All of the above. This guys article wasn't "interesting" in the least. He has no concept of free market workings. And the "charts" shown with the juvenile linear "graphs" are laughable. There is nothing to support his position other than his sour grapes about not having produced a popular, successful app.
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 Developer David Barnard: 'Trying to Make the Boxed Software Model Work at $0.99 is a Fool's Errand'
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
All of the above. This guys article wasn't "interesting" in the least. He has no concept of free market workings. And the "charts" shown with the juvenile linear "graphs" are laughable. There is nothing to support his position other than his sour grapes about not having produced a popular, successful app.
This really isn't new. Back in the 1980's I figured out to give away information to get people interested in buying something more. It worked wonderfully. In my case I published a newsletter that grew into a glossy magazine with a circulation of 112,000. But the real money maker was the Transfer Toner for laser printers that I had invented. The magazine contained articles about things that could be done with our toners.
Many other manufacturers have done similar things over the decades and even centuries.
Free trial apps that offer some functionality are key. I'm not likely to spend much on something if I can't try it first. But if I try it for a month and discover that yes indeed it is the tool I need then I buy and am willing to pay orders of magnitude more than the one buck price.
Many other manufacturers have done similar things over the decades and even centuries.
Free trial apps that offer some functionality are key. I'm not likely to spend much on something if I can't try it first. But if I try it for a month and discover that yes indeed it is the tool I need then I buy and am willing to pay orders of magnitude more than the one buck price.
"Not long since, a strolling Indian went to sell baskets at the house of a well-known lawyer in my neighborhood. "Do you wish to buy any baskets?" he asked. "No, we do not want any," was the reply. "What!" exclaimed the Indian as he went out the gate, "do you mean to starve us?" Having seen his industrious white neighbors so well off- that the lawyer had only to weave arguments, and, by some magic, wealth and standing followed- he had said to himself: I will go into business; I will weave baskets; it is a thing which I can do. Thinking that when he had made the baskets he would have done his part, and then it would be the white man's to buy them. He had not discovered that it was necessary for him to make it worth the other's while to buy them, or at least make him think that it was so, or to make something else which it would be worth his while to buy."
Walden
Walden
M
Mr.damien
Guest
All the explanation and ******** reason that people are finding not to buy a software is really so funny.
The software are never been so cheap and people are saying they don't buy because they don't know if it will be ok, or fit what they want to, or be as good as they think.
Get the facts, it's the same for EVERYTHING. Buying a car, and you won't have a refund or return. You will just try it for few minutes before you decide to get it or not. And it's +10 000$.
Food is even more enlightening situation: you can't eat a dish and they say :"ok I don't want to pay" or just steal the next meal in a restaurant (like piracy) because you were stolen by the crap food of the one before. You just try again a new restaurant and pay again.
And to take closer to price example: buying some bread. You try one, it's not ok ? great you just change of bakery until you find the good one and stick with it. And the price of a "baguette" is the same if not more of a 1$ App.
But yeah, as not paying software is not stealing, it's ok ... the dev fill figure out how to pay the bills ... (sarcasm)
----------
Yeah, so you never go to a restaurant right ? because there is no try ...
silly ...
The software are never been so cheap and people are saying they don't buy because they don't know if it will be ok, or fit what they want to, or be as good as they think.
Get the facts, it's the same for EVERYTHING. Buying a car, and you won't have a refund or return. You will just try it for few minutes before you decide to get it or not. And it's +10 000$.
Food is even more enlightening situation: you can't eat a dish and they say :"ok I don't want to pay" or just steal the next meal in a restaurant (like piracy) because you were stolen by the crap food of the one before. You just try again a new restaurant and pay again.
And to take closer to price example: buying some bread. You try one, it's not ok ? great you just change of bakery until you find the good one and stick with it. And the price of a "baguette" is the same if not more of a 1$ App.
But yeah, as not paying software is not stealing, it's ok ... the dev fill figure out how to pay the bills ... (sarcasm)
----------
Yeah, so you never go to a restaurant right ? because there is no try ...
silly ...
A buck to try, discount by a buck to buy
I would say that all trials should cost the non-commital fee of $0.99 and give the user 1 week to use the app (to accommodate for life's disruptions), then if they opt to buy the purchase is reduced by the $0.99 and they get the full app. At least in a minimalist way the developer get's something even for casual interest. I mean whats a buck? we spend more on junk food, pops etc.
M
I would say that all trials should cost the non-commital fee of $0.99 and give the user 1 week to use the app (to accommodate for life's disruptions), then if they opt to buy the purchase is reduced by the $0.99 and they get the full app. At least in a minimalist way the developer get's something even for casual interest. I mean whats a buck? we spend more on junk food, pops etc.
M
A great post, and I thanked it particularly for this part.
Paid upgrade systems could go even further. Allow a discount if the user has bought another app from the same developer.
