Apple Announces Major App Store Changes Including New Subscription Terms and Search Ads

[American Hero]

Just another in the latest of nickel and dime schemes from Apple Inc.

So now we're going to have the option of paying $5/year for an app? No thanks, and of course Apple will take their usual 30% of that, and also keep some or all of the revenue from the App Store ad revenue.

Between Schiller and Cook, I'm not sure which executive I want to leave Apple more.
[doublepost=1465423034][/doublepost]

Phil Schiller is one of Apple's best execs, can't say I feel the same about Cue

I guess that's the case if you like guys who can lie and blow things out of proportion really well...
[doublepost=1465423138][/doublepost]

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.

I'm not going to pay for an app update to fix bugs that shouldn't have been there in the first place.

Even adding a small feature or two wouldn't constitute an app update price.

I guess you want Apple to die at a faster rate than it currently is when Google's Play Store apps don't charge you for upgrading apps, while the App Store will. Gee, I wonder which type of phone I'd use in that case.

 

[MrGuder]

Google Ads and Apple Ads how will they differ??

 

[LordBeelzebub]

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.

OR, we go to a business model where developers purposely trickle us updates so they can milk the cash cow. "Hmm, this feature is ready to be released now, but I already have another feature ready to go, I'll give people both of these new features but in separate updates so I can charge them as much as possible. Muahahaha!!"


That's what's going to happen, believe it! Us end users are going to get screwed over by greedy arsed developers and I'll bet that's 99.9% of ya.

 

[Canubis]

Don't really see the subscription model working for a lot of individual games. What could work is Apple curating some Netflix like subscription service for premium games. Think Apple Music for Games - Apple Games. If pricing is right and not too high this could help bring more quality games to the iPhone and even the mobile platform.
(Unfortunately) F2P is here to stay and pay-once-to-download games have become a niche getting smaller and smaller. But paying a few bucks each month to access a wide range of high quality games may create an interesting market for high quality, diverse premium games. Such services for Android are popping up everywhere these days. But for iOS more or less only Apple could initiate this.

 

[redheeler]

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.

Exactly. As if Apple needs another revenue source, and App Store users want to be shown more ads...

 

[rorschach]

I'm not going to pay for an app update to fix bugs that shouldn't have been there in the first place.

Even adding a small feature or two wouldn't constitute an app update price.

I guess you want Apple to die at a faster rate than it currently is when Google's Play Store apps don't charge you for upgrading apps, while the App Store will. Gee, I wonder which type of phone I'd use in that case.

No one is talking about developers charging for small bug-fix updates. We're talking about the ability to charge upgrade pricing for major version and feature updates (1.0 > 2.0). And the prices would be set by the developer. If they charge too much, or charge when they shouldn't, that's on them not on Apple.

As it is now, if developers want to charge for a major update, they have to submit it as a whole new app, and if they want "upgrade pricing" they have to lower the price for EVERYONE.

So, developers ALREADY do upgrade pricing; they are just forced to do it in a roundabout, unintuitive way that is inconvenient for both the developer and the user.

I also forgot to mention in my original post that the other thing Apple needs to do is allow trials.

 

[pat500000]

subscription...meh. This continuous "I owe you" model is cringey.

 

[John Mcgregor]

I'm not going to pay a monthly subscription just to use the app. **** you. End of story.

 

[sinsin07]

People are trying to get away from this:

And you propose to now incorporate cable like packages for apps?

snip...What would be cool is if you could pay $10 a month and get "x" apps in the "Silver" category for example.

Now people will want to "Cut the app cord".

 

[American Hero]

No one is talking about developers charging for small bug-fix updates. We're talking about the ability to charge upgrade pricing for major version and feature updates (1.0 > 2.0). And the prices would be set by the developer. If they charge too much, or charge when they shouldn't, that's on them not on Apple.

Many apps update on their own. So I wouldn't appreciate seeing a random, un-authorized $2.00 charge on my account because an app updated as soon as I plugged my phone in to charge at night. I know you can turn off auto updates, but most people have no clue how to do it, yet alone that they are able to do it. Imagine if 5 apps charged me $2.00 without my permission, so $10.00 is suddenly taken out of my credit card for charges I didn't approve of.

