Notability Changes App Subscription Policy, Promises Existing Users Lifetime Access to Purchased Features

[FNi]

Is it just me, is are subscriptions the worst thing that happened to the App Store?

I used to buy apps frequently, now I mostly avoid because every single app no matter how trivial now wants a monthly subscription.

This is pretty much where I'm at. I used to frequently spend £3-£10 on apps that did a specific thing well, but now I don't even search the app store, and only download the odd recommendation.

Maybe the overall numbers tell a different story, but anecdotally, since Apple started pushing the sub model at WWDC, I now spend a fraction of what I once did.

 

[filchermcurr]

Good for you, but "Nice job GoodNotes" ?? Their present 50% deal qualifies as a very dirty game in my book.

Seems like a better business decision than 'kick existing customers to the curb', see 1 star ratings and bad press pouring in, and reverse original decision while trying to spin it like you're the most thoughtful, generous company in the world.

Anyway, I switched. No amount of emoji hearts or assurances that they deeply value me is going to change my mind about the company. They had ample opportunity to study the reactions and course of the countless other companies that went subscription. They either ignored the lessons learned by those that came before them or they flat out didn't care, assuming we would pony up the dough and like it. Either way, not a company I have a whole lot of faith in.

 

[saudor]

…

The other alternative is being willing to pay more for an app. And I am talking like 3-4 times more. Would people be willing to pay $30 upfront for Notability? I think I purchased PDF expert on the Mac for like $50? The sheer abundance of apps has resulted in a rush to the bottom, and so here we are.

Feels like the inevitable endgame is that every paid app we currently use eventually goes subscription, leading us to dump them in favour of Apple's own stock apps. ?

I like this model as long as it comes with a free trial so I know if the “expensive app” is worth it for me. Devs can simply create another paid app for those who want to upgrade. Even subscriptions can work for those who choose to always have the latest. people who don’t need the latest and greatest can stay on the major release they paid for and those who want updates can either upgrade again to another perpetual license or subscribe to always have the latest.

sounds a lot like office perpetual / 365. Everyone wins.

 

[toasted ICT]

Guidelines don’t seem to forbid it either. You “should” do something doesn’t mean must.

In 3.1.2

• 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.

In the Introduction

• If you attempt to cheat the system ..... your apps will be removed from the store and you will be expelled from the Apple Developer Program.

doesnt sound like 'should' to me

 

[Saladin12]

Awesome!

Right after I read that article yesterday I immediately looked to see if I purchased this in the past and verified that I did so this is awesome that I’m going to be grandfathered in

I’m going to purchase their competitor app, Goodnotes for $7.99 as well In case they change to a subscription model too

All press is good press. I just went to have a look at Notability to see if it would fit my needs for an upcoming project and apparently I already own it too! It appears I downloaded it on 5th May 2014. I don't remember paying for it so I checked my purchase history, and lo and behold, I paid £0.00 for it. A quick google of 'Notability May 2014' brought up: https://www.macrumors.com/2014/05/01/notability-app-of-the-week/

I downloaded when it was a free app for a week! I wonder if I'll be grandfathered in? It appears that my subscription is until 1st November 2022 - though this may still be updated for a 'lifetime' subscription.

 

[doobydoooby]

I’m happy that notability owned their mistake and changed it rapidly. Everyone makes mistakes, they took action very quickly so that’s good. Phew, they did the right thing. The alternative destroys the entire App Store ecosystem and it’s reliability: if you can’t be sure that what you buy will exist the next day, then you stop buying.

 

[rasputin1969]

GoodNotes is on 50% sale

I’ve just bought it - thank you!

I’ve been using Notability for a few years, and wanted to support them. If they’d gone with a reasonable annual fee of, say £4.99 and supported Family sharing I’d have happily gone that route. Instead they went for £15 and no family sharing, so it would have cost me £30 (My wife occasionally uses it too) a year. I’m a light user - I use the app a few times a week to sketch out problems and use no advanced features, so £30 a year was ridiculous.

The £30 hit was GREED, pure and simple. I don’t trust Ginger Labs as far as I can throw them, so I’m switching to GoodNotes despite this climb down.

