Everyday i use less the AppStore, i would love a real "new" section to give an opportunity to all developers. If you see the charts only the big developers are there, that makes me think that the system is not loyal.
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 agree that if implemented, this is going to be a terrible idea. What will happen is that developers will get very picky in looking for ways to introduce some kind of subscription. Many of them probably won't even care how low the subscription is. We could well be looking at 10 cent subscriptions to get apps into the 15% category. It's going to create a huge mess.
[doublepost=1465458497][/doublepost]
I've had some personal dealings with Apple and found them to be the most ruthless, unpleasant and dishonest company I have ever had the misfortune to encounter. It's important to understand that their public image is nothing more than a carefully constructed lie. Get beyond it and you will see a completely different company.
Subscriptions are easy to abuse. Once they have your credit card number they will continue to to renew, even if you have deleted the program from your machine.
I had this happen once. The only way to stop the automatic renewal was to cancel my credit card. When I cancelled the card than I started to get nasty letters demanding that I give them a valid credit card number.
Once burned, twice shy!
[doublepost=1465460360][/doublepost]
I'm not a fan of in-app purchases. In-app purchases will stop me from purchasing the app.
I had this happen once. The only way to stop the automatic renewal was to cancel my credit card. When I cancelled the card than I started to get nasty letters demanding that I give them a valid credit card number.
Once burned, twice shy!
[doublepost=1465460360][/doublepost]
I'm not a fan of in-app purchases. In-app purchases will stop me from purchasing the app.
It's not enough for me.
I'm on the verge of pulling my sales from in-app on iTunes because of user fraud.
I run a services business which sells consultation via our iOS App for which Apple takes 30%.
That's fine.
What's not fine is that Apple refunds without question but refuses to tell me who refunded.
Because of this I'm seeing a steady rise in people who have twigged to this and buy our services and then phone up Apple and get a full refund.
I end up out of pocket because I have to pay the consultants for their time.
It's a **** state of affairs and I'm getting well fed up with it.
I'm prohibited from using PayPal in-app instead and by-passing iTunes payment.
So too I'm I prohibited from trying to lead customer off the app to my website to pay there.
I'm close to calling it a day.
I'm on the verge of pulling my sales from in-app on iTunes because of user fraud.
I run a services business which sells consultation via our iOS App for which Apple takes 30%.
That's fine.
What's not fine is that Apple refunds without question but refuses to tell me who refunded.
Because of this I'm seeing a steady rise in people who have twigged to this and buy our services and then phone up Apple and get a full refund.
I end up out of pocket because I have to pay the consultants for their time.
It's a **** state of affairs and I'm getting well fed up with it.
I'm prohibited from using PayPal in-app instead and by-passing iTunes payment.
So too I'm I prohibited from trying to lead customer off the app to my website to pay there.
I'm close to calling it a day.
That's of course abuse from consumer side, but this topic is about abuse from developer side.
Since Adobe's move to subscription of its Creative Suite (rent) that I never upgraded any of its apps, searching for perpetual licensed software (buy) instead.
I know a lot of people who did the same and the trend is sky rocketing as more alternatives become available.
A software subscription software makes sense only if you need to use an expensive tool for sporadic periods of time, making the return of the investment very difficult and slow, if feasible.
Other than that, renting will inflate costs, becoming more expensive which will eventually lead people to piracy and opt for alternatives.
I keep telling developers that I'm not in the rent market, but in the buying market.
An interesting solution some developers are adopting is to have both options of buying and renting, leaving the decision to the customers to choose the best solution according to their needs and budget.
And yes, upgrading price is a solution.
I failed to understand why Apple never allowed it, except for the fact that it never does it or any other kind of promotions and sales.
They might not need it, but other developers do.
That has been a major request from developers since the App Store and then the Mac App Store were introduced and I hope it will be considered in future changes.
Last edited:
I think it's a wise decision to offer this reduced commission for yearly subscribers. I don't really have anything to say on that matter.
What I do find interesting is that this is billed as a 2.0 update, significant change, and yet there's still no option for upgrade pricing. An app that doesn't get used daily... or even weekly isn't likely to be appropriate for the subscription model (which presumably would have a minimum 79p/99c fee a month). However we can't expect a developer to live on sales from an app of less than a buck and then update for eternity.
