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

[Icewarm]

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...

I'd be annoyed as well. The developer set the price and it was for a perpetual license. Now the developer wants to change the terms. That’s not how things SHOULD work. Imagine that you bought a car….you've paid it off, you're happy with it, but now, the manufacturer has decided that cars can only be leased….and applies the retroactivel. You now have to pay again for a car that you already paid for.

There are other options available to the developer. They could have released a new app with the new features leaving the original app intact. They could make new features in-app purchases. They chose a method that will anger its existing customer base.

 

[darngooddesign]

I thought the same thing. We do now live in a world of entitlement. FREE FREE FREE. Give it to me for free.

People paid for these services, they’re not free.

 

[osx'r]

As a paid user, I don't like this either and am tired of subscriptions.

I don't think they're in violation of Apple's guidelines, though. Those guidelines state "should," not "must," implying it's at their discretion.

 

[acidblood]

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.

Offenses: the telltale sign of when someone ran out of arguments, and are effectively conceding the debate to their opponent.

 

[sracer]

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.

I don't know what a "side loading zealot" is, but a walled garden encourages oppressive behavior toward customers because the customer is put in a "take it or leave it" position. The Apple ecosystem is called a "walled garden" for a reason.

One of the common arguments used as a positive for the Apple ecosystem is that it is selective... quality over quantity. It keeps the riff-raff out, but it keeps the customers in. If side loading was permitted, there would be a ton of open-source apps that would be made available for iOS/iPadOS.

There's the accusation of Android users being cheapskate freeloaders who will pirate software at the drop of a hat but in the Apple ecosystem, people are willing to pay good money for apps... until a developer changes their purchase model and then anyone who complains is labeled as a cheapskating freeloader.

 

[acidblood]

So does application development.

Application development, yes.

Leaving an application alone for the users that previously paid for it, no.

Other than the $100/year App Store fee, but that is per-developer, not per-app. So if the developer remains in the App Store with another app with a different business model, that's not an extra cost.

 

[nimbusthegreat]

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...

You buy a car. After a couple years the manufacturer decides that they only want to lease cars.

They also announce that starting in one year, you’ll have to lease it from them, even though you already paid for it, or they will remove the ability to drive in reverse, they will remove the radio, and they will remove the windows.

I mean, it’s still your car that you paid for. Sure you can’t do everything with it you could when you bought it but hey, car manufacturers have to eat too.

 

[Ludatyk]

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 totally understand. I have a couple of app subscription models that I am happily content with supporting the developer and I think that subscription models are the best way for developers to make better revenue. I'm more than happy see a developer have a one-time purchase of an app, even though that's kind of hard to come by these days... but in this particular situation... the one-year lease is a bad move.

Pocket Cast provided me a lifetime subscription when it moved to the model... I paid for it on iOS, Android and Web Version. They obviously didn't have to grant me with a lifetime subscription, but I'm glad they did. Because of it... I won't go to a different podcast because of the features that was given to me. And although they probably didn't really gain alot of revenue with that decision.

But I believe they came out on top eventually... they been bought out by NPR. Better to have their app still existing instead of having to scrap it due to customers jumping ship and not going back.

 

[ELman]

One Note that's free and included with my Office 365 subscription is looking better all the time.

 

[Mockletoy]

Application development, yes.

Leaving an application alone for the users that previously paid for it, no.

Other than the $100/year App Store fee, but that is per-developer, not per-app. So if the developer remains in the App Store with another app with a different business model, that's not an extra cost.

Which is why I said Apple should force Notability to keep the current version on the store in perpetuity for those who have already paid for it.

What they’re trying to do is literally theft.

 

[Saladin12]

Pocket Cast provided me a lifetime subscription when it moved to the model... I paid for it on iOS, Android and Web Version. They obviously didn't have to grant me with a lifetime subscription, but I'm glad they did. Because of it... I won't go to a different podcast because of the features that was given to me. And although they probably didn't really gain alot of revenue with that decision.

But I believe they came out on top eventually... they been bought out by NPR. Better to have their app still existing instead of having to scrap it due to customers jumping ship and not going back.

This! I didn’t even know a lifetime subscription was a thing. That proves that Notability did have an alternative that wouldn’t have punished existing users but chose not to utilise it.

 

[Krypton Deer]

I understand why they want to switch to subscription model but it has crossed a line to take away my purchases. They can leave the app as is and system updates will eventually render it broken - I can accept that and will re-consider if I want to pay in subscription for the new app by then.

 

[TheOldChevy]

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...

Yes, nevertheless the initial buy is a contract and you should not break it. Just let the app live (and die) while you create a new one with a new business model, but you cannot kill it (unless it was indicated differently in the initial contract). Now, I agree that the initial price did not pay for the living of a developer, but that's another story, nobody forced him to sell at that price.

 

[slplss]

I understand why they went this way. One time purchase isn't sustainable for devs. But I still hate that decision, it's another subsciption on the growing list. The days when you felt you actually owned SW are long gone.

 

[ignatius345]

This happened to me with Ulysses. I ran the fully-paid version of it for as long as I could before MacOS incompatibility crept in. I was extra pissed because it's a writing app was essentially feature-complete and as far as I can tell the developers wanted a continuing revenue stream. This was really confirmed a couple years ago when they sent a holiday newsletter which showed they had a team of like 15+ people. They keep noodling with Ulysses, essentially adding window dressing and little "refinements" but the core features were in place years ago.

Sadly, I keep using it because for all this, I haven't found anything better yet, and I've got hundreds of thousands of words of writing filed away in its library.

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.

 

[BuffaloTF]

I hope GoodNotes is ... well.. taking notes.