If it's not broken, don't try to fix it. Developers and Apple will lose more money from CC chargeback fees rather than receive revenue from app updates.

 

[ry-guy]

Ads, Ads, Ads. Crazy how webpages, and software and apps is becoming just so ad-infested.

On another note, how about Apple just delete all apps from the STORE that support IOS 6 and earlier. Wayyy less apps to search through, much easier to rise to the top when 1000 calculator apps with wood buttons have been deleted.

In regards to subscriptions, I've personally paid for probably two apps. I could probably live with no third party apps.
Dont use Facebooks battery drain app and I'm surely not paying for it. But when you have 50 subscription apps, I'm sure Apple will devise a great new way to pay for that as well.

What I don't understand is, companies spend mega dollars on websites and services and design too, but they don't charge you to use the websites like an app? Sure theres ads galore.....

To me, this is like the new Star Wars game. Since they plan on subscriptions and update models, they released an unfinished game at full price but will improve it later, and charge you while they finish its 'updates'. But yet Fallout 4 is a Full featured game for the same price and is a Quality one. I understand DLC,(expansion packs really) but some companies need to do it right.

end rant.

 

[TouchMint.com]

Not sure how I feel about the app store ads. I hope it doesn't make it more one-sided to big developers with money.

What else would it do?

 

[TallManNY]

I'm not going to pay a monthly subscription just to use the app. **** you. End of story.

Yes, you will pay for some apps. Because this is the pricing scheme that developers are going to switch to. It is very logical a-la carte pricing. If you like something, you pay to for it as you use it. If you don't like it or don't need it anymore, you stop paying for it. Really simple and the best Apps are going to switch to this pricing.

Now above there is the concern about what happens if you have data that can only be accessed by that one app and what happens if the developer raises the subscription price later on. That is an issue. But few Apps are going to be of that sort.

I wouldn't be surprised if we see pricing schemes like $1 every three months. The prices will be so low for some apps you won't even notice the subscription costs.

 

[TouchMint.com]

Ads, Ads, Ads. Crazy how webpages, and software and apps is becoming just so ad-infested.

On another note, how about Apple just delete all apps from the STORE that support IOS 6 and earlier. Wayyy less apps to search through, much easier to rise to the top when 1000 calculator apps with wood buttons have been deleted.

In regards to subscriptions, I've personally paid for probably two apps. I could probably live with no third party apps.
Dont use Facebooks battery drain app and I'm surely not paying for it. But when you have 50 subscription apps, I'm sure Apple will devise a great new way to pay for that as well.

What I don't understand is, companies spend mega dollars on websites and services and design too, but they don't charge you to use the websites like an app? Sure theres ads galore.....

To me, this is like the new Star Wars game. Since they plan on subscriptions and update models, they released an unfinished game at full price but will improve it later, and charge you while they finish its 'updates'. But yet Fallout 4 is a Full featured game for the same price and is a Quality one. I understand DLC,(expansion packs really) but some companies need to do it right.

end rant.

I've said this over and over. If they just were to remove apps that only supported 3.5inch screens or less there would be a lot less junk to sift through.

 

[Tech198]

How about making changes to the App Store so that there aren't so many outages?

hehe... Top of my list..

But i'm just glad i'm not a developer..

 

[John Mcgregor]

Yes, you will pay for some apps. Because this is the pricing scheme that developers are going to switch to. It is very logical a-la carte pricing. If you like something, you pay to for it as you use it. If you don't like it or don't need it anymore, you stop paying for it. Really simple and the best Apps are going to switch to this pricing.

Now above there is the concern about what happens if you have data that can only be accessed by that one app and what happens if the developer raises the subscription price later on. That is an issue. But few Apps are going to be of that sort.

I wouldn't be surprised if we see pricing schemes like $1 every three months. The prices will be so low for some apps you won't even notice the subscription costs.

Nope. I have my sanity standards. I will stop using any and all apps that will switch to this nonsense.