 

[gearboxsg]

After I moved to Sweden I started using an app to identify plants called PictureThis. I think it might have originally been called something else.

Now, that's not even what I'd call a hobby, it's just, you know, I'm out walking and I see a flower or something and I'm like, "Hey, what's that?" So it's not something I'd want to pay a bunch of money for. Plus, every time I snap a photo of a plant, it nets them data for training their AI or whatever, for telling them exactly where which plants are growing, all that stuff, so it's not like they get nothing out of it.

Over time they have gotten more and more sleazy with the way they present the free-to-use portion of the app, moving the "tap here for the free version" bit around on the screen, trying to trick you into tapping on the giant green CONTINUE button that will start up a subscription. It's just so obviously shady.

I just loaded it up and it launches to the subscription offer page ($30/year) and up in the corner is the word cancel in a tiny white font against a light background, so that it's barely visible. And it's like, maybe if you have to trick people into buying your service, it's not worth all that much to begin with.

It’s what happens when the original developers got tempted to sell their apps off to companies that will try to monetise every aspect.

 

[osx'r]

Notability's course correction means the app no longer appears to violate Apple's App Store Review Guidelines, which forbid apps that switch to a subscription model from taking away primary functionality existing users have already paid for.

That’s the thing, though. The way the policy is written, it’s not forbidden. Just a suggestion (i.e. “Should“)

• 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.

 

[Saladin12]

Good for you, but "Nice job GoodNotes" ?? Their present 50% deal qualifies as a very dirty game in my book.

Why is it a dirty game in your book? They saw a competitor has made an error and very quickly implemented a strategy to encourage people to crossover into their app... And also made it cheaper for those who didn't need that encouragement.

It's actually a very genius move to take advantage of their one of their key competitor's mess. There's nothing dirty about it - it's not GoodNotes job to care about Notability or it's business.

 

[Remy149]

Good for you, but "Nice job GoodNotes" ?? Their present 50% deal qualifies as a very dirty game in my book.

It’s not a dirty game it’s a smart business decision

 

[Michael Scrip]

sounds a lot like office perpetual / 365. Everyone wins.

I like this model as long as it comes with a free trial so I know if the “expensive app” is worth it for me. Devs can simply create another paid app for those who want to upgrade. Even subscriptions can work for those who choose to always have the latest. people who don’t need the latest and greatest can stay on the major release they paid for and those who want updates can either upgrade again to another perpetual license or subscribe to always have the latest.

True.

But Microsoft has thousands of software engineers. They are a trillion dollar company. An enterprise company. With contracts.

It's a little different when a company only has a dozen developers and they now have to maintain two versions of the same app. A consumer app at that.

I understand what you're saying. And it might be possible for some developers. But not all.

Honestly I wonder if developers just get sucked in by the concept of subscriptions. Hypnotized about money over everything else.

If you make a good app... and you sell it to people at a fair price... that should be enough. They will come.

But sadly... subscriptions are too tempting. And that's where we are today.

 

[bigheaddoug]

I have used Notability for years. I get why developers like subscription models, but to tell people that something they already purchased is going to no longer to work unless they subscribe seems outrageous to me. Like people were saying yesterday, if developers want to switch to a subscription model, just come out with a new product and stop supporting the old one. At least then, people have some semblance of choice.

 

[kcslc]

Is it just me, is are subscriptions the worst thing that happened to the App Store?

I used to buy apps frequently, now I mostly avoid because every single app no matter how trivial now wants a monthly subscription.

Yep. My rule is I avoid apps besides free ones now. I’m avoiding free with IAP too. Apple default apps are gold enough for me.

 

[kcslc]

This topic keeps coming up.

Consumers hate subscriptions... but developers love money.

So should developers start selling $30 apps? Is that the answer?

I'm not sure that will work.

Neither does selling an app for $4 and supporting it for the rest of your life.

It's a quandary... ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Maybe they should make smart business decisions when they launch rather than years later when it’s too late.

I don’t feel sorry for them. They’re in the wrong here.

 

[Rockin Robin]

I admire any company who listens, reviews and changes decisions. I might even subscribe….

 

[gfbio]

True.

