Tweetbot and Twitterrific Users Can Support the Developers by Declining Subscription Refunds

[Shirasaki]

Just like someone says, bad customers exist, and as a business owner, they have to protect themselves from bad customers. No one is entitled on anything in their lifetime. Openly and blatantly displaying your lack of compassion would only scare people away. I for one will surely distance myself from those as best as I can.

 

[Akrapovic]

You can see just how few developers read MacRumors by the complete lack of empathy in these comments 🤦🏼‍♂️

This forum is filled with people who don't know what Swift is, but think they're experts in software development.

 

[floral]

No

 

[amartinez1660]

You can have some money from me if you can answer yes to the following 3 questions:

1) Did you create an app that not only did I use multiple times a day but also contributed significantly the development of the service upon which it was based?

2) get shafted by a megalomaniac who decided to change the terms of service and simply revoked api access one night?

3) are you in fact not asking for any money from me, but simply that I consider not making you give me back $3?

Tossing judgements and shaming aside (this thread got full of that for some reason either side), by that same metric some people would likely get their refund back (or even got it some time ago):
- Used the app less than “multiple times a day” and didn’t contribute to their business
- Received subpar support
- Overall didn’t get the value you did get

I can totally see a case for those wanting to chip in and those that don’t: if it provided value and helped tremendously or if it didn’t and was just another side subscription for a very unlikeable and chaotic platform.

There’s no need to call the charitable ways as losers and those that don’t agree as lack of empathy (i.e psychopaths):

 

[TopToffee]

Tossing judgements and shaming aside (this thread got full of that for some reason either side), by that same metric some people would likely get their refund back (or even got it some time ago):
- Used the app less than “multiple times a day” and didn’t contribute to their business
- Received subpar support
- Overall didn’t get the value you did get

I can totally see a case for those wanting to chip in and those that don’t: if it provided value and helped tremendously or if it didn’t and was just another side subscription for a very unlikeable and chaotic platform.

There’s no need to call the charitable ways as losers and those that don’t agree as lack of empathy (i.e psychopaths):

Given that you’re automatically selecting a group of people that both knew that third party apps existed AND took the decision to pay out for a subscription to an app when they could have just used the free first party app, I suspect the userbase would skew massively towards the first group you mention.

But then I’d also wager that the majority of people who seem offended at the idea of NOT getting a refund, or of the devs asking that their users consider waiving the (on average for annual subs) $3 refund… probably weren’t subscribers in the first place

 

[bcortens]

Right. They decided to go the subscription route. You live and die by that. It's compounded by the fact that this subscription is entirely dependent on a service they have no control over. I am not fundamentally against subscription models, but it is crazy to build that subscription business on top of something you have no say in.

Had they they sold apps for 2.99 or 4.99 or whatever, the idea any meaningful number of customers would request a refund that was for more than 30 days ago is highly unlikely. If you have a subscription though with 11 or nine or even five months remaining that can't be delivered, that is different situation.

If you subscribed to Amazon Prime for $139 and had months left and they stopped free shipping, it would be perfectly appropriate to ask for at least a partial refund or do a charge back. It would be hilarious if Jeff Bezos sent out requests asking customers not do so.

Two things

1. Without an option to offer paid upgrades between different app versions developers have no option but subscriptions or even scummier in app purchases (as seen in most free to play iOS games).
2. The subscription isn't just for the access to the twitter service but also to fund new features and bug fixes every year.

As such I think that yearly subscriptions are kind of like paying for the latest version of the app every year. If Apple had fixed their App Store and actually enabled paid upgrades developers could have chosen that option. Most developers can't charge once for an app at the prices the App Store market requires and still keep developing major new features over the course of a decade.

 

[bcortens]

Twitterrific never had an all updates forever purchase. They have an outright purchase of a Twitterrific 5, which they honored for seven years.

As I've said elsewhere, the App Store is mostly responsible for the push to subscriptions. Without an option for paid upgrades within an app developers have no way of continuing to fund development... Given the way that Apple constantly updates and deprecates APIs, and requires evidence of ongoing development this means developers have to keep moving or else they risk their app starting to break or being removed from the store.

 

[bcortens]

Conversely, to mitigate risks of something like this catching them fully flat footed, the developers could have been continuing to offer a mix of license types beyond just 100% subscription

I didn't request a refund on my annual sub, but I definitely see multiple sides to all of this.

How? By releasing a new version every year and hoping people buy that new version? This would only work if they removed the old version from the App Store. This is at least partially on Apple for not giving developers a way to offer seamless app version updates.

 

[bcortens]

I think-- and while not entirely the fault of this one developer-- that they are seeing the backlash from an industry built on subscriptions. Subscriptions that are becoming as toxic to consumers as loot boxes and microtransactions are to the gaming industry. Sucks to be them, but they benefitted as much from subscriptions as anyone.

However, at the end of the day, they did build their empire on shifting sand. I'd be hard pressed to cry for them, especially since they operated their business knowing it was all a house of cards.

Given the way the App Store is designed and incentivized I don't think indie devs had much choice. If you look across the indie dev landscape most have a hard time selling paid up front apps regardless of how good they are. Most people seem to want freemium instead...

