Pixelmator Photo Switches to Subscription Pricing, Launching on Mac by Next Year

[redheeler]

Of course, the incentive to build meaningful new features still exists because of plenty of competition in the photo editing market.

Yes but only to a lesser extent, and really the ideal scenario for a developer is to lock the user into a subscription that's automatic and they kind of just forget about it, every once in a while seeing it on their bank statement and saying "oh yeah, I use that every once in a while".

 

[BaldiMac]

Yes but only to a lesser extent, and really the ideal scenario for a developer is to lock the user into a subscription that's automatic and they kind of just forget about it, every once in a while seeing it on their bank statement and saying "oh yeah, I use that every once in a while".

I disagree. The prospect of keeping a user on a subscription for life by keeping them happy with new features is a much larger incentive than the possibility of $7.99 every few years.

 

[redheeler]

I disagree. The prospect of keeping a user on a subscription for life by keeping them happy with new features is a much larger incentive than the possibility of $7.99 every few years.

The money keeps flowing no matter the quality of the features they introduce, as the user completely loses access to the app if they stop paying. This is a stick approach, the old one was a carrot approach where the user likes what they sees in the feature list and decides to pay for the update.

 

[redheeler]

I disagree. The prospect of keeping a user on a subscription for life by keeping them happy with new features is a much larger incentive than the possibility of $7.99 every few years.

There's one valid pro-subscription argument I see here. Current apps are likely getting to be so feature-rich already that users don't care enough to upgrade as long as the app continues to work, meaning paid updates are a hard sell even with many new features added. To that I'd argue it'd be nice to see some kind of compromise between the two allowing users to stay on the version they had before ending the subscription, even if that means a higher price of entry. A former subscriber has no current access to the app at all despite making a contribution to that iteration of its development nonetheless.

 

[chucker23n1]

I wouldn’t say fewer, more like a different group of people. There are plenty of businesses that started out as subscriptions, attracted those friendly towards the subscription model and they’re able to maintain that income as they’re working on the next things (or the bugs from the last thing). There are a lot of folks that have grown up in a time where “subscription for a thing you want” is normal and expected. Those are the folks they need as their new customers.

Personally, as a software developer, I find "pay yearly and in return, you keep getting updates" appealing, but 1) it requires a lot of trust that the developers will, in fact, do major improvements each year (and that I'll agree that those are improvements!), and 2) most people don't have that sort of empathy. They want a one-and-done transaction.

Apple is also in part to blame, having made iWork effectively free, rather than making it an annual subscription or (the traditional model) making major upgrades paid.

Maybe over time, people will warm up to the idea.

 

[tubular]

I use Pixelmaker Photo on iOS nearly daily, and on Mac OS several times a week. They’re worth the money.

 

[cupcakes2000]

Similar if your only view is your credit card statement. But it can be quite different in what developer and user expect in exchange for that transaction.

I'm also happy to continue paying for incremental upgrades of a quality app, but will do everything in my power to avoid subscriptions precisely because of those expectations.

In terms of incentivizing they are not. Paid updates incentivize the developer to make enough changes that users want to update. This way, users have the power to make the decision regarding if it's worthwhile or not.

Subscriptions are meant to strip users of that power by design. Even if a user isn't satisfied with the updates the developer is making (or there are no updates at all), the user must continue paying or completely lose access to the app.

This is why subscription models have faced so much backlash from users but tend to be loved by developers, e.g. the Apollo developer applauding this change on Reddit.

Both of these cases are entirely reasonable and I agree. But that’s where one needs to be prudent with one’s subscriptions. I don’t know who in their right mind would pay a sub for a calculator app, for example. But I pay a sub for my email provider, as I value their worth. I also don’t lambast Adobe like most here, as 9.99 a month for the photography plan is a massively good deal for what you get and in comparison to what each standalone app cost previously.
I like pixelmator photo, but I wouldnt pay a sub for it. Nor pixelmator pro as I use photoshop or AF.
I definitely don’t view subscriptions as a bad thing though, and they’re certainly not a newly invented Apple is evil concept. You just need to know what you want and don’t get ripped off. That’s the same across the history of exchanging goods for money.

