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.
Notability Users Frustrated By Switch to Subscription Model Claim Violation of App Store Guidelines
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
That's a good way of thinking. But the developer should give his customers options instead of the one year lease... developer should freeze the app. Similar to how other developers transition to the subscription model... then with the updated app provide new features to entice customers to switch.
Tweetbot come to mind, which I still use the old version... didn't upgrade to the updated subscription version. But if I wanted to support the developer I can always upgrade to the subscription version whenever I want.
- Release a new app with new features
- Having a subscription-based system for new users and letting old users use what they paid for
It's against Apple AppStore guidelines
3.1.2(a) Permissible uses:
- 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.
Which apps stopped working without the customer changing their hardware or iOS version?
Yes it’s outrageous and it’s completely different from what Apple does. Apple doesn’t raise the price on something you already bought. My iPhone is paid for. If Apple raises the price on the new iPhone my current one doesn’t increase in price. It doesn’t stop working.
The developer sold a product for a price. If that price was too low for them or a bad model, too bad. Change the model for new customers but you can’t take away what previous people already paid for.
I hope this move kills their business. It shows that they really don’t care about the people who purchased the app.
I think it's more that after a decade, their growth has more or less plateaued, to the point where the number of new purchases each year may not be enough to justified continued support of said app. So the next best thing is to focus inwards, and see who amongst their existing user base is willing to subscribe and stay around.
I get that it sucks if you have just purchased the app recently, but I think we also need to be realistic about how long a few dollars gets us in terms of developer support. Things, for instance, is still paid only, but purchasing all the apps for the various platforms easily adds up to almost $100 for me. Easily 2-3 years of Todoist.
Thinking back to what was just said, I agree with you, and I hope that Notability devs find a way to allow existing users to hold on to an older version of said app with full functionality. It's okay that it never gets another update, or stops working with iOS 16 or 17. At least we all saw it coming, and have had ample opportunity to migrate over.
I also shudder at the thought of any teacher who may have just persuaded his school's IT dept to purchase notability for all their iPads, only to wake up to news today that come next year, they are going to either have to source for another alternative or be slapped with a massive recurring bill.
The problem, as it always is, is Apple's fault with its idiotic App Store rules. Along with the 30% racket fee, this is why sideloading apps absolutely has to become an option.
For all the young'uns here who think subscriptions are the only possible solution, let me tell you how software sales used to work, before you were born. And I can assure you, companies survived just fine, as will be made clear in a moment.
Company X releases Product Y version 1.0. Developers keep working like crazy in the product, so that next year they can offer you version 2.0 with all these new features. It is entirely up to you whether you should buy it or not. If you don't you still have version 1.0 to work with, and you're not due anything else to Company X just to keep version 1.0, that you already paid for, working. So Company X's continued survival depends on them adding features that customers actually want and are willing to pay for. The free market in its finest incarnation.
In comes Apple with the App Store and imposes a rule no one called for, and that benefits absolutely no one: you can't charge for an upgrade. You have to release a completely new app, and you can't offer upgrade pricing to your old customers.
So what does everyone else switch to? A subscription model. This is great for the developer, who can take the customer's data hostage and ensure a continued ransom payment for it. It's also great for Apple who ensures its 30% racket fee is paid on time. However, whether new features will be added or not merely depends on whether the developer is content with its current revenue stream and a few extra sales, or is looking to expand aggressively. If the former, they'll just do the bare minimum to keep the app working for the next iOS release or API change.
It should come as no surprise that I much prefer the old system where the developer has to earn a new sale by adding features. Unfortunately, the idiotic App Store rules did away with that option.
For all the young'uns here who think subscriptions are the only possible solution, let me tell you how software sales used to work, before you were born. And I can assure you, companies survived just fine, as will be made clear in a moment.
Company X releases Product Y version 1.0. Developers keep working like crazy in the product, so that next year they can offer you version 2.0 with all these new features. It is entirely up to you whether you should buy it or not. If you don't you still have version 1.0 to work with, and you're not due anything else to Company X just to keep version 1.0, that you already paid for, working. So Company X's continued survival depends on them adding features that customers actually want and are willing to pay for. The free market in its finest incarnation.
