Apple Prevents Omni Group From Offering Discounted Mac App Store Upgrades
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Analog Kid
macrumors G3
Kudos to Omni for not sitting still. This does look really heavy handed on Apple's part. It's one thing to offer an outlet to developers, another to enforce a business model. I'd assumed Apple just hadn't yet implemented upgrade pricing, which is bad, but this sounds like they're set against it which is worse.
I hope to hear something from Apple on why they're doing this, and I hope it's because they're a month away for offering an upgrade mechanism of their own and don't want a heterogenous system.
I hope to hear something from Apple on why they're doing this, and I hope it's because they're a month away for offering an upgrade mechanism of their own and don't want a heterogenous system.
phoenixsan
macrumors 65816
Ok.....
free upgrades dont make much sense for developers. Unless they were minor updates. But offer the update as a separate entity means Apple get a cut in that, I suppose....
If so, why bother with updates? Just release major versions, ultra-polished....
free upgrades dont make much sense for developers. Unless they were minor updates. But offer the update as a separate entity means Apple get a cut in that, I suppose....
If so, why bother with updates? Just release major versions, ultra-polished....
Glassed Silver
macrumors 68020
Aye, and this worries me, as Windows is something that's going to **** as well...
I sure hope that Apple are reaching their maximum of control freakishness, because if there EVER came a day where I would have to endure serious hurdles and rocks thrown my way to install applications outside of Apple's imagination of how it must be done it would not only annoy me, something I could overcome (say, I need to open a Terminal window to install something) but it would eliminate any feasibility for developers to program applications NOT targeting the MAS, because Average Joe will be too scared to open up Terminal windows and enter cryptic commands to run something.
Would it make the Mac more secure?
I doubt even that. Sure, it would probably help, but there would still be breaches of security just like on iOS and who gives two ***** whether 1000s or a handful of malware targets your system as long as it's widespread and Apple sits there being smug. Sure they want to counter malware directly and atm there is no malware that my OS X doesn't have a patch against (to my knowledge), but seriously...
I think, Benjamin Franklin's words apply to both politics but also information technologies in a way.
The MAS policies are too strict, way too strict and if Apple don't watch it, sooner or later they will get lawsuits thrown their way.
Cheers folks
Glassed Silver:mac
Another method might be offer to sell existing customers codes at the discounted price to be used on the App Store.
ValSalva
macrumors 68040
Hmmm... 10.8 to 10.9. Seems like a minor upgrade to me. Should be free if it was purchased in the Mac App Store. I like your reasoning.
Apple wants to make their platforms appealing by having inexpensive software available but they are doing it on the backs of developers. This is not a long-term sustainable strategy.
unplugme71
macrumors 68030
I don't want to see the MAS to have v1 and v2 and v3 etc software titles. It'll be a pain going through it all. Apple needs to offer in-app purchase upgrades or list multiple versions available for purchase within the same app screen on the MAS.
As a dev I don't want to sell one product and support it indefinitely for free.
As a dev I don't want to sell one product and support it indefinitely for free.
I don't see a problem with this. Apple believes that you can make more money, and it's a more honest transaction, to buy full copies each time at lower rates, rather than a "loyalty" upgrade price and a full price for first-time buyers. They might be right or not, but they make the rules on their store, and OMNI can choose not to sell through them if they want.
Glassed Silver
macrumors 68020
That's not working out too well then now is it?
It's quite annoying to see "HD" versions... "Lite" versions (because there are no demos)... "2" releases (or any number for that matter), because the developer doesn't want to give away major reworking the app for free, which I can understand...
If Apple was concerned about developers having ONE listing of an application in the App Store, they would allow paid upgrades (app "xyz" would be just as unupdated when "xyz 2" gets released as someone's xyz app they choose not to upgrade for a fee)
They would also offer demos.
And they would allow me to select which systems I want the app for.
In the App Store I could be asked whether I want to upgrade my iPhone app version to the Universal Binary version for iPhone and iPad for a fee instead of buying two separate apps.
Dude, Apple isn't worried about this one bit. And if they were, they'd be incredibly bad at keeping control over the concept of "one app - one listing"
Glassed Silver:mac
Yes, but I think Apple needs to make it possible for app developers to provide a paid upgrade for current owners
nagromme
macrumors G5
Change is scary, and I can see both sides for sure. Really, it's not like overcharging for updates, but undercharging for the initial purchase.
Under Apple's model:
- The software-buying experience is very simple. Consumer benefits.
- Software often costs less (initial purchase). Consumer benefits.
- Software sells more copies, and Apple handles servers and credit card processing across international markets. Trusted storefront full of people who already have credit cards on file. Developer benefits.
- BUT there's no additional discount when the time comes for a paid upgrade. You're paying less than under the old system, but NOT less than a new user would pay. Consumer ends up about the same as before—as long as the App Store price is less than the "old way" price had been. Developers can end up about the same too—as long as they charge for major updates. And they should: free updates for small things are great, but developers need to eat.