 

[Analog Kid]

Apple is also in part to blame, having made iWork effectively free, rather than making it an annual subscription or (the traditional model) making major upgrades paid.

I think there's truth to this, when Apple stopped charging for OS updates it made people take notice and people like to emulate Apple.

Apple's a different model though-- they're selling hardware, and the software sells the hardware. There was also some weirdness around that time about accounting for incremental updates and Sarbanes-Oxley compliance. I was never sure if they just went to free because it made the accounting easier, but maybe I have my timelines confused.

And I still wonder if charging a reasonable price for Aperture would have kept it alive.

The AppStore itself injected a ton of distortion into this as well-- the sudden loss of friction in customer relationships led to a race to the bottom on pricing. I think there were a lot of naive devs and users who just didn't understand the economics, and some established devs that understood this wasn't going to last but weren't sure how to survive until sanity returned.

Still, if all that's true, and the rise of subscriptions was one big unintended consequence, then it's a real shame. It's leaving the world worse than we found it.

 

[Unregistered 4U]

2) most people don't have that sort of empathy. They want a one-and-done transaction.

I’d say that most people that grew up with one-and-done certainly want to continue one-and-done. But there are a large number of people that do have that sort of empathy… or, if not empathy, just the wherewithal to do things like subscribe to the person’s Patreon or other similar services (or their app) and commit that number of dollars a month, even if no new features are released in that month.

Most people don’t have to have that mindset as long as enough people with the money to do so, have that mindset.

 

[KurtMann]

Subscription prices in relation to the app's value to me is what I look at. No one person would be likely to spend 30 to 40 dollars for every app they want to use. If it is 10 dollars, I am more likely to subscribe.

Developers are free to charge whatever they feel they need to sustain the app. Customers are equally free to subscribe or not subscribe to an app. I assume that Pixelmator ran the numbers and determined that the amount they chose would maximize their revenue for customers willing to pay that price per year.

Finding the correct price is a very interesting philosophical question. Maximise profit though margins or sales? With digital products you can reproduce them endlessly, but you of course still have the ongoing production cost with programmers.

Everything cost so much money now, it's hard not to get sad or upset when people ask for more.

 

[PlayUltimate]

Apple is also in part to blame, having made iWork effectively free, rather than making it an annual subscription or (the traditional model) making major upgrades paid.

When it was first released, it was not free. And, back in the day, Mac OS updates were not free either. Albeit, things change.

iWork - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[chucker23n1]

When it was first released, it was not free.

Yes, that was my point. I guess "made free" was ambiguous on my end, sorry. My criticism is that, by reducing the price from $79 to $19/$9 per app to ultimately zero (technically only if you buy a new device), they set an expectation among consumers that third-party apps, too, should be cheap.

I think there's truth to this, when Apple stopped charging for OS updates it made people take notice and people like to emulate Apple.

Apple's a different model though-- they're selling hardware, and the software sells the hardware.

Yes, but another part of that model is that they create platforms. By having their own first-party software be largely free, they set expectations among customers that software should be cheap. By offering limited options for paid upgrades to third-party developers, they then further limit what third-party developers can do.

There was also some weirdness around that time about accounting for incremental updates and Sarbanes-Oxley compliance. I was never sure if they just went to free because it made the accounting easier, but maybe I have my timelines confused.

IANAL, but my understanding is that they felt compelled by S-O to charge for some features (hence early iPod Touch software upgrades being $10, and that one MacBook software update that added… 802.11n, maybe?). Later on, they didn't do this any more, either because another law was passed, or perhaps because a judge stated their legal opinion that this was unnecessary.

And I still wonder if charging a reasonable price for Aperture would have kept it alive.

Maybe.

I thought it started off very impressive, albeit with performance issues. Then they kind of let it linger. Probably a little bit of column A (Apple wasn't that interested) and a little bit of column B (they couldn't find a price tag that made sense for them; even with the relatively low price, there weren't that many customers).