In comes Apple with the App Store and imposes a rule no one called for, and that benefits absolutely no one: you can't charge for an upgrade. You have to release a completely new app, and you can't offer upgrade pricing to your old customers.
So what does everyone else switch to? A subscription model. This is great for the developer, who can take the customer's data hostage and ensure a continued ransom payment for it. It's also great for Apple who ensures its 30% racket fee is paid on time. However, whether new features will be added or not merely depends on whether the developer is content with its current revenue stream and a few extra sales, or is looking to expand aggressively. If the former, they'll just do the bare minimum to keep the app working for the next iOS release or API change.
It should come as no surprise that I much prefer the old system where the developer has to earn a new sale by adding features. Unfortunately, the idiotic App Store rules did away with that option.
You can file a claim against these fraudsters on Apple's website
Nope. No one is free loading. They paid the price that the developer decided to charge. That’s not free loading. Did the developer make a bad deal? Maybe. That’s not the customers fault. Going back on the deal that was already completed is wrong. It’s against AppStore rules. It’s possibly illegal (bait and switch). There’s no defense for it. It’s just wrong.
That's a perfectly valid option, too, but if you Google around a bit you'll find lots of tales of apps releasing new versions and retiring old versions and getting torched in the reviews by people who bought the original app years before and think it's the end of the world that they'll be expected to pay if they want to keep getting updates.
Too many people want something for nothing (I'd include the developers of Notability in that, given how they're implementing their switch to subscription pricing).
I mean, that’s no where close to the same thing. This would be like Apple deciding charge you a monthly fee to use the GPS in the phone you already purchased.
I hope GoodNotes is ... well.. taking notes.
Exactly. Upgrading your hardware and software is a choice. If you have an app you depend on that you know doesn't work on Windows 11 or Monterey or whatever and you upgrade anyway, you only have one person to be mad at.
I’m going to have to slightly disagree with you here. While I agree with you on the developer needing to survive and have stable income - that’s not HIS fault. He bought the apps, in good faith, on both iOS and macOS. It’s irrelevant if he used it once or if he used it through three degrees. He paid the amount that Notability was charging. He can’t be expected to now pay more for the same feature set.. he’s already paid. Now future users- that’s different. They don’t have the contract that he did. Existing customers should not be punished.
Imagine if you had bought a board game 10 years ago. And you opened it today but Mr Hasbro turned up at your house and demanded you pay him a yearly fee to be able to play it… you’d be outraged. This is where the waters are getting murky with digital ownership.
In the long run something will have to change in how developers get compensated. Compared to pre-smartphone times, everyone uses many more different softwares/apps on average in daily life, and they are becoming ever more cloud-based. The developers need to maintain the respective infrastructure and thus need continuous income per app, but people do not want to have 47 mini-subscriptions leeching on them, so they become very selective, get annoyed all the time and jump ship easily. Maybe Apple could offer some kind of app subscription packages, $20/month for ten apps of your choice? Just throwing out example numbers. Developers would have to opt-in their app to the program, and they would get a share of the subscription fees. Could that work?
Call me when you can download a CPU/camera/modem/etc. upgrade for your old iPhone for free. Until them, manufacturing new silicon has a cost that the customer needs to bear.
LOLOLOL
It’s amazing the contortions you side loading zealots will go to to make everything anti-Apple. This isn’t Apples fault, it’s the developers fault. And if it wasn’t for the AppStore rules it would be easier for them to get away with it. Side loading wouldn’t prevent it, it would make it easier.
Go buy an Android, enjoy your side loading all you want.
This is absolutely correct, which is why I can't imagine Apple will allow it to stand.
The developer should be forced to leave Notability Classic or whatever they want to call it on the App Store for anyone who already paid for it. There is no good legal or ethical argument to be made for anything else.
This is a good example of why apps should not be limited to the AppStore. I am sure a few open source alternatives would spring up if sideloading were available. Not everyone can give Apple $100/year just to put a free or passion project app in the AppStore.
I thought the same thing. We do now live in a world of entitlement. FREE FREE FREE. Give it to me for free.