Looks like I won't be renewing my sub. I wonder if the Parcel app will suffer the same kind of problems.
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.
Deliveries App Loses Functionality as Shipping Companies Refuse to Participate
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
So I’m not a developer nor am I known for taking pro-developer stances around these parts but I do think the subscription model has some merit.
It potentially allows developers to get a good idea out to market in beta form. If it’s well received and subscriptions grow and stick, it allows them to allocate resources at the ideas the market wants. Consumers face less risk because they can cancel at any time and subscription prices are far lower.
In a one time payment model, the developers obviously need to bring a more polished product because it’s their one time shot to recoup all development costs. This means slower to market and big risk that they end up deep in the red. The more risky a marketplace is, the less innovation.
And the subscription model neatly aligns the consumers and the developers throughout the life of the software. If people like it and keep their subscriptions, the developer has the resources to continually fix and update the software. If subscriptions fall, they can allocate their efforts accordingly.
Additionally, current software has far more ongoing costs than it did back before the subscription model existed.
I can’t help but think this battle has been fought and you’re on the side that lost. Subscriptions allow the market participants to transact so much more efficiently, we’re not going back any time soon.
You can note it on your tax return as charitable givings lol
Deliveries never forced people that previously bought the app to subscribe.
I'm taking a wait and see approach. The main reason I even use Deliveries is that $5 a year isn't even that bad despite how I feel about software subscriptions. But Amazon tracking has been working just fine for me, though it's been a while since I've ordered food (genderally FedEx) from Walmart or other items that use other shipping companies.
Amazon kind of blew everyone away with "you're 3 stops away"... and UPS is starting to make it harder to get tracking without becoming a my choice member.
If parcel companies' APIs stop working, all other parcel tracking apps will have the same issues.
I've been using this on iPhone, iPad, and Mac for years. It occupies a prime spot on my home screen, and I use it many times a day. I do also have the USPS, UPS, and FedEx apps installed, but they are less useful and slow.
It seems like we’re not getting the full story. Assuming there was an API that delivered this data to the app, did the cost for using this go up and make it difficult/impossible for the app developer to make anything at their current rate? Were shipping companies concerned about privacy issues with this data being stored on a third party server (if that’s how it works)?
Last edited:
Thank you for taking the time to post this information! Appreciate it.
I should say that I've not explored this type of option, because I've made a conscious decision to avoid sharing personal data (purchase info, emails) with a third-party. I may well be wrong, but the parcel tracking code alone avoids sharing additional data with Parcel… (the same reason I've not set up the Amazon integration, as IIRC it involves signing-in to my Amazon account inside Parcel, which seems like it would share either the password, or access to my Amazon account with the Parcel app developer).
That explains why I can no longer track my FedEx packages. Another once great app bites the dust because some corporation feels the need to be dbag adjacent.
They moved to the subscription model in October 2020 and took away functionalities from previous buyers just like Notability app.
https://appleosophy.com/2020/10/01/deliveries-app-pivots-adds-subscription-model-and-dark-mode/
A quote from the article “Those who have already purchased the app within the last 18 months are getting a complimentary subscription to the app that will last until February 1, 2021.”
Simply put, Deliveries devs broke the App Store Review Guideline 3.1.2(a)👇
"If you are changing your existing app to a subscription-based business model, you should not take away the primary functionality existing users have already paid for. For example, let customers who have already purchased a “full game unlock” continue to access the full game after you introduce a subscription model for new customers."
I don't discount that the subscription model has merit, I only point out that the merit is for the developer not the customer. There is value in high entry costs as it keeps fly-by-night ideas from cluttering the app store and keeps those not interested in running a business out. Software shouldn't be released in beta form. It's not up to customers to build software - that's on the developer. The risk should be on the developer. We don't see the same risk in software that we see with other businesses. A baker might lose their house because their idea didn't end up turning a profit, but developers just wash their hands and try a new app.
The benefit to a one-time payment is that the developer needs to come up with another product. They can't make their business a calculator app, or an app that tracks packages already being tracked. Those are the sort of apps we see with subscriptions - low innovation AND low risk.