 

[Terrinb]

Among other reasons, Pixelmator also noted that the App Store does not allow paid apps to offer free trials or upgrade discounts for major new versions.

It’s about time for sideloading and alternative AppStores, as you see it’s Apple fault. Apple enforces subscriptions, because it’s a 30% anticompetitive cash cow. Apple is destroying the de facto standard way people used to buy and upgrade software.

I’m not a fan of that. Right now I can go to one place to find any app and Apple makes it easy to cancel a subscription. I don’t want to go to each developer’s App Store and many developers will make it impossible to cancel. Developers aren’t forced to developers for iOS either.

 

[Analog Kid]

Yes, that was my point. I guess "made free" was ambiguous on my end, sorry. My criticism is that, by reducing the price from $79 to $19/$9 per app to ultimately zero (technically only if you buy a new device), they set an expectation among consumers that third-party apps, too, should be cheap.

Yes, but another part of that model is that they create platforms. By having their own first-party software be largely free, they set expectations among customers that software should be cheap. By offering limited options for paid upgrades to third-party developers, they then further limit what third-party developers can do.

Yeah, I'm not sure that expectation would have held if so many developers didn't reinforce it. The open source movement has been around for a long time and didn't really set an expectation that software should be free (as in beer). I actually chuckled at the post on the first page where someone threatened to move to GIMP. Threatening to do serious work with GIMP is how you know someone's bluffing...

When iWork, iPhoto, iMovie started shipping, my view wasn't that they indicated software should be free but set a lower bound on quality and capability. They were the "you must be this tall to ride" signpost to the market.

The watershed was the opening of the AppStores. That drove the race to the bottom. I think it was a combination of a sudden step function in competition, little to no way to sort out what was truly quality and worth a price, and a surge in accessibility by much younger buyers.

I think that last point was important-- there were suddenly a lot of people without real income but access to the store shelves. For businesses tracking downloads rather than revenue, you can juice your numbers by dropping your price precipitously. That dovetails nicely with a lot of business practices now that focus on marketshare first and monetization later.

It's probably some mix of these factors combined with a heavy dose of what companies have known for a while: if you can quietly bill to someone's credit card monthly, they're likely to let it ride for longer than if they need to make an active decision to buy.

 

[chucker23n1]

Yeah, I'm not sure that expectation would have held if so many developers didn't reinforce it. The open source movement has been around for a long time and didn't really set an expectation that software should be free (as in beer).

But some of them sure tried.

(Case in point: developers complaining when a tool like a text editor, IDE, etc. costs money. Folks… fellow developers make those! Few industries have so many advocates for shooting yourself in the foot, economically.)

When iWork, iPhoto, iMovie started shipping, my view wasn't that they indicated software should be free but set a lower bound on quality and capability. They were the "you must be this tall to ride" signpost to the market.

I think I'm more fine with Photos and iMovie being free (though I get the sense that iMovie and GarageBand receive a small fraction of the love internally that they did in the Jobs era, and maybe economics are a part of that?) than with iWork. I want Apple sending a clear message that it's OK for software — whether from Apple, from a big software company, or an indie just getting started — to cost money.

The watershed was the opening of the AppStores. That drove the race to the bottom. I think it was a combination of a sudden step function in competition, little to no way to sort out what was truly quality and worth a price, and a surge in accessibility by much younger buyers.

I think that last point was important-- there were suddenly a lot of people without real income but access to the store shelves.

Yeah, not to get too get-off-my-lawn but those young people also have different expectations of what software should cost. Especially when they get a Chromebook at school and everything is basically free. You're still paying for it somehow, kid…

It's probably some mix of these factors combined with a heavy dose of what companies have known for a while: if you can quietly bill to someone's credit card monthly, they're likely to let it ride for longer than if they need to make an active decision to buy.

Yep.

But if Apple let third parties charge for upgrades in the App Store, I think quite a few would move back from subscriptions.

 

[Analog Kid]

But if Apple let third parties charge for upgrades in the App Store, I think quite a few would move back from subscriptions.