"My percived risk goes down if I can:
1. Find reliable reviews of the app.
2. Try the app before buying.
3. Get a refund if the app doesn't work.
Improvements in any of these areas will help reduced the perceived risk of paying for an app. In the App Store, #1 is barely passable, and #2 and #3 don't exist. I think it would be a win for Apple, Developers, and Consumers, if Apple would work on improvements in those three areas."
You CAN, in fact, get refunds on apps that don't work. The process is mildly onerous, but I got a full refund for the $30 I spent on the sling box app (so bad, it's virtually useless - all it does is take up space on your hard drive), but after contacting the iTunes store I did get my money back. I think it helped in this case that so many other people found it useless too.
1. Find reliable reviews of the app.
2. Try the app before buying.
3. Get a refund if the app doesn't work.
Improvements in any of these areas will help reduced the perceived risk of paying for an app. In the App Store, #1 is barely passable, and #2 and #3 don't exist. I think it would be a win for Apple, Developers, and Consumers, if Apple would work on improvements in those three areas."
You CAN, in fact, get refunds on apps that don't work. The process is mildly onerous, but I got a full refund for the $30 I spent on the sling box app (so bad, it's virtually useless - all it does is take up space on your hard drive), but after contacting the iTunes store I did get my money back. I think it helped in this case that so many other people found it useless too.
I haven't made a million, yet... but I've made $350,000+ and had 4+ million downloads, including free apps.
I have never used In App Purchases in my apps. Users can try a free, unlimited version, but they will experience ads and get a subset of the 50+ voices (most of my apps are text-to-speech ringtone creation apps.) Theoretically, if they really want all of the voices, they could download several of my free apps (male, female, cyber, etc., each with a subset of voices) and never pay a penny. But if they want all of the voices, in a single app, and no ads, then my PRO app is $4.99.
So far, it's worked pretty well. I'm debating adding In App Purchases of extra voices, because Apple's experts have repeatedly, in person at WWDC, etc., really tried to get me to do that. But as a consumer, I don't like IAPs. If you get an app, it should be complete.
One thing I'm going to do is ask people to complete certain tasks (follow me on twitter, watch a video on youtube, tweet about the app, etc.) as a FREE way to unlock voices. What do you think about that model? There are always people who simply won't pay and I still want them to be fans. Maybe one of their twitter followers WOULD pay.
"[P]aying a one-time, fixed price for something really only makes sense for commodities that diminish in value" (Barnard).
This line really bothers me, because it's simply one-sided. Of course someone hoping to maximise their profits would love to see people pay MORE money in instalments (or micro transactions) the longer they use a product, but it's simply not in the interest of the consumer. This is a big reason I think we should all be wary of 'freemium' models more generally. For one, nothing is free - these companies are making their money off your data if not your micro transactions (look at all the analytics companies out there). Secondly, to make the claim that the value I extract from using Evernote or Dropbox over time is somehow increased is again the opinion of the developer. Arguably, the value I get out of Dropbox is the same now as it was when I first started using it. If 'reliance upon' is measurable, then perhaps this can be contested.
Also, likening food consumption to decreased value over time is problematic. Personally, I think of my food purchases as a daily payment model - every few hours, I pay a new 'subscription fee' to consume the next amount of energy to keep me alive. You can reduce these models to such a basic level that they get absolutely ridiculous. This guy is moaning about the most fundamental (and probably sinister) features of capitalism: undercutting and exploitation. Sorry, dude, but if you can't handle the heat, get outta the App Store.
----------
This +1
This line really bothers me, because it's simply one-sided. Of course someone hoping to maximise their profits would love to see people pay MORE money in instalments (or micro transactions) the longer they use a product, but it's simply not in the interest of the consumer. This is a big reason I think we should all be wary of 'freemium' models more generally. For one, nothing is free - these companies are making their money off your data if not your micro transactions (look at all the analytics companies out there). Secondly, to make the claim that the value I extract from using Evernote or Dropbox over time is somehow increased is again the opinion of the developer. Arguably, the value I get out of Dropbox is the same now as it was when I first started using it. If 'reliance upon' is measurable, then perhaps this can be contested.
Also, likening food consumption to decreased value over time is problematic. Personally, I think of my food purchases as a daily payment model - every few hours, I pay a new 'subscription fee' to consume the next amount of energy to keep me alive. You can reduce these models to such a basic level that they get absolutely ridiculous. This guy is moaning about the most fundamental (and probably sinister) features of capitalism: undercutting and exploitation. Sorry, dude, but if you can't handle the heat, get outta the App Store.
----------
This +1
Last edited:
Wasn't this conundrum fixed two decades ago with shareware? Try it and buy it if you like it. (If you don't buy it, we have the right to disable it or limit it's use after you played with it for a few weeks.)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shareware
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shareware
Applications with trial periods are automatically rejected from the iOS app store. That's why you don't see them there.
As a consumer I dislike being coerced into doing things on Facebook even more than I dislike IAPs.
This really is the problem. But only because so many (almost all?) apps are so trivial that competitors really CAN reimplement them in a few days.
