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.
Duet Display for iPad Gains 'Pro' Drawing Features
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Well making Duet Display 2 is the same as an in app purchase, in either case you have to pay to get the feature.
And though upfront price is lower, it's a temporary sale. We go on sale from time to time, as do most iOS apps.
Rahulda1,
Perhaps you can clear something up for me. I think I want purchase this app and I don't want to get into the middle of all these emotional posts that I'm reading. If I buy it for $10 what exactly will I be able to do if I don't purchase the pro or yearly subscription portion of the app? I have the 12.9" iPad pro. A second monitor to my MacBook Pro / An extension of my MacBook Pro screen? I guess that's what I am asking. Thank you.
Perhaps you can clear something up for me. I think I want purchase this app and I don't want to get into the middle of all these emotional posts that I'm reading. If I buy it for $10 what exactly will I be able to do if I don't purchase the pro or yearly subscription portion of the app? I have the 12.9" iPad pro. A second monitor to my MacBook Pro / An extension of my MacBook Pro screen? I guess that's what I am asking. Thank you.
Yup you will be able to use it as a second display for Mac or PC and even use the Apple Pencil as a touch device. It just won't be pressure sensitive for Photoshop/Sketchbook/drawing apps.
I really don't understand the sense of entitlement a lot of people have as far as being an "early" customer of an application. It's great that you were willing to support a new app, but just because you were one of the first people to buy something doesn't mean that the developer should be morally obligated to reward you for your "loyalty".
If Duet Display simply released a new app with these new features at the same flat $20 price (due to the lack of upgrade pricing in the App Store), you--and a lot of others--would probably still complain that they are trying to milk you for more money.
To my eyes, you are the one who wants it both ways. You want the app to continue existing, with new features added occasionally, but you don't want to pay for that to happen.
The discussion is finally converging on the real charges, but I felt it worth reiterating:
The app still costs a flat cost.
You have the option of paying an extra $20/year *only* if you specifically want to use an Apple Pencil with tilt/pressure sensitivity enabled for those apps that support it.
I'm personally not a fan of the software as subscription model, but I note that the iOS app ecosystem has forced developers down that route since they are not given any way to offer upgrades. That means they either have to price things high up front, price low and depend entirely on new sales, or drop an app and make a new version (but offer no discount option to previous owners).
Since none of those are ideal, offering upgrades as in-app purchases or subscriptions seems to be the reasonable option.
Personally $10/year would be a no-brainer to me if I decide to pursue the functionality, but $20/year isn't ridiculous for a feature aimed towards pro usage. And if it's a functionality I end up not using regularly then I can drop it rather than investing, say, $40 for a permanent unlock.
The app still costs a flat cost.
You have the option of paying an extra $20/year *only* if you specifically want to use an Apple Pencil with tilt/pressure sensitivity enabled for those apps that support it.
I'm personally not a fan of the software as subscription model, but I note that the iOS app ecosystem has forced developers down that route since they are not given any way to offer upgrades. That means they either have to price things high up front, price low and depend entirely on new sales, or drop an app and make a new version (but offer no discount option to previous owners).
Since none of those are ideal, offering upgrades as in-app purchases or subscriptions seems to be the reasonable option.
Personally $10/year would be a no-brainer to me if I decide to pursue the functionality, but $20/year isn't ridiculous for a feature aimed towards pro usage. And if it's a functionality I end up not using regularly then I can drop it rather than investing, say, $40 for a permanent unlock.
I've seen a few companies manage upgrades with application bundles and the Complete My Bundle feature. Let's say version 1 sold for $40. They suspend sale of that one and launch version 2 for $40 along with a version 1&2 bundle for $60, making the Complete My Bundle price $20. New users just buy the most recent. Existing users hit that and they get the new version for half-off.
At least I wouldn't complain if upgrade path would be offered. You see, my problem is not paying for a product but paying a subscription fee for a service that is not a service but an actual product. Duet is good example of SaaS approach which isn't really a service but actually a product that should be purchased with single purchase.
I appreciate you speaking up and giving us the chance to respond. I haven't read all of the replies to you, but I hope they're constructive as I hope mine is.