 

[Akrapovic]

People thinking Twitter apps didn't contribute to Twitter have absolutely no idea what they're talking about. Almost every feature Twitter added (including the official app) is from a third party developer. Even "Pull to refresh" was invented by a third party twitter app.

Twitter built its entire success on the foundations that third party app developers built.

 

[Akrapovic]

As I've said elsewhere, the App Store is mostly responsible for the push to subscriptions. Without an option for paid upgrades within an app developers have no way of continuing to fund development... Given the way that Apple constantly updates and deprecates APIs, and requires evidence of ongoing development this means developers have to keep moving or else they risk their app starting to break or being removed from the store.

In addition to this, people want their apps to do more - things which require running backends to host it, which are ongoing costs.

I sell a subscription app in the App Store. I put in manual work each week to keep the data in it up-to-date, and I have server side costs. A one-off payment would not keep my app alive. I'd be at a loss running it.

 

[Syk]

Because they are not millionaires and it is Twitter/Elon fault.

No it's not Twitter/Elon fault it's the developers fault for not having a proper business plan that secured access to Twitters API that also stated that Twitter had to give the developers X amount of months of a shut down. As been mentioned. Getting rid of the API was talked about even before Elon bought it.
If your app relies solely on another party resources your business plan should include a contract and just paying an access fee with no other safety nets is no good otherwise you wind up where we are now

 

[StralyanPithecus]

Oh, the humanity, the humanity!
🔫

 

[BrownyQ]

Given the way the App Store is designed and incentivized I don't think indie devs had much choice. If you look across the indie dev landscape most have a hard time selling paid up front apps regardless of how good they are. Most people seem to want freemium instead...

Sadly, this is true.

But freemium isn't the same as subscriptions. And in the pursuit of more and more money, many went subscription instead of just asking for a buck or two or three for additional features or functionality.

Eventually, the bubble had to burst, you know?

People thinking Twitter apps didn't contribute to Twitter have absolutely no idea what they're talking about. Almost every feature Twitter added (including the official app) is from a third party developer. Even "Pull to refresh" was invented by a third party twitter app.

Twitter built its entire success on the foundations that third party app developers built.

I don't know enough about Twitter's version history to dispute this claim, but regardless: Twitter always retained the upper hand in this relationship. They reaped all the benefits from the efforts of the third parties, and now those same third parties are left out in the cold.

We can blame Musk for being the one to cut the cord, but this possibility was omnipresent. And if they didn't have any contingencies in place for this, the fault lies with the third parties and their poor management.

 

[bcortens]

Sadly, this is true.

But freemium isn't the same as subscriptions. And in the pursuit of more and more money, many went subscription instead of just asking for a buck or two or three for additional features or functionality.

Eventually, the bubble had to burst, you know?

I only sort of agree with you, it can be quite difficult to section off new features in a way that makes it easy to charge just for those features, you also then need to somehow charge for access to new features once a year or every 2 years (whenever they are added) and somehow offer some cut down functionality in the mean time. A yearly subscription is nice as it gives full app access in most cases for a reasonable fee and the developer adds new features and fixes bugs.

Ultimately, if Apple was honest about the App Store being for the good of users they would ban scummy practices like Loot boxes, crystals, daily and weekly subscription options, and all similar practices, I suspect however that these kinds of purchases however make them too much money to do so.

 

[attila]

LMFAO. They made tens of millions off subscriptions for an app that was a wrapper around unauthorized APIs from a 4th party service. They were dumb as rocks to actually believe this would go on indefinitely. Everyone is entitled to a refund.

It was 100% authorised until the rules changed over one night without any forwarning. Don't be obtuse.

 

[russell_314]

Of course. It is what it is. I wouldn't personally want to put all my eggs in one basket, but maybe they thought after several years, it wouldn't be jeopardized. Obviously they didn't bank on someone like Musk coming in.

Nothing in tech is safe but you're right about putting all your eggs in one basket. I just watched a YouTube video about how Iomega undercut SkyQuest with their Zip drives. Of course we all know what happened to Zip drives. I mean it's not like they lost anything they didn't have before. They made money for a few years but didn't diversify. Now it looks like some of them are diversifying or more like moving to mastodon. Better late than never I guess.

 

[BrownyQ]

I only sort of agree with you, it can be quite difficult to section off new features in a way that makes it easy to charge just for those features, you also then need to somehow charge for access to new features once a year or every 2 years (whenever they are added) and somehow offer some cut down functionality in the mean time. A yearly subscription is nice as it gives full app access in most cases for a reasonable fee and the developer adds new features and fixes bugs.

Ultimately, if Apple was honest about the App Store being for the good of users they would ban scummy practices like Loot boxes, crystals, daily and weekly subscription options, and all similar practices, I suspect however that these kinds of purchases however make them too much money to do so.

Well, they could always attempt to bring back the old ways: charge for a new version of the app, slap a 2 or 3 at the end of it, and maintain modest historical support for the older versions as long as it is feasible.

Personally, I don't think the solution to the problem is subscriptions for everything. But ultimately, this is the viewpoint of neither a business person or developer. Only someone who likes to use specific apps as long as they're charged reasonably (and one time).