But Microsoft has thousands of software engineers. They are a trillion dollar company. An enterprise company. With contracts.

It's a little different when a company only has a dozen developers and they now have to maintain two versions of the same app. A consumer app at that.

I understand what you're saying. And it might be possible for some developers. But not all.

Honestly I wonder if developers just get sucked in by the concept of subscriptions. Hypnotized about money over everything else.

If you make a good app... and you sell it to people at a fair price... that should be enough. They will come.

But sadly... subscriptions are too tempting. And that's where we are today.

There is a third way: maintain only one version of the app in which you let users unlock new features by in-app purchases.

 

[sracer]

I’m happy that notability owned their mistake and changed it rapidly. Everyone makes mistakes, they took action very quickly so that’s good. Phew, they did the right thing. The alternative destroys the entire App Store ecosystem and it’s reliability: if you can’t be sure that what you buy will exist the next day, then you stop buying.

I find it hard to believe that Notability didn't know there would be a backlash. They may have very well expected it and were willing to weather the PR storm to accomplish their purposes.

I'm more inclined to believe that Apple itself put pressure on them for the reasons you've given. App store rules allow Notability to do what it did, but Apple would be the ultimate loser should switching existing apps to subscription models became the norm.

I admire any company who listens, reviews and changes decisions. I might even subscribe….

Your money, your decision. I admire any company who doesn't make boneheaded decisions in the first place, but I'm a bit of an oddball that way.

 

[CarAnalogy]

What an absolutely idiotic and tone deaf self-own.

All they managed to do with this whole sad mess was to take whatever bad blood they were already going to engender by moving to a subscription model and crank it up to 11.

It was such an obviously stupid and unethical move in the first place I have to wonder about the integrity and intelligence of the folks running the company that it ever got past the, "Hey, what if we..." stage in some planning meeting.

This is exactly what Strongbox does and if you use Keepass I highly recommend it.

 

[ian87w]

Good and wise decision. Screwing your existing customer is the worst thing you can do, and only utility companies can do that (due to natural monopoly).

 

[Michael Scrip]

There is a third way: maintain only one version of the app in which you let users unlock new features by in-app purchases.

But after you unlock all the features you need... how does that help pay for ongoing bug fixes?

I thought the reason developers go down the subscription route is because they want recurring revenue?

I've downloaded free apps and paid to unlock the full version and/or to remove ads. And that's the last dime they will ever see from me.

I guess they could make a Version 2 that you can buy. But then they're back to supporting two versions for those who don't want to pay to upgrade.

 

[Mockletoy]

That’s the thing, though. The way the policy is written, it’s not forbidden. Just a suggestion (i.e. “Should“)

• 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.

That looks like sloppy wording. They should have gone with “shall” instead of “should.”

But Apple is ultimately the one who interprets and enforces the rules, so it hardly matters.

 

[yaxomoxay]

Not really, traditional software sales have existed for decades on this exact principle. You buy a product, you get updates for it for however long the developers see fit.

Then, a new version is released, you can continue to use the software you own without further updates or payments, or you can upgrade to the new version, often at a discounted price.

I think that the main challenge to the traditional way of buying software is... iOS. iOS is released every single year, with the potential - as we know - of making apps not compatible with the new version. Buying a "major version" only would require either the risk of never updating iOS (to prevent making apps incompatible) or perpetual support from the company.
Traditionally OS's were released at a much slower pace and software was mostly compatible.

 

[brian3x]

When companies KNOWINGLY attempt to screw their customers and backtrack under pressure for being scumbags, we should NOT be giving them praise for ‘doing the right thing’. The right thing would have been not to attempt it in the first place.

You’re in your car, a guy jumps in with a gun, says give me your keys…you say no, give me your keys, NO ! They say oh well, ok I’ll leave…I was just kidding. You don’t PRAISE them !

 

[Manzanito]

I would have stuck with Notability regardless, but good for the rest of their user base who had no desire to pay an annual subscription. My guess is that we may soon see Notability end-of-lifed and a new V2 app be released, with subscription right from the get go.

That’s what they should have done from the beginning. It’s really dumb the way they handled this, it will be really hard to trust gingerlabs going forward.