Instead, we see subscriptions that transfer risk to customers. That's not acceptable. If it's not a viable product release it free or find a way to turn it into one. Deliveries should have been a feature of Delicious Library, not its own app.
The only reason current software has more ongoing costs than previously is because current software is tied to a software as a service model. It's not intrinsic to the app itself. But the truth is, that most developers don't use subscriptions. That's what happened here. Heck, most don't use IAP either. We see it mostly with mobile apps because the cost of entry into these markets is so low. It's easy for a developer to come up with a feature and market it as an app. And since they don't have any other ideas, or interest in performing market research to find out how much their product is actually worth they just tack a subscription onto it. Honestly, they don't even care if it generates a lot of revenue, because they play the long game. Enough people over time will try the app and that will generate money - even if they don't provide any updates or add any features.
Never justified?
1) Do you work for free? Wold you be happy to be paid a single payment but be on the hook to constantly support your product?
2) What if the app also provides a service that requires Infrastructure behind it? Should your one off payment cover those costs for all time?
You’ve obviously never been a professional developer in the modern world. The free ride of one and done apps is coming to an end.
App pricing is a careful balance. Charge too much and no-one may buy your app. Charge too little and people may suspect your app is too cheap and not worth it.
As for the Deliveries app, I’d imagine that there are costs involved for the service - I can’t imagine every single API call comes from your device to the destination - far more probable that the developer has a hosted service that manages these and makes batch calls. That costs money.
You apparently feel it should be free or people should be happy to pay say $49.00 for such an app as a one off.
Yeah, well, you know that’s just like, uh, your opinion, man.
In all seriousness, consumers want these apps but don’t want to pay big up front costs. Subscriptions allow for that. You claim it’s not acceptable to transfer risk of app development over to the consumer - but aren’t consumers themselves declaring it is acceptable by purchasing the app on a subscription basis? Why aren’t consumers cancelling all their app subscriptions and piling their money onto the few developers that are bold enough to do 1-time purchases?
It seems your frustration would be better placed on the consumers you deem are making decisions that go against their own self-interest. But perhaps - just maybe - they do know what is best for themselves and have made their decision accordingly.
Did you read all 7 pages or just part of one post? The very first thing I said was that they needed to charge more. The issue isn't should they get paid. It never was.
It's not the responsibility of the customer to figure out the cost to make the product. That falls on the developer. Figure out how much the product can make, including projected costs, and then determine if you can build it for less.
Most apps will fail. Correct that, should fail. This app was a feature, not a product. It should have failed years ago because it never matured into a full-featured solution. And that's the issue with software. It can sit on the shelf for years and the developer still makes the same profit when someone buys it. It's not like the developer's 70% degrades with time, in fact, they get more money because after a year they get 85% instead of the 70%. Payment is stacked to encourage subscription payments.
Wow, this is a real bummer. I have been a loyal and highly-consistent user of this app for years. I am saddened by this news. Thank you so much to the Developer for your hard work and the fantastic product you had created!
Oh, it is. Enabling greed is no better than the greed itself. Arresting junkies doesn't take dealers off the street. The real problem is that developers have a system stacked in their favor.
What we really need is ownership of software, shorter software patent durations, a doctrine of first sale for digital items, and a way to ensure that code for servers and DLC are easily accessible and freely distributed after say - 2 years. Developers should be competing against used versions of their own software. If their software is good and people want to keep it, then they don't have to worry that the people will sell it for less than them. But subscriptions have no place in this.
You act as if this is up to the developers in the first place. Customers caused the pricing race to the bottom when the app store came out. Assuming a 30% profit margin (considered razor thin in almost every other industry), and a year over year increase in costs of 10%... According those projections, let's say the $4.99 piece of software actually costs $3.49 to run for that first year. With the estimated cost increase, that would cost $57.65 for 10 years. With that 30% profit margin you'd have to charge closer to $81.99 up front.
And bug fixes and updates are inevitable. APIs change, even if you're just relying on the APIs for the OS. Hardware changes... Security flaws are found in the programming language, or the underlying operating system...
You don't understand the reality of development, or the economy of the app store.