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

[B4U]

I happily pay $100/year for Microsoft 365.

I get 1TB of OneDrive storage... I have Office installed on 4 different machines... and I also share it with one other person.

Microsoft 365 is actually one of the good subscriptions, in my opinion.

I'm also a happy Adobe CC subscriber... <ducks>

For those of us who only have 1 computer and do not use the cloud storage, this is robbery. ?
To be fair, I got mine under HUP before they turned that to 365 only.

 

[BigMcGuire]

I don't see a reason to change that instinct. Ginger Labs has shown their willingness to pull a stunt like this, I don't have any trust they won't find some other incremental way to the same goal. I've removed it from all my devices and am experimenting with GoodNotes and the basic Apple Notes to choose an alternative.

I may be a cynic but ... I think most companies would make this mistake. I've seen it ... all over. (My opinion of course).

 

[Shreducator]

Classic let’s see if we can get away with it.

 

[Michael Scrip]

For those of us who only have 1 computer and do not use the cloud storage, this is robbery. ?

It's not robbery. But it is nice that Microsoft has products for everyone.

 

[boss.king]

Things have changed, sure, but I don't know that I agree that they've changed a whole lot in the big picture when it comes to total costs of business.

Back in the day, you had to worry about (or pay somebody to worry about) packaging and box art, distribution, physical media creation, writing and printing proper and exhaustively complete documentation (modern FAQs and wikis don't even come close), dealing with the cost of inventory that didn't sell, storage, focusing extensively on quality assurance so you don't have to ship with bugs that need patched, phone support, printed advertising, etc.

Both software development then and now require resources, just at different times and in different places.

So if the cost of business hasn’t changed (which I don’t necessarily agree with) but the price of apps is through the floor, you don’t see how that creates an issue?

 

[Analog Kid]

IMO, subs didn't ruin the app pricing ecosystem, the app store revolution did.

In the past; there weren't 100k-1m apps available for everyone to consume and there wasn't a lot of competition along with a lot of marketing and ads either. People had to find software on their own. Trials was the key to demo and indie shops could stick with one platform developing high-quality apps for it.

Now, indie shops including companies have to develop for more than one platform (and multiple OS versions per platform) (thus why Electron has been steadily gaining control of the ecosystem on the desktops), throw in some marketing expenses, and fight against copycats thanks to the app store allowing any one to develop an app, regardless of any quality. It can be very easy for someone to just clone the app and make it work barebone.

(I understand some people only want to support the macOS shops producing such native macOS apps, keep in mind that macOS users is <10% of the overall desktop OS market and to this day, it may not be sustainable to keep working on them especially since apps have a saturation point where new features become much longer to develop or there's nothing to add)

Devs now have to complete on price because why would any customers look at 100$ app over a 50$ one and then 30$ app over 50$ app and the so on down to the last dollar. At some point, it became unsustainable. Going back to 30$ isn't an option, casual users today aren't going to look at it. It's easier to eat 1$ per month than 30$ one time.

Not to mention any potential recurring costs they have.

Developers are human beings that need to survive (I'm generalizing it, there are companies that are just evil but that's not really the majority of the app store right now (excluding profits)), that means they need to know if they'll be able to have food in a year or two.

Upgrades are very difficult to do / maintain compared to subscriptions. Keep in mind there are various types of subscriptions; subscriptions should be defaulting to allowing people to keep what they paid for with no features disappearing when they stopped paying. In other words, not like notability where they remove features. If you paid up to this month, all features added prior to this month should be yours to keep forever but not bug fixes nor support.

The reason developers love subscriptions is that they don't need to worry about putting aside new features to save for an upgrade, they don't need to do any prep work for major releases (licensing, marketing, support, etc). Plus subscription means they don't have to maintain any more than one version, and many more.

Upgrades are not coming back (at least in the form we used to know it), it's not sustainable for a lot of developers in this era of multiple devices, multiple platforms and so on.

Asking for upgrades means you're asking the developers to stop adding new features and simply fixes anything broken in the version you're using. They should not be giving you new features, period. Buying a version does not entitle you to future new features. This is the preconception that a lot of folks have that's not really realistic nor sustainable.

I refute your argument in one word: Omnigroup.

 

[Analog Kid]

I may be a cynic but ... I think most companies would make this mistake. I've seen it ... all over. (My opinion of course).