Yeah, I hear that argument, but I'm not sure I understand it. I've seen applications give discounted upgrades using things like app bundles, where if you own v4, you can buy v4 and v5 for 20% more than v4 alone or though IAP.

That said, Apple is incentivized to maximize revenue to devs so if subscriptions are where the revenue's at...

 

[vgmrm]

Why, if you already have it?

Yes... but whithout (security) updates.

 

[rmadsen3]

This is why subscription models have faced so much backlash from users but tend to be loved by developers, e.g. the Apollo developer applauding this change on Reddit.

Just for the record: Apollo developer Christian Selig puts emphasis on there being a 'lifetime' pricepoint. He doesn't voice support for increased pricing so much as he voices support for there being 'something for everyone'.

 

[dysamoria]

I get why they switch to a subscription, but why does every app has to raise prices that much? From a $7,99 one-time purchase to $23,99/yr? Why not $9,99/yr?
And what was the business model before the switch to subscription? It was a one-time purchase for $7,99 and now it’s $59,99. No wonder people hate subscriptions.

Why? Greed. Laissez-faire capitalism. “Investors”. Perpetual growth obsession. Take your pick.

 

[dysamoria]

Well, that’s another one I won’t be buying… 🤷🏽‍♂️

 

[Unregistered 4U]

I’m not a fan of that. Right now I can go to one place to find any app and Apple makes it easy to cancel a subscription. I don’t want to go to each developer’s App Store and many developers will make it impossible to cancel. Developers aren’t forced to developers for iOS either.

And, I’m sure most developers that SAY they want to be able to sideload without the app store have likely not tried to release their app for Android. Those who have understand clearly why, even though the number of Android devices dwarf iOS devices, the lion’s share of the profits are made on the iOS platform.

“Great! I can release my app without paying greedy Apple anymore. Wait, why are so many folks pirating my app now? I’m not making any money! And here I thought making 70% of a big number was going to be improved by making 100% of a big number. No one said I’d be making nothing all of a sudden. “

 

[Abazigal]

And, I’m sure most developers that SAY they want to be able to sideload without the app store have likely not tried to release their app for Android. Those who have understand clearly why, even though the number of Android devices dwarf iOS devices, the lion’s share of the profits are made on the iOS platform.

“Great! I can release my app without paying greedy Apple anymore. Wait, why are so many folks pirating my app now? I’m not making any money! And here I thought making 70% of a big number was going to be improved by making 100% of a big number. No one said I’d be making nothing all of a sudden. “

That’s ironically what happened with monument valley. The developer made the bulk of his revenue on iOS, while the android version was pirated to heck and back.

 

[hans1972]

App store developers should unionize and reclaim what their work should get them, and not play the devil's game and offset their issues onto their own customers, it will only end poorly for everyone but the person at the top of the pyramid.

That could be construed as collusion and anti-competitive behaviour.

Millions of businesses collaborating on the pricing mechanism of a market would probably be illegal in most places.

 

[hans1972]

[...] but I also think it's only profitable to Apple because it's indeed a better solution on the term for them as it brings a steady cash flow. But for the developers, they will probably lose customers, or at best end up having a bad reputation like the first posts on this thread suggest.

How can Apple make money if the developers don't? Apple only gets 15% from most of these developers and would loose money if the developers looses sales.

Apple makes money (on the App Store) when developers makes money.

 

[hans1972]

Apple's App store customers are the developers, not the end users. They should listen to the developers and not try to push them towards a model that may be beneficial for them on the short term, but is not sustainable on the long term.

Developers aren't customers of Apple. Apple is their commissioner and agent for sales and marketing.
One could argue they were suppliers, but Apple doesn't buy the software from developers and resell it.

Going into a subscription model is something that started in the late nineties by Lotus (IBM) and Microsoft for business software. It's just taken a long time for it to reach the consumer market.

The reason is that it's one of the few long term viable ways to make money on software with a limited appeal or no way of making many similar types of the software (like games).