Notability Users Frustrated By Switch to Subscription Model Claim Violation of App Store Guidelines

[EdT]

Bug fixes are a different thing. A developer could still offer incremental bug updates in a version 1.1, 1.2, 1.2.1, etc. I’m saying that versions 2.0 and it’s shiny new features could be another cost, not incremental bug fixes.

If you are a medium or large developer you can probably afford to separate versions and bug fixes. Many small developers can’t. If you say that’s the cost of being a developer then you will end up only having mostly large companies developing apps. Small companies usually try to listen more closely to customers but they don’t have the money or people that large ones do.

If I knew a simple solution I would suggest it. The suggestions so far being given have been around for a while, and evidently smaller companies aren’t making the money they need to stay in business. When you only have a small number of apps then you don’t have a large revenue stream to get you through.

I don’t know who owns Noteability. I don’t know if they are a small or large company or what their financials look like. If they are already making money and this is just a way to squeeze people even more then I won’t cry any tears over people deleting their apps. But the automatic reaction from a lot of people whenever an app’s cost goes up or it’s terms change along with blaming the company with being greedy seems like the opposite extreme.

 

[svish]

Switching to subscription model for already paid users is not good. Looks like Apple might step in.

 

[Traverse]

For people saying "well, developers need to get paid too" -- ok. Here's an idea: develop something else. If the Ulysses people made a calendar app or a mail app or something for mind mapping, I'd be a full attention. But it's infuriating to rent software forever.

I do share this sentiment about Ulysses as aside from compatibly and Shortcuts integration, really all of their new features feel forced to justify continued cost. Still, I use Ulysses almost every day for the past five years. I have routine and shortcuts that integrate with it for various personal and professional uses, so I'll pay $29.99 to not have to migrate to a new system since this one works so well.

 

[davidako]

Always remains fascinating to see how people that spend thousands of dollars on Apple stuff get totally pissed when their favourite ($8.99) App suddenly becomes a financially unacceptable burden...

How does the cost of one thing relate to being denied access to something else?

If you own a $300,000 house am I allowed to steal your $20,000 car? Or would you get totally pissed?

 

[TheOneWhoKnocks]

As long as they are happy, who cares what it is.

That makes no sense whatsoever.

 

[ignatius345]

So he's been using the app for 6 years after paying 9 bucks and some more for the macOS app. And it's supported him through three degrees. And how he's upset the company who's obviously provided a great product want a stable financial model to help them keep providing a good app. Do they all think these companies can really survive for almost a decade on a $9 purchase and free upgrades after that.

So what if he does keep working off that same software he bought for years? Those were the terms of the sale. I have a can opener I bought 10 years ago and keep using. Am I ripping off the manufacturer somehow?

Obviously software is different, but not every piece of software needs to be updated and changed constantly. (Some do, of course -- I pay yearly for 1Password because website compatibility and security are moving targets and they have to keep changing it, as one example). But when an app that is essentially feature-complete goes to a software rental model, I think users are right to ask questions. Is the developer covering ongoing costs related to cloud services or APIs? Are there big OS compatibility changes needed? Or is the developer just wanting to more or less noodle forever with the same app, "updating" it and marketing it continuously to make it a permanent revenue stream? And, worse, is the developer banking on their user base's lock-in and habits to hope they'll bleed out yet another "cup of coffee a month" to keep using it?

Again, I know one size doesn't fit all, but this blanket justification of "developers need to rent out their software to survive" feels like a pretty convenient justification to just life forever off one app instead of selling meaningfully improved versions or (gasp) developing and selling another piece of software.

 

[Mr. Heckles]

That makes no sense whatsoever.

How does that not make sense? Are you paying for if their items on that list? No. Are they paying for it and they are fine with it? Yes. I don’t think it’s ridiculous at all.

 

[dr.cox]

While it's of course sad for any user, I'm really hard sympathizing with a comment like this:

So he's been using the app for 6 years after paying 9 bucks and some more for the macOS app. And it's supported him through three degrees. And how he's upset the company who's obviously provided a great product want a stable financial model to help them keep providing a good app. Do they all think these companies can really survive for almost a decade on a $9 purchase and free upgrades after that.
The grandfathering is that they don't have to pay for the first year. I guess you can argue that's not enough, maybe add more time. But still...

True. But there are other ways. Only release paid major upgrades. If I need the new features I pay, if not I happily keep using what I got. Have regularly paid for every new installation of Capture One (apart from 22 as nothing necessary in it) and Tinderbox (greatest app ever, btw)

 

[EdT]

You bought a new TV and the following year they make it do you have to pay a yearly fee to use it.