- No worries about "which version" you're upgrading from. No serial numbers or special accounts or anything thing like that to track. Consumers AND developers benefit in that regard. Skip a version or two if you like. Wait until it's worth it to you to pay again—a choice that the "old way" sometimes punished.
- Want to draw attention to a new version and/or throw a bone to previous owners? Have a short-term sale.
Really, the biggest problem here is that existing users may "feel" that new users are getting away with something: they get the same discount!
Or maybe, in some cases, there's no discount over the "old way." I think that's a bad call for a developer to make, but it's up to the developer. (I know it's a complex call to make, if you also sell the same thing outside the App Store.) And even in the "old way" there often was no discount pricing: wait too long to upgrade, and many companies always made you pay full price.
One man's "control" is another man's "simplicity." Ask yourself: if the "new way" has problems... does it also have benefits? Are you sure it's not worth it to have at least one software store work this way? (Because you can always sell another way if you want.)
Under Apple's model:
- The software-buying experience is very simple. Consumer benefits.
- Software often costs less (initial purchase). Consumer benefits.
- Software sells more copies, and Apple handles servers and credit card processing across international markets. Trusted storefront full of people who already have credit cards on file. Developer benefits.
- BUT there's no additional discount when the time comes for a paid upgrade. You're paying less than under the old system, but NOT less than a new user would pay. Consumer ends up about the same as before—as long as the App Store price is less than the "old way" price had been. Developers can end up about the same too—as long as they charge for major updates. And they should: free updates for small things are great, but developers need to eat.
- No worries about "which version" you're upgrading from. No serial numbers or special accounts or anything thing like that to track. Consumers AND developers benefit in that regard. Skip a version or two if you like. Wait until it's worth it to you to pay again—a choice that the "old way" sometimes punished.
- Want to draw attention to a new version and/or throw a bone to previous owners? Have a short-term sale.
Really, the biggest problem here is that existing users may "feel" that new users are getting away with something: they get the same discount!
Or maybe, in some cases, there's no discount over the "old way." I think that's a bad call for a developer to make, but it's up to the developer. (I know it's a complex call to make, if you also sell the same thing outside the App Store.) And even in the "old way" there often was no discount pricing: wait too long to upgrade, and many companies always made you pay full price.
One man's "control" is another man's "simplicity." Ask yourself: if the "new way" has problems... does it also have benefits? Are you sure it's not worth it to have at least one software store work this way? (Because you can always sell another way if you want.)
nuckinfutz
macrumors 603
Upgrades are NOT going to happen. Daniel Jalkut is NOTHING to Apple but an ex-employee. Even Omni is small potatoes in the scheme of things. Why is Apple supposed to take advice from companies that don't have their level of success? All things considered i'm gonna take advice from a billion dollar company versus a million dollar one almost every time.
Apple built simplicity into the App Store. You see see an app you buy it at the price. There's no gotchas. Even with expanded IAP it's very clear what other costs may exist.
As one of the posters said before. Upgrades are just paid bug fixes with a few enticing features added.
Apple is practicing what they preach. I'm not worried about the Aperture 4 upgrade being a full version because the app is only $79.
Paid upgrades are never simple. Someone is going to get screwed. Apple is well within their rights to prevent this as they are the ones that have to answer to angry consumers.
Apple built simplicity into the App Store. You see see an app you buy it at the price. There's no gotchas. Even with expanded IAP it's very clear what other costs may exist.
As one of the posters said before. Upgrades are just paid bug fixes with a few enticing features added.
Apple is practicing what they preach. I'm not worried about the Aperture 4 upgrade being a full version because the app is only $79.
Paid upgrades are never simple. Someone is going to get screwed. Apple is well within their rights to prevent this as they are the ones that have to answer to angry consumers.
Sure, and have their wares pirated back to the Stone Age, as well as thier code co-opted line by line from other play store "developers", sounds great.
http://us.norton.com/fake-android-apps/article
BornAgainMac
macrumors 604
The problem with the Omni Group is that they don't price their software to make money in volume. They still price it like the old days when you had to discover their software over the web and purchasing it directly from them. I really think they would make a lot more money if they were competitive. Then if they come out with a new version and it is good, people will pay for the new version. I still support them whatever they do with upgrades because they are good Mac developer at the end of the day.
/dev/toaster
macrumors 68020
Totally agreed ... most developers pull this crap these days.
Personally I prefer Apples pricing direction. The traditional model of premium apps with a massive initial cost and reasonable upgrades is a model that only serves to hinder the initial prpurcase.
Having reasonable pricing from the start avoids that barrier of entry while maintaining upgrade income.
Having reasonable pricing from the start avoids that barrier of entry while maintaining upgrade income.
Offer a different app for significant upgrades
Will this work for developers?
Release an app onto the app store for v1. Any minor fixes and minor updates release for free as that same app.