Sorry, I'm not sure which mistake you mean here-- the mistake they already made or the mistake of trying again, just more slowly?

 

[BigMcGuire]

Sorry, I'm not sure which mistake you mean here-- the mistake they already made or the mistake of trying again, just more slowly?

Ah my bad ---- the mistake of going to subscription and snubbing people that got them to where they were. The mistake they already made (going too far in the subscription bandwagon).

 

[Starscape]

This subscription business model is becoming a cancer. There are some apps where this could work very well, such as Adobe applications, but now I see subscription-only schemes on the mose basic apps in the App Store - PDF reading apps, Instagram filters, etc. I realize developers want to keep a revenue stream going, but that begins with steady product innovation, not greed. What especially annoys me is that many of these apps that require a subscription haven’t been updated in many months, or longer. I see that a growing list of developers like to think they can rent software instead of selling it.

 

[maconut]

Too late. After yesterday's article, I took a look and realized I hadn't updated anything in Notability since 2014. Moved a couple of notes, deleted the rest and removed the app. It's probably great if you're in school and need note taking where you can scribble, but that's not my use case. The built in Notes app works best for me.

 

[boss.king]

This subscription business model is becoming a cancer. There are some apps where this could work very well, such as Adobe applications, but now I see subscription-only schemes on the mose basic apps in the App Store - PDF reading apps, Instagram filters, etc. I realize developers want to keep a revenue stream going, but that begins with steady product innovation, not greed. What especially annoys me is that many of these apps that require a subscription haven’t been updated in many months, or longer. I see that a growing list of developers like to think they can rent software instead of selling it.

It’s fine as a business model. it’s open to abuse jus like any model (see IAP or even free apps loaded to the brim with ads).

Just vote with your wallet. don’t support apps that abuse the model. Tell your friend and family to avoid them. Find a competitor that follows a model you’re happy with.

 

[Analog Kid]

Ah my bad ---- the mistake of going to subscription and snubbing people that got them to where they were. The mistake they already made (going too far in the subscription bandwagon).

Yeah, that might be true— but I don’t think that means they need to be forgiven for it. They had to have thought about this long and hard enough to come to the conclusion they did and implement it in the way they did. It wasn’t a snap judgement, they had time to engage all their executive functioning when going this way.

 

[pacalis]

Adobe needs to be stabbed in the eye for creating this subscription software model. Now, you can't even buy a timer app without a subscription...

Adobe had been reducing features on acrobat pro for several years before going to subscription (while also adding big fluffy buttons). So, while I had purchased three different versions, I was using the oldest (ver 8) because it was the best. Then that stopped supporting anything but an unreadable default font.

Eventually adobe will be replaced, but the startups can't follow these business models to do it.

 

[pacalis]

It’s fine as a business model. it’s open to abuse jus like any model (see IAP or even free apps loaded to the brim with ads).

Just vote with your wallet. don’t support apps that abuse the model. Tell your friend and family to avoid them. Find a competitor that follows a model you’re happy with.

That doesn't work because corporates get locked in. People train on these services then they become standards and companies then milk the hell out of their market position.

That's why what notability did is so horrible. They could have raised prices, or sell add ons or cloud, but I suspect they didn't feel that they were growing enough so they decided to screw over their first adopters who they felt were locked in. Well, surprise!

 

[cardfan]

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

Sounds exactly like should to me. That intro part you quoted doesn’t apply.

 

[boss.king]

That doesn't work because corporates get locked in. People train on these services then they become standards and companies then milk the hell out of their market position.

That's why what notability did is so horrible. They could have raised prices, or sell add ons or cloud, but I suspect they didn't feel that they were growing enough so they decided to screw over their first adopters who they felt were locked in. Well, surprise!

I'm a little lost. If you're using these for work, surely your work pays for it, no?

 

[dukebound85]

Do you know if I buy this on my iPhone now will I have to buy it again when I get an iPad?
Or will it be free since I already bought it with the same Apple ID?
Thanks!

i just bought and seems to be good for my mac, iPad, and iPhone without paying for each

 

[pacalis]

I'm a little lost. If you're using these for work, surely your work pays for it, no?

No one is working in isolation anymore. If a big organization is using adobe products, all the creators and contractors also have to use similar products. And then if anyone changes jobs or roles they all have to use similar products too.