I don’t know if they still do it but in European countries you used to have to pay a fee to watch your television. I know England had a tv fee in the 70’s and 80’s and I think other Western European countries did as well. Now with streaming that may have fallen apart.

 

[Traverse]

That makes no sense whatsoever.

Exchanging money I've earned from my work for products or services that I derive value or joy from doesn't make sense? What should one do with money then?

 

[ProfessionalFan]

This happens all the time and Apple needs to crack down on it. Another good example is the "Deliveries" app. Even noted in their changelog:

9.0.1​

Oct 1, 2020

"Subscriptions: Try Deliveries for a month to see if it works for you, or subscribe yearly for a significant discount. One subscription gives you access to Deliveries on iPhone, iPad, Mac, and Apple Watch. If you previously purchased the app, you'll still get most features for no extra charge. Learn more at juncld.com/subs"


I paid $5 for this app only later to be charged a subscription fee for the same exact features... Clearly in direct violation of Apples rules yet nobody said a word to the developer..

Yeah I brought this up earlier in the thread. Junecloud got away with that easy and there are even some people who defend them.

 

[TheOneWhoKnocks]

How does that not make sense? Are you paying for if their items on that list? No. Are they paying for it and they are fine with it? Yes. I don’t think it’s ridiculous at all.

It makes no sense. Are you kidding me? Just because something makes someone happy doesn't mean it's ok. Hello? What about the future? When people do this without thinking about to steps ahead we get unrepairable tech and rental software. Wake up, man.

 

[Mr. Heckles]

It makes no sense. Are you kidding me? Just because something makes someone happy doesn't mean it's ok. Hello? What about the future? When people do this without thinking about to steps ahead we get unrepairable tech and rental software. Wake up, man.

Yeah ok…man if you don’t like it, don’t do it.
edit: you do realize you NEVER owned the software you bought?

 

[Traverse]

It makes no sense. Are you kidding me? Just because something makes someone happy doesn't mean it's ok. Hello? What about the future? When people do this without thinking about to steps ahead we get unrepairable tech and rental software. Wake up, man.

Then I bet it will really drive you crazy that I also use the "Tip Jar" feature that many apps have when an app update delights me.

 

[clukas]

I don’t know if they still do it but in European countries you used to have to pay a fee to watch your television. I know England had a tv fee in the 70’s and 80’s and I think other Western European countries did as well. Now with streaming that may have fallen apart.

Nope, in the UK its called a TV license £159 a year, or £53.20 if you'd rather watch on a black and white TV ?. Other EU countries have the same, we used to pay a TV license when I lived in Germany. In the UK the TV License mostly funds the BBC.

Best thing everyone can do, is complain to Apple & leave them a 1 Star review in the App Store. I've done both already, if they don't change their tune, time to switch, back to GoodNotes I guess.

 

[Thomas Davie]

The moaning people do over this kind of stuff is ridiculous. You paid for the app three years and over that time new features have been added, and the app has been maintained so it runs on current operating systems and hardware. No small feat on the developers' part. If you want to continue to use the application you paid for then never update the app nor your devices. Continue using it on iOS 10 on your iPhone 8. Problem solved.

I paid for it 3 years ago. Have over 1000 notes. Rarely use the extra features that I paid for, sowon’t be upset when they evaporate. But the *limited* number of edits per month is the straw. That is choking all functionality off and leaving a product useless.

Charge me what you want up front; if I find it of value I’ll purchase.

Tom

 

[PlayUltimate]

This problem is partially on Apple. For years, devs have wanted to have a way to have a paid upgrade cycles within the App Store. That was generally not allowed unless a new version was created. (eg. Things 1, 2, 3). I don't like this. But I do understand it. And paying $9/year for a worthwhile application that is used a $800+ device that is replaced every couple of years seems reasonable.

 

[diddl14]

You bought a new TV and the following year they make it do you have to pay a yearly fee to use it.

Never bought a TV for less than $10 but yes, if this was my TV turning into a subscription model I would be pissed.

But we're talking here about an App that's been around for a long time and obviously they have discovered that their existing business model is no longer sustainable. So they can either give their app a slow death or see how to fund the next couple of years maintaining and innovating.

And believe me, that's not an easy choice. I've got an app on the store for over 10 years now. I ultimately decided agains moving to a subscription model as I knew that the majority of buyers would respond exactly like this. Being pissed over having to pay a subscription on a purchased $4.99 app to keep getting latest fixes and features. Kept the app alive a couple more years as a hobby but then that was it. People still buy it and are happy but it's just not sustainable as a business. Hope these guys survive the s***storm as they obviously provided a great $8.99 app!

 

[Saladin12]

Yes, they could have provided existing users with a lifetime subscription. But as far as I know Notability is only available for Apple products... that might have played a part in the decision. We all know Apple users are more willing to for apps, however that doesn't make it right.

