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
No.
I don't want sub.
One-time flat fee is perfectly fine.
Inapp purchase is somewhat also ok. But no. No sub.
I don't want sub.
One-time flat fee is perfectly fine.
Inapp purchase is somewhat also ok. But no. No sub.
Yes, that does make a lot more sense. However, Day One has already dumped Dropbox support in their latest version, and TextExpander is pretty much the exact scenario I'm envisioning here: Previous service support is dropped in favor of a company-specific service no one was asking for, now provided to you for the mere cost of subscription pricing. It's a bad trend and it will get worse. The fact that Apple offered this to devs and not upgrade pricing is telling, IMO.
For me, there are a very small group of services I'm willing to pay a subscription fee for. Video streaming and music streaming make sense, because you get a ton of content for very little money per month. Given how expensive it is to go to the movies or can be to go to live shows, that makes sense to allot some of the entertainment budget to those types of services.
The next is cloud storage. 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.
Office 365 is paid for by my work, otherwise I wouldn't use it at all. Subscription pricing is a bad trend and we should do everything we can to discourage it.
You are free to vote with your wallet and not purchase apps with subscriptions.
Myself? I am going to vote with mine and support subscriptions for apps that I use on a regular basis, and whose utility have far exceeded the pittance I paid for them. Yes, I consider the few dollars I paid for Tweetbot a pittance relative to the benefits I have gotten from it.
Personally, I quite like the idea of a subscription based model over paid-for upgrades.
For one, it removes the burden of the developer having to decide which upgrades come for free, and which ones are major enough to warrant an IAP to unlock (which is essentially what a paid upgrade is). In an ideal situation, I just pay once a year, and watch the updates come flowing in. Likewise, the subscription also represents a guaranteed source of income for the developer, who no longer has to worry about whether users will be willing to pay for new features or not. They are assumed to be "opt-in" by default.
You want iOS to be the "better platform" which developers continue to develop for first, you have to be willing to spend to continue to attract developers.
It's a win-win scenario for both consumers and developers, and I wholeheartedly support this change.
I agree on all counts.
The only time a subscription model makes sense is if there is an ongoing, continuing service being provided. Cloud storage, movie/music catalogs, newspapers and magazines, etc.
Paying monthly for an app just to use it is terrible. The only way I might be inclined to do so is if there were regular updates (ie like weekly or biweekly) that added new features. Even then I probably wouldn't want to.
I was thinking more of an annual fee. For example, Dark Sky for android charges its users $4 a year, mostly to cover server costs of providing that weather data. That sounds about fair to me, and it doesn't even work out to a lost cup of coffee a year.
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.
I really love my iPhone but if this sort of thing becomes ubiquitous on iOS, I'll have to consider other phones instead.
yes its so damn hard for developers (thanks to Apple) to have the software promoted in the app store and allow a notification for upgrades (and price) to show as well. Subscriptions have a great track record for Adobe, they have gotten very fat on them (they commented that the model brings them in more money).
In a better world, you should get a choice of subscription or simple notification of payable upgrade or not. As for ads, the first software I would buy is one that blocks the damn things.
In a better world, you should get a choice of subscription or simple notification of payable upgrade or not. As for ads, the first software I would buy is one that blocks the damn things.
If an app is providing a service like that where there are ongoing costs (servers, etc), then yes, a subscription is absolutely justified. And I think that's what this is meant for.
But if an app is entirely local – say, a notepad app with no syncing/backup/etc features - then I'd find it a lot harder to justify paying monthly.
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!
I think this is where the developer has to maintain close communication with their user base, perhaps even going as far as to provide a timeline of planned updates so users know what they are paying for.
Apple announces new features with their annual release of iOS, and we all expect developers to automatically jump on them and incorporate these latest APIs in their apps, and then complain when they try to charge us for it (usually in the form of a new app).
Updating an app (even if it a local app) requires time and effort, and this is time which could have gone towards developing a new app that actually generates new revenue. So there still needs to be some financial incentive for developers to continue to improve an app after it has been purchased.
I am using annual subscription model as an example because I am expecting an annual major upgrade tied with the latest iOS release every year, in between minor bug patches, and that is what developers such as Drafts and Fantastical had been doing for some time (i.e.: Fantastical 2 was essentially Fantastical 1 with the new iOS 7 design guidelines and a few other improvements that I had to buy all over again).
That's basically what I am paying for. A semi-new app every year.