 

[bcortens]

Well, they could always attempt to bring back the old ways: charge for a new version of the app, slap a 2 or 3 at the end of it, and maintain modest historical support for the older versions as long as it is feasible.

Personally, I don't think the solution to the problem is subscriptions for everything. But ultimately, this is the viewpoint of neither a business person or developer. Only someone who likes to use specific apps as long as they're charged reasonably (and one time).

I think this is mostly on Apple, the friction of having users download a new version makes it difficult to bring back the old days. I wish it didn't personally since if an App let me migrate my data seamlessly (easily doable using app groups) then I would happily pay for new versions. What I would like is for Apple to offer an in-app way of upgrading to a new version (bypassing the App Store so that the new app downloads and installs automatically, this would minimize friction).

Subscriptions are going to be the solution so long as Apple disincentivizes other forms.

 

[gsurf123]

They made millions off of subscriptions. Just ask for a refund.

You have no idea what they made off of subscriptions.

 

[brofkand]

Reading through this thread really makes me wonder what the Venn diagram looks like of those talking about “not a charity” and those who voted for Trump. I’m guessing these are pretty much a single circle.

A man that if he were running either of these companies would not provide a refund in these circumstances without a length legal battle. 😂

Nobody has mentioned Trump. The world's greatest real estate mogul - lives rent free in the minds of millions.

 

[God of Biscuits]

LMFAO. They made tens of millions off subscriptions for an app that was a wrapper around unauthorized APIs from a 4th party service. They were dumb as rocks to actually believe this would go on indefinitely. Everyone is entitled to a refund.

you gotta be F’ing kidding me.

 

[God of Biscuits]

So, let me get this straight...I should opt out of getting a refund from a company that didn't supply what they said they would because it's someone else's fault that they can't deliver it? How about this: they stop whining, give back all the money that they were given for nothing, and sue Twitter for what they think they're owed?

How about this: indie developers are the reason your iPhone exists in the form it does. theyre the reason the Mac survived and Apple survived. They’re small businesses who do amazing things.

the richest man in the world just pulled the rug out from underneath a bunch of them in a move no one could have predicted. these developers are NOT DEMANDING anything. They’re asking you to consider what you’re doing. They’re engaging in good will.

Remember good will? Or is a percentage of $10 “on principle“ enough to make you comfortable ending indie developers that have been around for decades?

 

[sdf]

As I've said elsewhere, the App Store is mostly responsible for the push to subscriptions. Without an option for paid upgrades within an app developers have no way of continuing to fund development... Given the way that Apple constantly updates and deprecates APIs, and requires evidence of ongoing development this means developers have to keep moving or else they risk their app starting to break or being removed from the store.

Absolutely, although I think I like yearly subscription is better than per version updates. The first is much easier to predict.

The mistake really comes in trying to do both at once.

 

[Night Spring]

As an app developer myself, this is the right take. I hate subscriptions and I hate that it’s how our society has progressed.

The majority of software should be paid upgrades. It will encourage better features from devs and take back software from being viewed as a “service” when most of the time it’s not, it’s a product.

Couldn't agree more! Apple could build a function where the Developer, when updating an app, can select if this is a paid or free update. Users would then be offered a choice to either pay for the update, or continue using the old version. A little bit complex, but quite doable.

Imagine believing you would get away with reselling someone else's service without paying them.

"Reselling"? what are you talking about?

They knew the risks of building a business on top of another one like this. Look, I like the Tweetbot devs, they built something great, but from a pure business stance, I can’t allow myself to not ask for the refund. It’s dangerous to set a precedent like this and will open a giant can of worms about accountability.

If I pay for a service and the service is terminated, then I don’t see why they should get what is basically free money? They are a corporation, not my family, not my friends. My subscription isn’t a donation, it’s transactional in nature, I give and I receive. This feel like a donation. If people want to donate their remaining subscription sure go right ahead, have my blessing, but don’t you dare trying to pressure me into doing the same and calling me name, the worst of the worst or something akin to a basket of deplorables because we disagree and I don’t have feelings towards another corporation.

Yes, this is a donation, and I think reasonable people could disagree over whether the developers are deserving of this kind of help in this circumstance. I think what happened is before reading reasons why the developers may not deserve our kindness, people who thought of this as an instance of us being asked to be kind to our fellow human beings, perceived those refusing to help as being unkind, and reacted emotionally to the perceived unkindness.

Also, while some perceive the subscription fee as a real "subscription," that is, as payment for services to be rendered each month, others see it as a proxy for an upgrade fee that Apple doesn't provide the means to collect. To those thinking of it as a proxy for an upgrade fee, the service has already been rendered through the various updates to the app they have already received, and so they might feel more inclined to refuse the refund. And if you think of the payment that way, asking for a refund might feel like taking back money for a product you already got use out of.

I personally haven't used either of these apps, but if I had, I would be inclined to refuse the refund, both because I feel the developers were put in a bad situation through no fault of their own (Musk is such a volatile character, I don't think it's possible to foresee every adverse move he may make), and I would feel like accepting refund is taking back money for a product I've already used.