Why is there not a clone of Apple's "Garage band" selling for $0.99?
Whilst that certainly works in the real world, I don't know if it holds true in the App Store.
I spend a lot of money on apps, certainly far too much, and with the exception of some of the big name branded apps (Tomtom, some of the EA apps, Zynga), I haven't a clue who the developers of the other ones are.
Its not something which I pay any attention to, its not something which comes on my radar screen at all. It probably should, but it just doesn't.
It does make sense. However, you still can earn money with paid apps in the AppStore.
Last edited by a moderator:
This will only happen if some incentive is provided for the developer (or App store) to allow this. The incentive might be increasing sales.
But often "try before buy" actually reduces sales or revenue to the developer who allows this. Thus, it's unlikely to happen in the general case. Users will have to pay to try those types of apps, whether they like it or not.
Some users complain that they don't want to do the subscription model and I understand that. BUT we do that with many things:
iWork Mac: We pay for it on the Mac and we pay every few years for an upgrade. Even if you skip every few versions it's still costing you.
iWork Mac: We pay for it once, but it's one of (if not the) most expensive apps I've purchased. Much of this post is about 99 cent apps.
MacOS: We upgrade every few years for $19 or $29. (Once a year lately).
Microsoft office: $100+ every few years, even if you skip every other version, you're still subscribing at $20-ish a year.
Developers should have the right to significantly upgrade their apps and get more money, right now the options are:
In-app purchases: People complain.
Charge more for the apps: People complain.
Create a new versions of the apps every few years: People complain.
So they're going to complain but how can you make it painless.
Here's my thought on the last option (new versions) though. The new version is actually new, it offers lots and lots of new features it's not just that you decided to support the new camera. You still provide bug fixes for a few years even after you discontinue a product (just like Microsoft and Apple) maybe even a few minor feature enhancements still. You give us a way to export / import our data (hopefully iCloud will let developers access their cloud data from other apps).
You've got to make my data transfer go from one to the other though!!!
Here's the best part, IF your app is more than 99 cents, offer the old version users a cheap upgrade. How? Tell them when it's going to be on-sale (they've been a loyal customer, let them get it for 99 cents). Don't promise it, just offer it. Send them a push notification when it's on-sale (yes I know many apps don't offer push, I'm just thinking out loud here). Tell them to send their e-mail address in the app and you'll alert them to the sale (tell them this is the last version for months in advance) for the new version and other products. If they don't want to register, at least you tried. You could do the sale several times (many apps do it anyways).
Just thinking,
Gary
iWork Mac: We pay for it on the Mac and we pay every few years for an upgrade. Even if you skip every few versions it's still costing you.
iWork Mac: We pay for it once, but it's one of (if not the) most expensive apps I've purchased. Much of this post is about 99 cent apps.
MacOS: We upgrade every few years for $19 or $29. (Once a year lately).
Microsoft office: $100+ every few years, even if you skip every other version, you're still subscribing at $20-ish a year.
Developers should have the right to significantly upgrade their apps and get more money, right now the options are:
In-app purchases: People complain.
Charge more for the apps: People complain.
Create a new versions of the apps every few years: People complain.
So they're going to complain but how can you make it painless.
Here's my thought on the last option (new versions) though. The new version is actually new, it offers lots and lots of new features it's not just that you decided to support the new camera. You still provide bug fixes for a few years even after you discontinue a product (just like Microsoft and Apple) maybe even a few minor feature enhancements still. You give us a way to export / import our data (hopefully iCloud will let developers access their cloud data from other apps).
You've got to make my data transfer go from one to the other though!!!
Here's the best part, IF your app is more than 99 cents, offer the old version users a cheap upgrade. How? Tell them when it's going to be on-sale (they've been a loyal customer, let them get it for 99 cents). Don't promise it, just offer it. Send them a push notification when it's on-sale (yes I know many apps don't offer push, I'm just thinking out loud here). Tell them to send their e-mail address in the app and you'll alert them to the sale (tell them this is the last version for months in advance) for the new version and other products. If they don't want to register, at least you tried. You could do the sale several times (many apps do it anyways).
Just thinking,
Gary
He actually has produced popular, successful apps... several of them. Launch Center Pro is extremely popular. Gas Cubby has been a longtime staple in the iOS store.
ekdor commented:
Yeah, same here.
But what about rent-to-own?
I'm thinking about more niche apps, that might require a larger than average pricetag, say $20-50. Some folks might be reluctant to drop that much up front, but be willing to subscribe at a buck or three a month for an extended period. And eventually 'own' the full license, at a price somewhat higher than if they had just bought it outright.
Yeah, same here.
But what about rent-to-own?
I'm thinking about more niche apps, that might require a larger than average pricetag, say $20-50. Some folks might be reluctant to drop that much up front, but be willing to subscribe at a buck or three a month for an extended period. And eventually 'own' the full license, at a price somewhat higher than if they had just bought it outright.