 

[sinsin07]

Users are not going to want to subscribe to apps and unsubscribe when they don't need them.
It's an additional step and hassle.
People don't want a constant drain on their wallet.
Might as well find a free equivalent or not subscribe in the first place.
Thank goodness for Google Services.
In this case it may be the lesser of two evils.

 

[Porco]

In my opinion we should all say no to renting software. Or else one day that's the only kind of software there will be.

 

[loby]

Sounds fair. Customers may end up paying a little more over time, but it's an ecosystem. For an ecosystem to work all parts of it have to be able to not just survive, but to thrive.

Yes, it does sound fair, but generally when you hear the word "subscription" it puts a bad taste in the mouth due to companies like Avid, Adobe and especially Microsoft....

Even if it is 'just' $5 a year, Apple will push it as income to developers, but many I believe will shy away frok the idea of 'renting' software and being locked into a payment. Possibly it might lessen sales in the long run or might encourage developers to innovate if they want customers to continue to subscribe...we will see...

 

[jclardy]

Yes, it does sound fair, but generally when you hear the word "subscription" it puts a bad taste in the mouth due to companies like Avid, Adobe and especially Microsoft....

Even if it is 'just' $5 a year, Apple will push it as income to developers, but many I believe will shy away frok the idea of 'renting' software and being locked into a payment. Possibly it might lessen sales in the long run or might encourage developers to innovate if they want customers to continue to subscribe...we will see...

The way I look at it is like this - what apps do you have on your phone from when the App Store came out? None of my paid apps are. Why? Because the ones that weren't owned by a huge corporation have likely been abandoned, because that is what the app store encourages - new apps get better placement, more likely to get featured, and better press in general. Doing a huge update for an old app rarely does any of that. So where do small developers put their resources? Into new apps of course, and we get a continuous cycle of abandonware.

Should your tip calculator app cost $0.99 a year? No, I don't think so. The market will take care of people trying to abuse the system. Of course it won't stop some developers from turning their paid apps into subscriptions, which would be quite scummy. I do plan on using subscriptions myself, but it will be for an app that includes a backend component, and paid users will get grandfathered in - which is the "right" thing to do, but every developer is going to handle things differently.

Overall the app store needs to have a way to promote niche software that has a loyal userbase. This seems like it could be the answer (Or at least part of the answer), but we will see.

 

[Zirel]

Are those really the only two categories into which a person can fit?

Yes, communist or not.
[doublepost=1465431078][/doublepost]

Sad to see comments like this in the 21st Century. No wonder Trump has a chance of becoming President.

I'm not even American. My country has been social-democrat since 1975.

 

[Abazigal]

There are some apps which I would happily pay an annual subscription for just to support the developer. Apps like Workflow, Reeder, Protube, Notability and Overcast are shockingly inexpensive for what they do, and if the promise of more revenue can encourage the developers to update their apps more frequently, that's a tradeoff I can live with.

 

[rorschach]

So I just read through the actual FAQ from Apple.com and there is this:

Types of Auto-Renewable Subscriptions

Content
Provide paid access to content that is updated or delivered on a regular basis, such as newspapers, educational courses, or audio or video libraries.

Services
Provide paid access to an ongoing service within your app, such as cloud storage or massive multiplayer online games (MMOGs).

Developers will NOT be allowed to offer an entire app on a subscription basis to cover development costs. They will only be allowed to offer subscriptions for specific services within the app that have ongoing costs.

Workflow, the example in the OP, would not be eligible for this. If, for example, they offered some sort of cloud service with their own servers, they could create a subscription for that specific feature within the app.

That makes a lot more sense.

 

[GoodWheaties]

I kind of wish they would just allow devs to charge for an OS upgrade. It doesn't make sense that devs have to keep making their app work with OS version after OS version for free, but if I choose to stay on an older OS version should I be required to keep paying?

 

[Crzyrio]

In my opinion we should all say no to renting software. Or else one day that's the only kind of software there will be.

Software is very different from hardware though.

You can't pay for the software once and expect lifetime updates for free, you pay for the software once for the features available that one time and bug fixes.

Another additional features, you should have to pay for.