I appreciate the complexities about it but there should be a way of generating a discount code within v1 of an app to reduce the price of v2, for example, when the upgrade is significantly different.
What I do find interesting is that this is billed as a 2.0 update, significant change, and yet there's still no option for upgrade pricing. An app that doesn't get used daily... or even weekly isn't likely to be appropriate for the subscription model (which presumably would have a minimum 79p/99c fee a month). However we can't expect a developer to live on sales from an app of less than a buck and then update for eternity.
I appreciate the complexities about it but there should be a way of generating a discount code within v1 of an app to reduce the price of v2, for example, when the upgrade is significantly different.
[QUOTE="Supermallet, post: 22984538, member: 917976"
I really love my iPhone but if this sort of thing becomes ubiquitous on iOS, I'll have to consider other phones instead.[/QUOTE]
I have NO apps on my 4s. I've been planning on buying a 7plus. One reason in the new camera, and the second is Apple Pay. I own eight cameras, so I really don't need a camera phone. Samsung Pay is ubiquitous, more so than Apple Pay.
I really love my iPhone but if this sort of thing becomes ubiquitous on iOS, I'll have to consider other phones instead.[/QUOTE]
I have NO apps on my 4s. I've been planning on buying a 7plus. One reason in the new camera, and the second is Apple Pay. I own eight cameras, so I really don't need a camera phone. Samsung Pay is ubiquitous, more so than Apple Pay.
I'm curious too, especially to see if we'll not end up paying more for an ad click than we receive by an app sale!
I fear that this will only benefit big/rich developers/companies.
Subscriptions are interesting for some kind of apps, mainly the ones which work more as providing a service or that have to constantly produce "expensive" content updates.
The only way to offer any sort of loyalty discount for "upgrades" at the moment is by creating a "Bundle" with a set price for which will be discounted by whatever you paid for the original app.
The 'Complete My Bundle' feature takes whatever money you've paid for the individual apps and applies that as a discount towards the bundle price which is fixed.
For example App_v1 costs £2, App_v2 costs £3 on the app store. The sum of these individually is £5 but these are bundled together as a discounted £4 download. Because you already purchased v1 for £2 you can "Complete My Bundle" for just £2, a saving of £1 on the upgraded newer app.
It's clunky though because if you buy an app on sale, or use a promo code for free, the 'Complete My Bundle' price can be different than someone else, and in some situations it might actually be cheaper to buy the remaining apps individually.
I wasn't aware of that.
Sounds like a workaround and every workaround is ,as you said, clunky.
But I'll keep that in mind for future purchases.
Other developers like Synium and Telestream, opt to offer a sort of promo introductory price for every major release, only its available for every (new or returning) customer, which (i believe) is not their intention.
I understand everyone hates subscription model but let us not forget a developer won't survive long with one time fee $0.99 and $5 apps. A single app has multiple developers working on it and profits need to be worth it for all the employees and then some profit for the investors.
otherwise all the apps we like will disappear.
otherwise all the apps we like will disappear.
No they won't. I'm not going to work 6 days a week (which i do now) just to pay subscriptions for ****ing phone apps of which most i use rarely anyway just so the poor developer can survive. Welcome to real world.
I'm totally with you on that one! blanket monthly subscriptions on each app mean that having apps gets so expensive that most people won't be able to afford to use many apps. Nothing wrong with paid upgrades to better features, and when they're one time upgrade fees like they are now, it still remains affordable this way, and developers and users can still benefit. The other reason why I think the upgrade for better features option is better than just making them all paid for up front, is you get to test how good the app is before you commit to it, and you can then pay for the ones that actually work the way you intended. (This behaves like a natural quality filter too, as it keeps the best apps alive, and doesn't tolerate the time-wasters so much).
Thing is, many apps seem like they might do what you want in theory, but many you download it and realize that it doesn't quite work the way you'd intended, so can often take a few tries to find the appropriate app that works the way you want it to. Knowing this of course, whenever you discover apps that don't have the free basic versions to try first, there is no method of being able to test the water like that. So even when you suspect that it *might* do what you want it to, it often makes me reluctant to even download it at all in case it's another dud. But that's no problem when it's free to try first, as you can simply delete the ones that were useless, and keep trying them until you find the ones that work well. The ones that I like, I often do pay for the upgraded features, and it doesn't break the bank to do so when it's only the good apps you have to pay for in order to get them. But if you had to subscribe to them all up front, then this will saturate the app store with useless apps simply because app developers will no longer have to care about making quality apps anymore, because they'll have been paid anyway no matter what rubbish they produce. So this creates an app quality problem also.