I honestly don't think they should have a provided a lifetime subscription model... as @Abazigal mention they used the app for about a decade, while only paying 10 bucks for the app. And with the added features during that time period... that was a crazy good deal. I mean, sometimes we have to look at it from a different perspective.

I actually prefer Notability developers to freeze the app and allow the upgraded version with iCloud sync to entice customers to switch. They shouldn't strip the app completely, but features that require maintenance needs to be applied for the upgraded version only.

I actually don't disagree with the freezing the app thing. Because as you say - you're right, the updates - and the work that goes into them - are not free for the developer. They require time and money. I think the issue here is the way Notability has gone about it. I'm personally not questioning their decision to go to the subscription model as others are here. It's that people who had bought the app at the price they set are being somewhat punished. As for the updates during purchase and today, that was on Notability (and Apple, for not having a proper upgrade system) because they could have released Notability 2, 3 etc. like GoodNotes have done.

Moving forward, it does seem like Notability have a customer base that will be willing to pay for a subscription. And honestly all the power to them. A product and service is worth what a customer is willing to pay. I don't think Notability devs deserve to be knocked for that

 

[msackey]

I dislike subscriptions as much as the next guy, but I can see why the developers need to have a source of income to keep up development. I personally prefer the system used in apps like Agenda where you only (voluntarily) pay for new features as they are released and get to keep any feature you've previously bought indefinitely.

Sure, they can move to the subscription model but they cannot force those who already purchased the standalone licenses to then move to the subscription model. This is forcing users who have already paid the necessary one-time fee to use the application to have to pay again when that was not the agreement when the one-time fee was paid.

 

[diddl14]

How does the cost of one thing relate to being denied access to something else?

If you own a $300,000 house am I allowed to steal your $20,000 car? Or would you get totally pissed?

You want try again with an example that actually makes sense in this context?

 

[Mr. Heckles]

Never bought a TV for less than $10 but yes, if this was my TV turning into a subscription model I would be pissed.

But we're talking here about an App that's been around for a long time and obviously they have discovered that their existing business model is no longer sustainable. So they can either give their app a slow death or see how to fund the next couple of years maintaining and innovating.

And believe me, that's not an easy choice. I've got an app on the store for over 10 years now. I ultimately decided agains moving to a subscription model as I knew that the majority of buyers would respond exactly like this. Being pissed over having to pay a subscription on a purchased $4.99 app to keep getting latest fixes and features. Kept the app alive a couple more years as a hobby but then that was it. People still buy it and are happy but it's just not sustainable as a business. Hope these guys survive the s***storm as they obviously provided a great $8.99 app!

I think people are pissed they have to pay to use the features they already paid for. Day One went subscription, but let the users who already paid for the app keep what they already paid for. New users have to pay the subscription, and if the older uses want the new feature, they then have to pay.

 

[msackey]

Never bought a TV for less than $10 but yes, if this was my TV turning into a subscription model I would be pissed.

But we're talking here about an App that's been around for a long time and obviously they have discovered that their existing business model is no longer sustainable. So they can either give their app a slow death or see how to fund the next couple of years maintaining and innovating.

And believe me, that's not an easy choice. I've got an app on the store for over 10 years now. I ultimately decided agains moving to a subscription model as I knew that the majority of buyers would respond exactly like this. Being pissed over having to pay a subscription on a purchased $4.99 app to keep getting latest fixes and features. Kept the app alive a couple more years as a hobby but then that was it. People still buy it and are happy but it's just not sustainable as a business. Hope these guys survive the s***storm as they obviously provided a great $8.99 app!

What about the possibility of creating a next version of the application, say, Notability X separate from the existing Notability app? The regular Notability app would no longer be updated and will be deprecated over time as it won’t be supporting some future OS and devices. Notability X would be the app that uses the subscription model only. That would be a fair approach, no?

 

[EdT]

This problem is partially on Apple. For years, devs have wanted to have a way to have a paid upgrade cycles within the App Store. That was generally not allowed unless a new version was created. (eg. Things 1, 2, 3). I don't like this. But I do understand it. And paying $9/year for a worthwhile application that is used a $800+ device that is replaced every couple of years seems reasonable.

Your explanation is better than mine, but this is what I was trying to say.

 

[rikscha]

Boohoo always the same complainers, i want everything but pay nothing or very little for it

In what world is this a viable business model where you pay once many years ago £10 and then expect the product to be supported indefinitely

These companies die if they fail to create a reoccurring revenue stream

You are not paying for features moving forward but for the continued support of the service. It’s not just standing still and yohr £10 contribution a few years ago is certainly not carrying the vendors on-going cost

Its a good product, pay for it what is worth. Simple