Google is moving to a similar model too for Android, so it appears this is just going to be the new world order.
I'm interested to see how all of this plays out before I rush to judgment. For a non-service providing app I don't see how this kind of pricing model would make sense for customers. Take an app like Tweetbot for example. It's $10 in the App Store. If they tried to charge $1 a month for it you would have to think that would significantly crater their user base. My guess (hope) is that apps like Tweetbot become free with an IAP option for both sub and full purchase, with the former possibly including use of the Mac app as well. Going sub only for most apps would make very little sense.
Tweetbot was essentially Tweetbot3 with a minor design and the new iOS 9 features such as Safari view controller and support for force touch. Tweetbot is limited by the number of Twitter tokens it gets (which means only a limited number of people can purchase it), so it has to price its app high to make up for the shortfall in sales.
Would you be willing to pay say, $5 a year if it meant at least one guaranteed major update for Tweetbot every year. As opposed to the developers spinning off each new update as a new app?
I don't think it's an inherently bad thing. The developer might lose some users, but the people who remain would be a smaller and more dedicated following. You would in a sense be retaining your best customers. In the long run, the developer should earn more, and that's not a bad thing in my book.
For several weeks the App Store has not shown the "top charts" for all iOS that is less than iOS 9.
Me and my friends are experience this problem on our iPhone 6 and my friend who has a iPhone 4 is also experiencing this.
I think apple is beginning to throw all other iOS versions under the bus.
Me and my friends are experience this problem on our iPhone 6 and my friend who has a iPhone 4 is also experiencing this.
I think apple is beginning to throw all other iOS versions under the bus.
Apple will never offer upgrade pricing because the app store is built on exactly the same back end as the 2003 iTunes mp3 store. Every track (app) has a unique "AtomID" that acts as a UUID for that asset. Anything that you couldn't do to a a song, you can't do to an app.
This thread reveals how a large number of devotees have no desire to think for themselves. They are so enthralled with Apple, they will pay any amount under any circumstances, just to be seen with an iPhone.
Eager to hand over their money, it's no wonder Apple has wealth greater than many of its customers can understand.
A mind boggling example of cult like behavior.
Eager to hand over their money, it's no wonder Apple has wealth greater than many of its customers can understand.
A mind boggling example of cult like behavior.
Being willing to pay good money to support the developers of the apps that I love is being brainwashed now?
While the developers may benefit, it's awfully gullible to believe that's why Apple is making the changes.
As much as Tim Cook wants to change the society for better, he should also commit to improve the App Store ecosystem. I still remember Apple once said "Free apps stay free", only after a year they bent over to IAP. I don't want subscription for my essential apps.
It's a bit of everything. No doubt Apple stands to benefit financially from this change, but I don't believe that is the sole driving factor. The current app store model is broken in that it encourages a race to the bottom with regards to pricing, which inherently favours freemium games and penalises productivity apps. If you want better quality apps, this has to change. I can't say subscription pricing is the magic bullet to the problem, but I think it's a step in the right direction.
It's easy for me.
I'm fine to pay monthly fees for apps for books, music or video.
Each other app that asks for a subscription fee will be deleted.
It might be that I'll end up with only a few apps installed.
In that case I'm going to re-think whether I really need such high end devices like iPhone and iPad. Maybe a simple cell phone and a simple device like that Amazon crap might be my decision. (Honestly I think I'd rather go without any device.)
In the end I'll save a lot of money.
BTW: Currently all my devices come from Apple and I'm still a huge fan.
I even don't use any Microsoft or Google software.
Andy
I'm fine to pay monthly fees for apps for books, music or video.
Each other app that asks for a subscription fee will be deleted.
It might be that I'll end up with only a few apps installed.
In that case I'm going to re-think whether I really need such high end devices like iPhone and iPad. Maybe a simple cell phone and a simple device like that Amazon crap might be my decision. (Honestly I think I'd rather go without any device.)
In the end I'll save a lot of money.
BTW: Currently all my devices come from Apple and I'm still a huge fan.
I even don't use any Microsoft or Google software.
Andy
For a subscription fee you can.
[doublepost=1465454693][/doublepost]It's happening. iTranslate just introduced offline translation subscription. Now I'm waiting for a tip calculator subscription if you want to be able not only to calculate tip (lol), but also to take a picture of receipt.
[doublepost=1465455492][/doublepost]
Yes. There is a line somewhere to not cross.
[doublepost=1465455558][/doublepost]
For Movies and Muisc, not much else.