What do you guys think the non-tech savvy response will be when they not only update to an entirely new look iOS but then find out that a bunch of their previously purchased apps no longer work and will need to purchase 2.0 versions (i.e. Reeder 2, Clear Universal)? Who will take the most heat, developers or Apple?
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.
iOS 7 App Versions 2.0 Paid Reception
- Thread starter Macinstache
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
The Developers because its kind of a rip off to buy an app then having to buy it again for its iOS 7 update
Not when the apps cost just a few bucks to begin with, and the update adds new features.
(Still: upgrade pricing please, Apple.)
Apps folk bought in previous versions of iOS still work, just that they aren´t updated to take advantage of new features of iOS 7. I find it perfectly reasonable for developers to charge for upgrades. It´s been like that for pc softwares for ages and I don´t see why people should treat mobile apps any differently. I like the upgrade of Reeder 2.0 and it was a no brainer for me to upgrade. I´ll have to see what omnifocus 2.0 brings.
It makes complete sense and I'll be glad if a lot of devs do this. It takes hours, weeks, months, even years to write software. We're already paying pocket change (subjective, but I think we can all agree that if we're spending time on MacRumors, we have a little bit of cash to spare).
We might as well support these guys and girls to keep them in business.
We might as well support these guys and girls to keep them in business.
How is it a rip? You pay for major updates for every other type of software. Why not mobile apps? Most iOS users have been in the system for quite a while now, meaning they paid for their $1 or $2 app maybe 2-3 years ago. Since then, the app developer hasn't made a dime off of that user. And, since there are fewer new users each year, the developers are making less and less. They have no choice to make new versions that cost money since Apple won't let them charge for normal updates. I think this is good for the platform in the long run. The only way developers will continue to make quality iOS apps is if they think they will be able to make money. For consumers to expect free updates forever is simply unrealistic.
I like what the dev did with the apps. He made them free for a few weeks then pulled them from the store. I have no problem paying for updates, I just wonder how people are going to react when they had no idea iOS 7 was coming and they bought a bunch of apps last week only to find out they need to buy them again next week. I'm surprised more apps didn't go the same route at Reeder 2.
EDIT
I just remember the Readdle Calendar put the app on for free for a few months then just came out with the new version.
I have no qualms pay a dev for updates and will happy to do it. I work in IT and understand the labor that goes in a software release. Only thing I'm complaining about is that I just got back to iPhone from Android and Windows Phone in around June, bought Reeder and some other apps and now I'm being asked to pay for it again. Just hating the situation on my end!
Comments like this kind of hurt my head. Are people really supposed to support a piece of software for free forever?
Reeder had nothing to do with iOS 7. The reason it was redesigned is because Google shut down Google Reader. So Reeder had to be recoded to work with other feed reading services. That's why it's a new 2.0 version.
Yes, I read that but I just liked that approach prior to release of the new one. I have no problem paying for updates but when a developer is charging full price for an app that is a few years old while they are working on the new version that they know will be released in a month I think its kind of shady. I had Reeder before but I didn't get Readdle Calendar until it went free. I loved it, checked out the rest of their apps...bought them all and now plan to get Calendar 5 with my new phone.
I feel that by making the first version free you eliminate people that unknowingly buy it right before it becomes obsolete (which I feel is taking advantage of non-tech savvy people) & if the first version is great it will attract people that may not have wanted to buy it in the first place.
I'm not disagreeing with you. Just stating the Reeder should not be part of this particular conversation.