GoodNotes sells new versions at full price. Like, say, Office 2003 up to 2007. Someday when GoodNotes 6 is a thing, they’ll charge the x.99 for it, just as they did when they went from 4 to 5.

What they should be taking notes on is how to be a good note taking app. The locked single page stuff sucks, the lack of audio recording sucks, their inking sucks.

 

[ignatius345]

I understand why they went this way. One time purchase isn't sustainable for devs. But I still hate that decision, it's another subsciption on the growing list. The days when you felt you actually owned SW are long gone.

I don't buy that. My computer and phone are full of apps that don't resort to software rental: Things, OmniFocus, Sublime Text, Agenda to name a few.

If developers need more revenue, develop another product. The idea that you make a single product and then live on it forever is just absurd. If you have enough meaningful changes to release a new version, I'll happily pay for it. (And if you don't, well, that says something right there.) But the software rental model often means a blank check, and users essentially paying up front for changes that may or may not materialize -- or may not even be needed at all.

There are ways of making money without resorting to software rental. I just bought a version of BusyCal which promises two years of updates, but which I get to keep for as long as I wish. Fair deal. I also subscribe (and I do mean subscribe, not rent) to new features for Agenda: I'm paying for whatever "pro" features are released over the coming year, and at the end of the year I keep those features and Agenda keeps working even if I stop paying. That is a subscription, not a rental. I'm not expecting things for free, but I truly truly resent the fact that when my rental ends, the software dies immediately.

 

[johnnytravels]

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.

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.

I agree with all of what you said. I really want sideloading too.

You can, however, do upgrade pricing. Bundle your new app with the old one and set a discount on the bundle. People looking for the new app while owning the old one can buy the bundle and get a discount on the new version. It's actually what the Goodnotes devs have been doing for a while now.
The fact that almost no devs make use of this option tells me that they feel comfortable doing the subscriptions, in which case I don't buy unless there is a perpetual service attached to the app (even if it's just a proprietary cloud storage). Ironically, this turn of events also makes me evaluate more often if I even need new apps or if I'm just comfortable with what comes with iOS/macOS. Right now I have abandoned all the notes apps I have been using in favor of a combination of Devonthink and the built in Notes. Works like a charm. The only two apps I currently subscribe to through the App Store are 1Blocker (which gives me up to date ad definitions and a firewall service for iOS) and Craft (which comes with a really stable cloud service), the latter of which I am currently still unsure about (because most of the stuff eventually ends up in Devonthink anyway). And I still give Microsoft money for Office and a cloud drive that lets me sync selectively (and can thus serve as a file archive). If iCloud would let me do that I would cancel MS365 immediately and jump on an Apple plan. After many years of experimenting all I am really looking for is convergence of services.

This whole thing also makes me wonder whether many of the apps we have been complaining about switching to subscription are even necessary, or if we have only been buying the stuff as nice enhancements because it was cheap, in which case the entire app economy is bound to collapse at some point because it is now trying to charge a lot of money for software we only bought because it did not cost a lot of money.

 

[joiwomcow]

Back in the day, I had to decide between Notability and Goodnotes. Seems like I made the right choice.
I sympathise with developers needing an income stream. Halide did the right thing. I'd gladly buy a new version of Goodnotes if they did the same. But what Notability did is unacceptable.

 

[EdT]

That's fine as long as the subscription pays for either regular new features, maintenance of existing features, or infrastructure costs, but from what I understand here Notability is taking away existing features already implemented and purchased by users, which then would end up to have to "pay twice" to have said features re-enabled under the subscription model.

Furthermore, if the original price was $8.99 one-time and the new price is $14.99 every year, that's a quite significant price increase in itself.

I’ll agree that there’s a big difference between $8.99 one time and $14.99 per year, but to me it seems like Noteability went from one extreme -unlimited updates- to another -buy the app every year to get updates- in short, they have better programmers than they have executives.

I have the app but seldom use it. I just don’t do very much note taking on my phone. So I just will delete it if it tries to charge me $15. Someone that uses the programs and features is between a rock and a hard place. The company probably can’t afford to keep adding feature without users paying for them but the users bought the product in part BECAUSE of the free updates.

There probably is a way to make a “Frozen as is” version but that will also take programming, and at least for a time support and debug. And if iPhone model Infinity breaks the system then what? How long IS forever as far as an app is concerned? And can you force a company to support it if they lose a lot of money doing so?

 

[4743913]

What they should be taking notes on is how to be a good note taking app. The locked single page stuff sucks, the lack of audio recording sucks, their inking sucks.

are those things worth $12 a year to you? because I can suggest an app.

 

[ingambe]

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).

Of course, I agree some people are asking for too much
But having access to what you've paid for is a basic thing

I completely understand the need for new revenue but you simply can't decide to take back something you've previously sold

 

[cookiemonster89]

 

[slplss]

GoodNotes sells new versions at full price. Like, say, Office 2003 up to 2007. Someday when GoodNotes 6 is a thing, they’ll charge the x.99 for it, just as they did when they went from 4 to 5.

What they should be taking notes on is how to be a good note taking app. The locked single page stuff sucks, the lack of audio recording sucks, their inking sucks.

Yeah, like Things did it. But you can't find Goodnotes 4 or Things 1 or 2 on appstore, they were discontinued. But they are all available to download in Purchased tab. Same way with this, the paid version with the IAPS should be always available to download in Purchased. I get the uproar over their decision to switch to subsciption model, but the app you own is forever yours, you don't lose any functionality. It might get obsolete in future, but you got what you paid for.

 

[merrilyaberry]

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...

Agree, however it was the company’s decision to charge a one-off fee and their choice to ‘survive’ through those funds. They should no way be leaning on existing consumers and expecting them to sign up to the subscription after a year as it is not what the consumer initially agreed to at the time of purchase.