In terms of good upgrade models though, I think there are two models that work well...
1) Free versions that have the full features but support ads on the free version to help keep the app development well funded, and lets the user experience how well the app works, and can pay the one-off upgrade fee to eliminate the ads when they get annoying. (This is the most ideal, because you can literally get a feel for every feature, rather than having a taste for some and still being a bit uncertain about the others).
2) The alternative model which I like, are those that start off as free more basic versions which supports only the most common basic features at first, but allows you to pay one-time fees for useful feature add-ons which make the app more useful. The only downside of this approach is you don't get to try every feature, but you do still get a feel for the app. The upside is that you can tailor your app to the way that you personally like to use it, and pay for the features that are most relevant to you. This is useful to the developer also, because they can create a revenue stream more than once (on a per-feature basis) to keep the app supported, and will give them a better feel for which add-on features are the most useful and wanted by customers, rather than the ones that less people needed and were considered more bloatware, so increases the quality of the app whilst funding the right directions for the app alot better and more directly.
I want to re-iterate though that it's only the one-time upgrade fees that have my full support, and I often use them, but monthly fees would be catastrophic! One of many real-world examples is the MyFitnessPal app, which I used to use quite alot, because it was a great app. But the moment they started charging for it monthly, I could no longer afford to keep it, so got deleted and hasn't been used since. If all apps started using the monthly fee model, more good apps would also have to go in the dustbin for evermore, and that would be a great shame. If it started becoming the norm though, even an iPhone lover like me would even start to find that my iPhone has become less viably usable, so I hope I never see that day. Apple, you have been doing a fantastic job so far for all these years, we love you as you are, but please don't spoil it for us now by undoing all that hard work!
Last edited:
On subscriptions changes:
It's ridiculous Apple only lowers their Cut after a subscription runs for a year, they should cut their share down for all apps and even way more for paid ones.
Besides that subscriptions are only a sense making model for a fraction of the apps and a fraction of users.
Still, better Apple actually tries to improve things than not in the horrible current state of the App Store for both users and developers.
But they have to do way more and i'm curious to see if they will show way more at WWDC as it is extremely needed and years overdue.
I'm also curious to see if they at least integrate the subscriptions properly in app store delivery so that it should at least be possible that a dev flags an app (update) as subscription requiring and is able to easily set the subscription terms
(for major version change, free updates for 6 or 12 months or whatever) and then a user who gets the app or an app update is told about the subscription and asked to do it if not already done to get that app (version).
If no such thing is implemented by Apple, then this would be complete crap because it would then have to be implemented all manually by the devs with inside the app downloads, being way more hassle in setup and downloads handling for both devs and users and is not even sensemaking for lots of app types.
Paying for appearing in search results:
Then the other thing also pre announced by Phil as positive improvement: That one now "can" pay for appearing in search results.
That's the polar opposite of great.
The developers who milk users most with free to play model (the only ones who can be long term profitable in the app store in it's screwed up form right now) are also those who will have most money to pay for these search results placements.
So the users will get more spammy search results and those developers using free to play milking to the max manners less will appear even less in search results..
Thanks, Apple...
Sorry, that one is just very badly thought through...
On other huge issues of the App Store:
The main problems of the App Stores, like where free to play is pushed most for many years, to the degree where meanwhile development and updating of apps not using that model is not financially viable anymore for all apps besides those appearing on the front page while they are there for two weeks, are seemingly not tackled at all.
And free to play apps can only be financially viable while they have many millions of users on ongoing base, which again can only appear for around 100-1000 apps of more than a billion in total.
As soon as a free to play app doesn't have millions upon millions of repeat users, it makes zero money.
So free to play apps are not just destroying the market for all paid apps but also are still not financially viable in most cases themselves.
A horrible model for both users and developers.
What would be a big but very needed change would for example be that Apple either completely forbids free apps or discourages free to play massively by only allowing apps to be free to download for apps without ads and in app purchases.