I personally really, really, dislike subscription models. They undermine the incentive to innovate. Paid updates mean you have to create something good enough to incentivize me to pay for it. Subscriptions mean I need to pay to keep using the same old stuff.
I don't rent something because I expect it to improve later, I buy something I know I want. If you have new features you want to finance then I would prefer that you disclose them up front, with a schedule, and go to Kickstarter.
I have gotten good use out of Duet, but I won't pay a subscription for a utility program.
[doublepost=1477432882][/doublepost]
That's not true. Plenty of companies have figured this out, either through clever use if IAP, or bundles.
The OmniGroup has moved to a workable IAP model for upgrades that checks for a previous installation and prices the update accordingly.
You are right, it's per year. Still... kind of expensive, unless new features are actively added periodically.
Couldn't agree more. Not only is Astropad a fantastic product with a one-time purchase price, but has worked with iPad Pro and Apple Pencil since day 1. As a student who works with professional level apps without the professional level income required to sustain these subscription pricing plans, I appreciate a developer that respects consumer needs AND wallets
Wait... I bought the app but now I have to rent a feature? They can go F themselves.
Looking forward to Apple building a continuity feature that allows you to pick up an iPad to draw on the Mac.
Looking forward to Apple building a continuity feature that allows you to pick up an iPad to draw on the Mac.
You do realize the app still does everything you paid for, without any further charge?
You've lost nothing and you can keep using it without spending another cent, and still benefit from ongoing support, bug fixes, etc. that are in part financed by those who decide the extra pencil support of pressure/tilt (usable by very few Mac apps) is worth the cost.
As I said I wiped the OS completely to fix it. For reference it's a Late 2012 27" iMac
Subscription is to software as dividends are to stocks. When a product matures to the point that it can't be sold on new features it switches to a subscription model and tries to monetize it's existing value.
There is nothing about Creative Cloud that should accelerate bug fixes. We've been able to download patches for decades.
The reason for the switch isn't because people couldn't justify the up-front price. It's professional software. It's a business expense. It's tax deductible in most jurisdictions. If you're a professional creative, you need Adobe tools and the upfront price pays for itself in productivity and quality of output.
The reason for the switch is because people couldn't justify the upgrade prices. There weren't enough new features they could pack in to make the incremental value of the new version worth the incremental cost. The first step down this path was to only allow upgrade pricing from the previous version (nothing older)-- so you risked having to shell out full price again if you didn't keep upgrading religiously. Eventually the rate of improvement of the software was slow enough that people realized they could skip enough updates to make it economical to do so again. At that point, Adobe realized they needed to basically force an annual update fee by turning off your access to the product if you weren't paid up.
Because the Adobe tools are essentially required for professionals, Adobe can get away with this model until a competitor shows up with a competitive product on a perpetual license. Somehow, remarkably, that hasn't happened yet. Photoshop et. al. are that far ahead of their competitors.
That's not a cynical view, that's just the business reality. Office went through the same thing. Eventually people weren't willing to pay for new toolbar configurations, and MS ran out of ideas for what to do next. I think MS is suffering a bit more though because most of their users don't really need Word-- they just used it because they had it. Faced with annual payments, a lot of people are using second tier tools (Open Office, iWork, Google Docs, etc).
What is cynical though, I'd argue, is saying that subscription is the only way a company can be motivated to fix their buggy software. I find nothing more irritating that to be told "pay us once to buy it, then pay us again to fix it". When that becomes a revenue model, it completely kills the incentive to release quality software to begin with. I won't go so far as to say that companies release intentionally bad software, but I will say they're less motivated to get it right than they would be if there was a financial penalty (rather than reward) for getting it wrong.
Your logic sounds coherent, but it all falls down when your main competitor charges a one time fee of $29 and you charge $20 every year. With AstroPad I know what I'm paying for, regardless of the price. Nobody really wants to get into a subscription model based on promises of future features. Also SAAS seems fishy when there are no obvious operational costs such as server space, bandwidth, etc. It's like you want your users constantly financing your company instead of selling them a product.
Everyone is quite pissed at Adobe but it works for them because 1) they have a monopoly (which hopefully is going to end soon) and 2) the complete CS suite used to cost thousands of dollars a pop which is significantly more difficult to pay than $50/month or $600/year.
