in the case of Presonus with Studio One for example). No problem with *that* model.

If it's not imposed, if there's an option, and if there's a better way to recompense developers for major updates, that's all good. Of course!

The bottom line in my reasoning *isn't* that offering a subscription or rental service *alongside* a perpetual license is bad per se, but if it's the *only* way of having access to something... No! Having the option to purchase outright is the issue.

So, again, if an iPad music app *only* offers a subscription in the new model, it would be a non-"purchase" for me.

I'm not saying there's not a place for *any* kind of subscription model, as I say I pay an update fee for Pro Tools and Waves. BUT, my applications don't stop *working* or get withdrawn or the like when those subscriptions run out because I already have a perpetual license for them. If I'd wanted to I could have continued using PT 8 until now. But, I paid for an update to PT 10/11 and got 12 along with it and have paid for updates for another year.

*However*, if I don't care to pay that fee after another year, I can carry on using it for as long as I can maintain a working system on which to run it with which it's compatible. *That's* the rub here. It doesn't go away... I "bought" it. It's "mine" (yes, yes, I bought a perpetual license not the actual IP or code, sure, but that feels no different. If I never open my doors again to anyone or switch the Internet on ever again, I can carry on using it).

If apps provide both models, then, fine. If it's subscription only that means an effective renting or it stops somehow, then no. Never.


My life in my hands here: :) . I say this with some trepidation because I know it's controversial, and I'm only *here*, by saying this, putting forth a viewpoint. But, here goes. The principle of subscriptions ultimately gets to the issue of the right of ownership of private property, and, yes, fundamentally freedom from some form of servanthood (having to toe the line with strings attached in some way where you are not in control in what is otherwise a "free" situation).

Consider the tangle of those strings if you have subscriptions to not only 75 iPad apps, but also, 15 different desktop products.

It also begs the question "What constitutes a product?" (vs. a service - we pay for lots of services by "rental" / subscription - electricity, phones - different animal). These apps are more like products than they are services. One can imagine paying for an online service - such as, e.g. an online CRM tool. You neither host it nor own it - it's remote. Not yours. But the app is "in your possession" . Of course licensing in general may beg that question too.

What about your ebooks? You don't own those either. You may think you do, but various vendors - Amazon, B&N to name but two - have removed books from access by ereaders because of "licensing" issues, when readers *thought* they had purchased them. What's the difference? Electronics. You don't *license* a paperback... (or subscribe to it - or a guitar, or a piano...)

You can't will apps to your family. You can't will ebooks to your family. Same with any electronic music libraries you "own".

The principle of the right of ownership of private property was in the minds of the founding fathers of the US (and I say this as not a US citizen or taking sides here, but as a student of history :) ). The contrary concept - of there being no right of private property that one owns - could in some circumstances be therefore considered un-American - let alone any other basis of what might be considered fundamental "rights". (I'm not trying to take sides or be partisan to the US here, just pointing something out).

Subscription models could be considered in *some* sense a slippery slope into some aspect of a further erosion of that right.

(And then there's privacy too... Ongoing having to give account of ones "use" or not of an app in some sense).

A subscription model, where the model includes updates, implies several things that do not fit into a known value proposition unless there is a contract between the consumer - us - and the developer and against which we can take action if the money is, effectively, taken without fulfillment of that promise.

1.) Paying for something on a promise when you have no idea when it will get updated unless Apple force the issue and stipulates what the update would comprise - in general terms of course, but some measure of known value.

2.) Paying for a promised update without any idea whether the value of what you are paying for on that promise will be worth anything to *you*.

3.) Paying for continuous use of something as though it is a service when it is not.

Ultimately, it amounts to a form of servitude of the buyer to the seller, who, err, isn't really selling, but holding you under a gun.

To assume that Apple will be able to hold the large number of developers in check is a very large assumption - and not the issue in any case.

The better value proposition is for the seller to produce a quality product to start with, and then offer the update at a known price (which the app store does not currently support doing properly - and should as the means forward IMO). If the update is of value, the consumer will purchase it. *That*'s the incentive for the developer - i.e. to determinedly make something of value to the customer that they are confident the customer will spend more money on, not put the customer under ongoing servitude to them. It's the cart before the horse and could be said to be trading on a number of wrong premises.

Other means exist for developers to get funding for new projects: outside investment in them, other product lines, other work. Presonus take this approach, and in general it has been exceedingly well received by their loyal customer base who stump up for the upgrades because they can *see* the value put before them, choose to pay for the upgrade, and do so!