As consumer one automatically picks the most affordable seeming option where possible, but it is not good when everything turns to milk the user to the max free to play model for most apps, and good apps, especially those not following that model, can't be long term financially viable anymore and hence devs have to stop making or updating them, so this is not a model with positive future for anyone and they have to reduce that happening as much as possible immediately.
Something also has to be changed about the whole highlighting model of the app store, it can't work out for the majority of devs/apps when one either has to pay for getting listed in search results or one only appears there and in the front pages of the app store (the only place where one can make money at all) when the app already has many downloads/reviews/rakes in lots of money during that timeframe.
A completely wrong model which makes zero sense, because an app can't have those 3 while it is not visible in the store at all.
So the only way to work around it is in sleezy manners.
The app store enforces sleezy manners because it doesn't give a fair chance to most fair devs.
And on the potential new platforms Apple made it even way worse rather than better.
For the Apple Watch there practically is no proper App Store at all.
On the Apple TV all apps besides around 100 featured ones are completely invisible, so of course not sellable/discoverable/buyable.
Maybe ask all besides streaming video services how much they make with their Apple TV apps..
Or ask how much most people make with their Apple Watch apps..
Apple has screwed those up in huge way for devs, and ultimately for users and them that way, too because devs can't support a platform they can't make money on.
Making special apps for the iPad Pro doesn't make sense for most developers either because all besides one static page of featured iPad Pro apps never stick out in the pool of a billion apps.
In the long run, and with these changes now talked about by Phil, too, there will just be more free to play milking to the max manner stuff until all these problems i listed and other big problems are tackled properly by Apple.
And for the large majority of app store developers, until then, the App Store sadly already is and more each day becomes not sustainable anymore because it is not possible (anymore) to make a living with the hard work one puts in.
So yeah, there is a lot that has to be changed there and i'm curious to see if there will be more proper changes announced at WWDC or if it stays with only these two: hooray, subscriptions (not making sense for most apps and then probably not even properly integrated) and yes, finally!!!! pay for search results listings now, too!!!, would be really weak sauce..
It's ridiculous Apple only lowers their Cut after a subscription runs for a year, they should cut their share down for all apps and even way more for paid ones.
Besides that subscriptions are only a sense making model for a fraction of the apps and a fraction of users.
Still, better Apple actually tries to improve things than not in the horrible current state of the App Store for both users and developers.
But they have to do way more and i'm curious to see if they will show way more at WWDC as it is extremely needed and years overdue.
I'm also curious to see if they at least integrate the subscriptions properly in app store delivery so that it should at least be possible that a dev flags an app (update) as subscription requiring and is able to easily set the subscription terms
(for major version change, free updates for 6 or 12 months or whatever) and then a user who gets the app or an app update is told about the subscription and asked to do it if not already done to get that app (version).
If no such thing is implemented by Apple, then this would be complete crap because it would then have to be implemented all manually by the devs with inside the app downloads, being way more hassle in setup and downloads handling for both devs and users and is not even sensemaking for lots of app types.
Paying for appearing in search results:
Then the other thing also pre announced by Phil as positive improvement: That one now "can" pay for appearing in search results.
That's the polar opposite of great.
The developers who milk users most with free to play model (the only ones who can be long term profitable in the app store in it's screwed up form right now) are also those who will have most money to pay for these search results placements.
So the users will get more spammy search results and those developers using free to play milking to the max manners less will appear even less in search results..
Thanks, Apple...
Sorry, that one is just very badly thought through...
On other huge issues of the App Store:
The main problems of the App Stores, like where free to play is pushed most for many years, to the degree where meanwhile development and updating of apps not using that model is not financially viable anymore for all apps besides those appearing on the front page while they are there for two weeks, are seemingly not tackled at all.
And free to play apps can only be financially viable while they have many millions of users on ongoing base, which again can only appear for around 100-1000 apps of more than a billion in total.
As soon as a free to play app doesn't have millions upon millions of repeat users, it makes zero money.
So free to play apps are not just destroying the market for all paid apps but also are still not financially viable in most cases themselves.
A horrible model for both users and developers.
What would be a big but very needed change would for example be that Apple either completely forbids free apps or discourages free to play massively by only allowing apps to be free to download for apps without ads and in app purchases.
