Phil says he wants to keep it fair for the small developers, yet there will be an open auction for the search ad. Guess which developer is going to win those auctions? The one with big pockets. This solves nothing about app discoverability. All it really does is create an additional revenue stream for Apple.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple Announces Major App Store Changes Including New Subscription Terms and Search Ads
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I always immediately turn off automatic renew any time I subscribe to something like Netflix or HBO Go. I tend to watch for a while and then lose interest, so instead of having it auto-renew, I just resubscribe when I actually want to watch something after it has expired. That way I probably get all of my desired watching done with 8-10 months of paid subscription a year.
I'm sure the providers don't really like this and I hope nothing will change with subscriptions allowing me to do this. But it is unfortunate for the provider that it seems like they would never drop into the lower commission tier....unless Apple has it written such that they can get 85% of revenue after 12 previous subscriptions (whether or not they are continuous).
I'm sure the providers don't really like this and I hope nothing will change with subscriptions allowing me to do this. But it is unfortunate for the provider that it seems like they would never drop into the lower commission tier....unless Apple has it written such that they can get 85% of revenue after 12 previous subscriptions (whether or not they are continuous).
I agree. Further, I think this is just going to increase use frustration as it might not be immediately obvious that an app is subscription based until after you have downloaded it and opened it.
Totally agree. I think Phil, Craig and Greg are the best.
You mean how right now how you pay $1.99 and get all of the updates for that app for FREE FOR LIFE? That's a ridiculous model that was never long-term sustainable. At least this way with a subscription developers will be motivated to update their apps often to keep user's engaged.
Everything is going the subscription route: Office, Photoshop, heck even Windows is a "service" now.
Version 1, version 2, version 3.0... those are things of the past.
I don't get it. What's the problem? Why shouldn't developers have the ability to buy ad space to promote their product on the app store? So what.
In fact I'm all for it so that I can see what's available. I routinely get pointed to great apps from even things like app ads on Buses, bus shelters etc.
I think this will lead to better apps as the incentive to make money will only grow and get rid of the junk and 900,000 useless apps.
More importantly these changes are more designed to OPEN the app store to MORE angles of possible subscription based content like TV content etc which Steve Jobs insistence at high fees has been a huge growth roadblock -- as we all know! Clearly Apple is gearing up to really GROW its services bottom line. This will definitely move that needle big time.
Liking the change. Something had to give.
I wonder if these changes will be rolled out to the USA at first with other countries to follow? The reason I say that is because in the UK we still don't have "related" searches.
On a side note, I think Schiller and his team have done an excellent job with the App Store. It's updated more often, app approval times are very quick now and I think this new subscription service is a great idea. Let's take Fantastical as an example, the best third-party calendar app. Would it hurt if they charged £5 a year for us to continuing using it? No. If you multiplied £5 by X amount of users, it'd be a big amount and would motivate them to create more apps.
Another side note: I hope they also fix the thumbnail issue in the Updates tab where they sometimes go blank, very annoying. Oh, and when you write a review for an app, make the font smaller!
On a side note, I think Schiller and his team have done an excellent job with the App Store. It's updated more often, app approval times are very quick now and I think this new subscription service is a great idea. Let's take Fantastical as an example, the best third-party calendar app. Would it hurt if they charged £5 a year for us to continuing using it? No. If you multiplied £5 by X amount of users, it'd be a big amount and would motivate them to create more apps.
Another side note: I hope they also fix the thumbnail issue in the Updates tab where they sometimes go blank, very annoying. Oh, and when you write a review for an app, make the font smaller!
This. Paid upgrades would be a better choice I think. It would encourage developers to continue improving the app rather than just sitting back and collecting subscription revenue.
Hell they could do the same thing; after a year the dev gets a bigger cut of the upgrade revenue. This encourages improvement of the app even more, and the customer can always stay with the existing version if they are happy with it.
Good to see that Phil actually does something with his new role! Can't say that of Cue... Looking forward to the changes that are coming. 
And I agree with you second paragraph.
Wondering about that too. Here in the Netherlands no related results too.. Would like to see that coming, despite being just a pretty small thing.
And I agree with you second paragraph.
That surprises you? It’s Phil Schiller. I’m almost certain that many pricing decisions at Apple fall under his responsibility and this has not become more reasonable in the last few years.
I believe that it is wrong to say that. Software development is incredibly expensive and single purchases are extremely volatile, especially after the novelty of the app has worn off. A subscription is a predictable revenue stream. The problem of mobile apps is that people seem to think that it’s much less work for developers. As long as they can compensate the difference with a large sales volume, that situation is not so bad.
Last edited:
Subscriptions and ads? No thanks. I just want buy an app once with no ads or iap. They should also implement a try before you buy feature.
App Subscriptions may fill the need of upgrade pricing for many vendors. If they're committed to updating their app X times per year with new features and such, then they could charge $5-10/yr (or whatever) to cover their ongoing development and support costs of the new versions.
Right now, so many companies don't truly make money on their apps -- they may make money up-front, but then have to provide support 1-6-12-18 months later on that initial payment -- and if that's $0.99, that's a tough place to be.
Apps really haven't been sustainable unless the company does something else other than that specific app (or they're wildly popular over a sustained period of time), or they forcefully depreciate the current app and roll out a completely new version to be able to charge users again before the cycle starts over.
I'd much rather have one app that I pay $0.99/yr for and not have the developer have to say "Sorry, version 1 is EOL, but here, buy version 2!".