In my organization we buy loads of subs that no one really uses so we can be compatible with work product from others. What is usually means is that young kids/ new creatives are getting soaked for adobe subscriptions for bits and pieces of work.

Basically you have monopolistic pricing where the company is charging more than the thing is worth because certain customers have to have it, leaving many potential users priced out.

 

[pacalis]

Just read macrumors that facebook is developing a new subscription model for creators, so that tells you all.

Apparently it will be free at least until 2023, {...by which time they will have eliminated all possibility of fairly priced competition, created the network effect and start to charge you large amounts because the switching costs are too much to bear}.

Wow. They're so clever. Software really is eating the world.

 

[jonplackett]

I see. Does the $30 option get updates? Or is that version frozen in time?

Otherwise it's 6 years later... and the developer is still providing support and bug-fixes for a 6 year old app... while they continue to work on the current version.

Yeah they got paid more upfront... but they're stuck maintaining that version forever.

The app splits into two development tracks. It adds complexity.

This isn’t how you’d do it. You just update the app and everyone uses that version. I had an app in the top ten for a few years and never would have bothered supporting by 2 version - it would also be basically impossible because of the way apple does updates. That is unless you literally split it into two apps but that is a real dick move to deliberately shaft your old customers.

I just see it as early customers getting more of a reward for having faith in you - and bank rolling you - earlier.

 

[boss.king]

No one is working in isolation anymore. If a big organization is using adobe products, all the creators and contractors also have to use similar products. And then if anyone changes jobs or roles they all have to use similar products too.

In my organization we buy loads of subs that no one really uses so we can be compatible with work product from others. What is usually means is that young kids/ new creatives are getting soaked for adobe subscriptions for bits and pieces of work.

Basically you have monopolistic pricing where the company is charging more than the thing is worth because certain customers have to have it, leaving many potential users priced out.

That’s a completely separate issue though, one that existed long before Adobe and other apps switched to the subscription model.

 

[pacalis]

That’s a completely separate issue though, one that existed long before Adobe and other apps switched to the subscription model.

I disagree. The subscription model clearly allows for higher pricing so it exacerbates and extends the problem of standards.

Put another way, the features most people use of excel, powerpoint, word, acrobat, etc... haven't changed in years and yet subscription models have us effectively paying for new versions and features on a monthly basis. They seem to be priced comparably at the 2 year mark, so if you use software for less than 2 years, you might be saving on cash (but having no option on future use). So if you plan to use it for more than 2 years, your paying a premium over a non-subscription model.

I get that things get upgraded and people will upgrade over time. However, to put this in perspective, relative to how people usually make medium term decisions, imagine leasing a car for 2 years at the same price that it would cost to buy outright. Would you lease that car?

 

[MikhailT]

I refute your argument in one word: Omnigroup.

What about them? They're doing subscription model as well as the upgrades. How long that will last, we don't know. We've seen more and more companies dropping upgrades after trying both.

One single data point doesn't negate what I wrote.

There are some companies that are doing fine; like Bare Bones Software with BBEdit as well.

The oldest macOS shops are still doing fine because they had enough experience and users to carry them through.

 

[allseeingi’s]

Following an outcry from its users, Notability says it is making changes to its controversial subscription policy to ensure that people who previously purchased the app retain lifetime access to all current features and content.

The course correction was announced by the company on Tuesday in a Medium blog post, after the popular note-taking app received substantial blowback from users who were annoyed to learn that Notability's switch to a subscription model meant features they had purchased would stop functioning after one year.
Lifetime access will include unlimited editing, iCloud sync, and any features or content bought through in-app purchases, according to the developers, who added: "Future features we develop may also be included, depending on their complexity and cost to maintain."
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.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1455683644945678337

It's not clear if Apple forced its hand to fall in line with the guidelines or consumer pressure was the main influence. Either way, Notability's change of course may make it unlikely that other app developers eyeing a subscription model will attempt a similar strategy of revoking features that existing users have already purchased.

Article Link: Notability Changes App Subscription Policy, Promises Existing Users Lifetime Access to Purchased Feature

 

[Carlanga]

This will surely hurt their projected calculations about how many people can be converted to the sustainable subscription model. Let's hope Notability can survive, and those users crying unfair don't end up losing the app forever.

meh, I got goodnotes today for $4 and there is a free app that has a lot of features they both have which is made by one guy. Apps die and newer better things will be born after that.