When significant upgrades have been developed then release a new app but leave the existing app as it is. Price your software that it has a lifetime of say 1 or 2 years so that by releasing new apps for major new features you are getting a consistent revenue stream from the same customers who are willing to buy the newer version. You may price your newer versions a little higher than the earlier ones. If a new customer doesn't want v5 but are happy with the v3 features then they can buy your product but at an enticing discounted price for those type of customers.
NB: Sometimes we need to think outside the square and do things differently to how they were done in the past.
Will this work for developers?
Release an app onto the app store for v1. Any minor fixes and minor updates release for free as that same app.
When significant upgrades have been developed then release a new app but leave the existing app as it is. Price your software that it has a lifetime of say 1 or 2 years so that by releasing new apps for major new features you are getting a consistent revenue stream from the same customers who are willing to buy the newer version. You may price your newer versions a little higher than the earlier ones. If a new customer doesn't want v5 but are happy with the v3 features then they can buy your product but at an enticing discounted price for those type of customers.
NB: Sometimes we need to think outside the square and do things differently to how they were done in the past.
Serelus
macrumors 6502a
So basically, you get your app in the store, agreeing to all apple's terms. Your app gets exposed to millions of users for a 1-time 99$, but apple is taking that juicy 30%, so you as a developer figure: "hey why not let people upgrade through our website", we earn in sales + ad revenue from traffic visiting our website. Well guess again, lmfao.
This all rather seems like a publicity stunt, a company of this scale should be fully aware of apple's terms. The fact that they handle it like this makes me think they want some extra attention from the media. Playing the victim, gets attention and support very easily, especially when it concerns business with Apple.
This all rather seems like a publicity stunt, a company of this scale should be fully aware of apple's terms. The fact that they handle it like this makes me think they want some extra attention from the media. Playing the victim, gets attention and support very easily, especially when it concerns business with Apple.
gaximus
macrumors 68020
This is why I like the App Store. I don't want to buy the software again just because the developers want to charge for an upgrade.
scottsjack
macrumors 68000
So why buy Mac apps from the App Store in the first place? I would rather buy online from the developer and get what is sometimes the full (real) version of the app. Plus then the dev gets the money, screw Apple.
Additionally you can use the app where you want to, not just on the machines that Apple permits. Maybe you want a new Apple ID or none at all.
Buying hardware from Apple makes a lot of sense. To enslave yourself to the oh so convenient App Store with all of its sometimes changing rules make very little sense at all.
Additionally you can use the app where you want to, not just on the machines that Apple permits. Maybe you want a new Apple ID or none at all.
Buying hardware from Apple makes a lot of sense. To enslave yourself to the oh so convenient App Store with all of its sometimes changing rules make very little sense at all.
Or maybe, they are just trying to make a point, that the MAS is not the iOS App Store, no matter how much Apple might want it to be. Incidents like these is just teaching users, "you want to be able to upgrade? Buy direct." That is not good for Apple. I avoid the App Store for everything except the few occasions where iCloud features are used, or there is no choice (Tweetbot.) Otherwise, I stay away, which is too bad because it's extremely convenient.
aidensocal
macrumors newbie
consumer lawsuit?
Well unless Apple went out of it's way to inform consumers when purchasing an app that by purchasing through Apple, consumers were limiting their ability to pay market rates for upgrades going forward I see another slew of class action lawsuits in which consumers still don't get much but lawyers make out like bandits!
Well unless Apple went out of it's way to inform consumers when purchasing an app that by purchasing through Apple, consumers were limiting their ability to pay market rates for upgrades going forward I see another slew of class action lawsuits in which consumers still don't get much but lawyers make out like bandits!
Serelus
macrumors 6502a
Let me give you a clear example of how this can go very wrong very quick, you see developers can be very generous with their work, some give you everything for free, others will rob you of every dime they can get.
Let's take the money hungry developer for a second, if apple were to allow "Paid upgrades" What's stopping a greedy developer form disabling the old version of an App rendering it useless until you pay for the upgrade?
For example, you open the app and it says: "This is an old version of the App, please upgrade to the new version to continue using the app". In this case the consumer completely get's screwed over. Which is exactly what Apple wants to prevent. I've already seen several apps handle this business model, Plants vs Zombie 2 versions other than the latest do not work, you have to update them. EA would literally rob you blind in upgrades.
What about Redeem Codes as a mechanism?
I don't know the app-store policies, but I've always wondered: Wouldn't it be possible to offer an in-app purchase of a Redeem Code for a "free" copy of the new version of the software. So you would pay upgrade price as an in-app purchase in the old version, and in return you would get a redeem code to use on the App Store. People without the old version, would simply buy the new version outright.
Does Apple prevent this "work-around"?
I don't know the app-store policies, but I've always wondered: Wouldn't it be possible to offer an in-app purchase of a Redeem Code for a "free" copy of the new version of the software. So you would pay upgrade price as an in-app purchase in the old version, and in return you would get a redeem code to use on the App Store. People without the old version, would simply buy the new version outright.
Does Apple prevent this "work-around"?