Right now, so many companies don't truly make money on their apps -- they may make money up-front, but then have to provide support 1-6-12-18 months later on that initial payment -- and if that's $0.99, that's a tough place to be.
Apps really haven't been sustainable unless the company does something else other than that specific app (or they're wildly popular over a sustained period of time), or they forcefully depreciate the current app and roll out a completely new version to be able to charge users again before the cycle starts over.
I'd much rather have one app that I pay $0.99/yr for and not have the developer have to say "Sorry, version 1 is EOL, but here, buy version 2!".
Bit of info from The Loop:
"Developers will be able to choose one of over 200 subscription price points, and they can create territory specific prices, making subscriptions even more flexible. If a developer chooses to increase the subscription price, customers will be notified and they will have to authorize that increase. No customer will ever be charged a higher rate without first authorizing it, explained Schiller.
Customers will also be able to upgrade, downgrade or even side grade subscriptions, if those options are available to them. Developers can also keep current subscriptions at one price, but charge new subscribers a different price."
As The Loop continue to say after, it's very well thought out.
"Developers will be able to choose one of over 200 subscription price points, and they can create territory specific prices, making subscriptions even more flexible. If a developer chooses to increase the subscription price, customers will be notified and they will have to authorize that increase. No customer will ever be charged a higher rate without first authorizing it, explained Schiller.
Customers will also be able to upgrade, downgrade or even side grade subscriptions, if those options are available to them. Developers can also keep current subscriptions at one price, but charge new subscribers a different price."
As The Loop continue to say after, it's very well thought out.
But I don't want to "subscribe" to anything, that's the reason I stayed on Adobe CS6 and hate Spotify
I can't imagine I'd pay a subscription for my major creation apps such as Procreate, Graphic or Coda...
I can't imagine I'd pay a subscription for my major creation apps such as Procreate, Graphic or Coda...
That model worked while the number of iOS users was increasing at a fairly fast rate (ie, apps made money by selling to new iOS users). With the growth significantly reduced, that number of new customers per month is much lower (and consists of late adopters which tend to be less spendy).
Workflow and Fantastical to me are poor examples.
Subscription across a vendor's brand has Microsoft, Adobe, Omnigroup etc written all over it. ISV are nice and all but when it comes to the power of subscriptions it's about the vendors that have a suite of apps.
The 15% cost savings on day 366 are very nice. Apple just delivered the answer to Bezos. These are the best terms you're going to get.
Paid upgrades never made sense. If you're a smaller developer you should be constantly delivering new features and fixes. For those that support their application well they'll succeed at subscriptions. For lazy developers they won't hit that year mark for many subscribers and they won't be able to leverage the savings.
Subscription across a vendor's brand has Microsoft, Adobe, Omnigroup etc written all over it. ISV are nice and all but when it comes to the power of subscriptions it's about the vendors that have a suite of apps.
The 15% cost savings on day 366 are very nice. Apple just delivered the answer to Bezos. These are the best terms you're going to get.
Paid upgrades never made sense. If you're a smaller developer you should be constantly delivering new features and fixes. For those that support their application well they'll succeed at subscriptions. For lazy developers they won't hit that year mark for many subscribers and they won't be able to leverage the savings.
Have there really been so many outages?
That would likely mean more data collection.
Yes. He is the one insult millions of PC users on stages. He like all Apple execs are arrogant
I really don't know what to think about subscription based systems. On the one hand, it clearly is a significant advantage for developers. But I, personally, wouldn't like to have subscriptions of 10 or even more apps running each year.
Additionally, as subscriptions are popular among other eco systems as well as services (Amazon, Netflix, etc.), those subscriptions will add up as well over time.
Additionally, as subscriptions are popular among other eco systems as well as services (Amazon, Netflix, etc.), those subscriptions will add up as well over time.
well they certainly ain't getting my money. just recently a color book app went the subscription route. r u kidding me.
At first I was upset about the ads, but then I realized 2 things:
1. The App Store is essentially nothing but ads. When you think about it, everything is just an advertisement for you to download an app. All this does is allow developers to bump up their apps to the top of the search results.
2. I'm sure most people aren't consistently searching for apps so frequently that this bothers them. I know I search for a new app *maybe* once a month.
The subscription model I can understand, though I too would rather have "upgrade pricing".
1. The App Store is essentially nothing but ads. When you think about it, everything is just an advertisement for you to download an app. All this does is allow developers to bump up their apps to the top of the search results.
2. I'm sure most people aren't consistently searching for apps so frequently that this bothers them. I know I search for a new app *maybe* once a month.
The subscription model I can understand, though I too would rather have "upgrade pricing".
I'm with you, I have hundreds of apps. Even if I only had to pay $1 month for each one, I'd be broke in no time. Subscriptions are tenable for certain services, but I disagree that they are appropriate apps.
For example, it's OK to buy a license for textexpander for each device, have them sync over Dropbox and pay for Dropbox, but it's not ok to be forced to sync them over a closed textexpander sync service and have to subscribe to that sync service.
Ads in the App Store - waste of time and effort for consumers and 's team for the App Store.
New subscription options (15% long-term) - Amazon, this is where you give the people what they want (an Amazon Prime/Video app) and stop moaning and groaning about that 30% subscription rate.
New subscription options (15% long-term) - Amazon, this is where you give the people what they want (an Amazon Prime/Video app) and stop moaning and groaning about that 30% subscription rate.