As consumer one automatically picks the most affordable seeming option where possible, but it is not good when everything turns to milk the user to the max free to play model for most apps, and good apps, especially those not following that model, can't be long term financially viable anymore and hence devs have to stop making or updating them, so this is not a model with positive future for anyone and they have to reduce that happening as much as possible immediately.
Something also has to be changed about the whole highlighting model of the app store, it can't work out for the majority of devs/apps when one either has to pay for getting listed in search results or one only appears there and in the front pages of the app store (the only place where one can make money at all) when the app already has many downloads/reviews/rakes in lots of money during that timeframe.
A completely wrong model which makes zero sense, because an app can't have those 3 while it is not visible in the store at all.
So the only way to work around it is in sleezy manners.
The app store enforces sleezy manners because it doesn't give a fair chance to most fair devs.
And on the potential new platforms Apple made it even way worse rather than better.
For the Apple Watch there practically is no proper App Store at all.
On the Apple TV all apps besides around 100 featured ones are completely invisible, so of course not sellable/discoverable/buyable.
Maybe ask all besides streaming video services how much they make with their Apple TV apps..
Or ask how much most people make with their Apple Watch apps..
Apple has screwed those up in huge way for devs, and ultimately for users and them that way, too because devs can't support a platform they can't make money on.
Making special apps for the iPad Pro doesn't make sense for most developers either because all besides one static page of featured iPad Pro apps never stick out in the pool of a billion apps.
In the long run, and with these changes now talked about by Phil, too, there will just be more free to play milking to the max manner stuff until all these problems i listed and other big problems are tackled properly by Apple.
And for the large majority of app store developers, until then, the App Store sadly already is and more each day becomes not sustainable anymore because it is not possible (anymore) to make a living with the hard work one puts in.
So yeah, there is a lot that has to be changed there and i'm curious to see if there will be more proper changes announced at WWDC or if it stays with only these two: hooray, subscriptions (not making sense for most apps and then probably not even properly integrated) and yes, finally!!!! pay for search results listings now, too!!!, would be really weak sauce..
So it now seems that the idea is that subscriptions can be offered when there is a "service" element to the app; it is not meant to be for recouping initial development costs over a period. This is fine in theory but may be tricky to enforce in practice.
Upgrade pricing has the difficulty that developers would end up having to support multiple versions as at each upgrade a proportion of users will elect to stay with the current version.
Upgrade pricing has the difficulty that developers would end up having to support multiple versions as at each upgrade a proportion of users will elect to stay with the current version.
The license doesn't expire. The worst case scenario (one I'm currently dreading with YNAB) is that a future OS or hardware update will break the software. I will never lose my data as long as the OS can run it. With subscriptions, I can lose it at the end of any given month. I'm very fortunate in that it's unlikely mission-critical bills won't get paid for me, but I could imagine a case where I simply don't have the cash, and then what? That's a really s**tty thing to do to your customers.
And for the record, I love Marco's current setup. A patronage model works for me because it removes that fear. Those among us will always be happy to pay what they can for good software--it's in our best interest to keep the lights on over at the developers who help us get things done. It's the threat of them simply cutting us off when circumstances collide that sucks. That, and if every bit of software I used went subscription, it would be a hell of an annual hit that I simply can't justify. If that's true for me, one who is among the fortunate, how many customers do you think will drop off? It's a bad, bad scene.
I HATE in app purchases. I'd rather pay $10 for an app and be done with it, rather than it asking for an IAP all the time. You can't just buy a game and let your kid play it any more. You have to be there to cancel all the stupid ads and IAP crap every 30 seconds it seems.
Having said that, I can't see me subscribing to an app either. "Crap! My subscription to Angry Birds ran out!"
I assume there will be some apps that are sold outright, some with IAP, and some subscription.
Having said that, I can't see me subscribing to an app either. "Crap! My subscription to Angry Birds ran out!"
I assume there will be some apps that are sold outright, some with IAP, and some subscription.
Yes. Said way better and more succinctly than I managed to do. We are on the same page with regard to this. It can only be worse for customers. We're essentially being morphed from valued patrons to faceless revenue streams, and the developer's sole purpose is to more efficiently exploit that. The fact that Apple is providing the tools for this really makes me anxious about a shift in philosophy over there.
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 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