I'm not a fan of subscriptions but can understand the need to monetise to essentially keep a product alive and up to date. As a hobbyist photographer, I could use such a feature as full pencil support for some editing cases but cannot justify a subscription for a feature I wouldn't use too often and would not benefit me financially. $10/year would drop it into impulse subscribe category.
@rahulda1 I'm curious how this app functions and if you can clarify. I know it acts as a second screen and you can extend your desktop and I'm assuming mirror it too. For the graphics tablet feature, does it work the same way but you can zoom into the image to work on or does it work a little differently? Is there a video of this working as it would be helpful for a prospective purchaser. Thanks for taking the time to discuss this new feature and subscription model, not many developers will do that and it is appreciated.
@rahulda1 I'm curious how this app functions and if you can clarify. I know it acts as a second screen and you can extend your desktop and I'm assuming mirror it too. For the graphics tablet feature, does it work the same way but you can zoom into the image to work on or does it work a little differently? Is there a video of this working as it would be helpful for a prospective purchaser. Thanks for taking the time to discuss this new feature and subscription model, not many developers will do that and it is appreciated.
[doublepost=1477487894][/doublepost]
Do you mean zoom into a part of your screen? We don't support that as many users preferred zooming in the canvas instead of a part of the screen. We don't have a video, but are hoping to budget for one soon. E-mail us if you want to learn more, love to chat about any improvements or new features you'd like.
Ah, so the whole screen (app window) on the iPad screen would be scaled but then you can use pinch gestures to zoom in when working with a brush for example, the image you are working on would be zoomed but the interface would remain as is - much like working natively in the application?
Right, but no one is forcing this particular model on them. They can charge more for the functionality, or plan upgrades every year to keep people buying. But I don't like the idea of paying a recurring fee to maintain functionality. I'm not interested in renting software, and "enable functionality" is not a service. I get why I'm paying a recurring fee for dropbox -- they're maintaining servers and storage.
Bug fixes used to be a part of software development. Now they're an additional revenue stream.
Ok, thanks again - much appreciated. I'll maybe take a look but it would be good to see it in action so let us know if you get a chance to create a demo video.
Bug fixes are definitely part of selling software, but for how long? If you look around on the app store, the best ones that don't sell subscriptions eventually sell a 2.0 and 1.0 breaks with new iOS builds, which is pretty much subscription.
By the way, we also maintain servers & storage as we have to deliver updates for our app very frequently (among a lot of other ongoing monthly costs). Instead of focusing on the model, think about the actual cost to the user. For a professional app that can replace a Wacom, is $1.67 a month for this functionality really that high? In that, we are giving frequent updates, around the clock customer support, and will roll out future improvements to subscribers instead of a series of calculated in app purchases.
Is $1.67 a month a high cost? No. It's just the straw breaking the camel's back. I've got enough recurring fees in my budget, I don't want any more.
I recognize that software development is not easy; I wear many hats at an IT company and know how complicated software can be. I can also tell you that absolutely no professional end-user is excited about leasing software. Most of our clients are using old versions of Meraki and over-burdened instances of Profile Manager because they don't want to pay annual per-device contracts for MDM. Clients have stuck to older, non-365 versions of Office. Most of our clients are trying to reign in technology spending, not expand it.
And although Duet Display on an iPad Pro+Pencil offers functionality similar to a Wacom tablet, I would again argue that from a professional standpoint, the competition (a 13" Cintique) offers significantly better performance for the same amount of money. If I was a graphics professional, I'd be buying that right now. I am sure that the limitations of Apple's App Store regulations and the lightning interface itself strongly affect the performance of Duet, but I also don't see that changing in the near future. If my livelihood depended on a drawing tablet, I'd be going for the better value. As a hobbyist, I can't justify an annual fee for something I might not use for months at a time.
Maybe you'll find a lot of people in that middle ground, what do I know? I'm probably not the target audience for this product. But I did buy Duet Display when I got an iPad Pro, and I would probably have purchased Pencil functionality if it was a one-time purchase.
Thanks so much for the feedback. I do certainly think people against the subscription are the vocal minority so far, but I obviously want to make everyone happy if I can. If you don't mind, can you e-mail us? Just have some follow up questions.