In my mind it would be disastrous if any of the big players did this. If Korg introduced it for example, and it even hinted at retro-affecting any of their apps, that would be a bad move and cause me to remove them which would be one of the worst things imaginable for my use of iOS as a music platform (not sure how it would or could, but it might - we'll have to wait and see), but certainly any new apps from Korg that were subscription would be a non-starter. That would be a crying shame...! :-(

Same if Arturia did it. Or Moog. Or Cakewalk. Or Virsyn. Or....

It would greatly, *greatly* diminish my use of an iPad as a creative tool and might even mean an effective end to it being functional.

It would, I think, only serve to encourage the smaller developers to do the same.

Now, I'm *hoping* that it won't be retroactive. But, even if only for new apps, it'd mean no more cash going to those manufacturers moving forward for any apps that were subscription only. Not a dime. Would effectively kill ongoing iOS music making potential as far as new app purchases is concerned for me.

And, I'll add this... I've been writing software for 36 years. So, not coming at this from a lack of perspective about software development!

OK. I'm ducking now... :-D
Excellent points here. All of them. We live in a world where too many things are using the subscription model nowadays, and I get why the first few companies to do this were successful, and why companies seeing this work all decided to jump on the bandwagon. But this is not a sustainable model long term, because most people can handle a small few of those (which is why the first few did well). But if everything we use gets to the point where it is a monthly subscription only, the inevitability is that we have to make choices as to which are the small few we can afford to keep using, so the inevitability is, many will simply be cut out of our lives, which hurts the developers too, because many of their previous customers will simply no longer be able to afford to use them. Microsoft made this mistake when they started making their office suite a subscription service. Haven't upgraded to that version ever since, and never will. (and consequently, it's really no surprise why Apple takes the lead on most things now). However, When this happens en-masse, it leaves consumers no other choice but to switch to alternatives they can still afford to maintain. It's kinda funny, even the local city councils of the British government stopped using MS office after they did that, and has started using libre office as their official office suite now as a result of this, so it's not just the small-time consumers who experience the economical viability pitfalls of it in the same way. Ultimately, the monthly subscription model is destructive in the long run, as it tends to cannibalize the companies who try to implement it the more widespread this becomes. Of course, they'll realize this when it's too late and they wonder why their revenue is dropping. But it's a shame that companies which were once great and extremely popular quickly become deader than the dodo, simply due to the long term uneconomical viability of such models.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ebenezum and trifid
I personally don't get the appeal of upgrade pricing.

Subscription-based pricing sounds like the simplest and most elegant model available.

I will never use Subscription based software.

1. What happens if I decide not to renew the subscription? Most likely I can't open the software or the documents created with it, maybe some developers would provide means to migrate to another product but that isn't quarantined.

2. When I purchase software I can use it as long as I like (barring some future OS X version that might not be compatible). I am in full control, no need to keep paying monthly or yearly fees.

3. If developer releases newer version I can decide if it is worth the upgrade price, if not I just keep using previous version.

4. Its hard to say for certain but I suspect total cost of software is likely lower when its purchased outright and not subscripted. Especially if one uses the same software for a long time such as 5+ years.


I'm not impressed with the idea of subscription and ads, I don't see how they are beneficial. Mac App Store has currently too many problems as it is (dysfunctional search, no demo versions, upgrade pricing, unreliable update mechanism etc.) for me to use it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: developer13245
Another point:

Apple is A HARDWARE COMPANY - PERIOD. The sole reason they write software is to support selling their hardware. Apple cannot show any positive return on investment from software sales for ANY of the software they've created during their ENTIRE EXISTENCE....

Yet, now they get to DICTATE the ENTIRE set of terms for how independent software companies sell software for all Apple platforms except Mac.

If anybody thinks this will turn out well for either Apple or Software venders, they are delusional. Apple is beyond delusional....

Apple is also beyond arrogance and will not realize this until it is to late (see my post above).

With the "apps advantage" dead Apple has lost its main differentiation to sell hardware at a higher price point... AND with performance at parity with iOS, low cost droid is beginning to KILL iOS... Expect this trend to continue. Cheaper will always win the race to the bottom... this is what I learned after eight years as an independent iOS developer.
 
Too little too late, Apple is behind or downgrading in practically every product category and metric.

This is very true. Look at Mac Rumors buyers guide (the gold standard here BTW) today. Out of 17 products, there are only 2 "buy now" and 2 "Neutral" products. The rest are "Don't Buy" and "Caution". So even from a hardware standpoint (Apple's main business) they've ground to a halt.

Apple is the latest F'd company.
 
  • Like
Reactions: trifid
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.