Slashdot Mirror
Apple Asked Developers To Adopt Subscriptions and Hike App Prices, Report Says (venturebeat.com)
Apple invited a group of app developers to a secret April 2017 meeting in New York's Tribeca district, asking them to move from selling apps at low prices to renting app access through subscriptions, Business Insider reports. From a story: This change is intended to keep users paying for apps "on a regular basis, putting money into developer coffers on a regular schedule," the report claims.
that is all.
I have to say, as an application user I really don't like recurring charges for apps.
But as an application developer, I realize there is a very real need for recurring revenue. After someone buys an application they can reasonably expect support and updates for a while, all that takes money...
Yes you can and should charge a fair amount up front to try and cover two years of maintenance. But much past that and I really feel like application developers deserve at least some kind of upgrade revenue.
I honestly think trial version support along with some way to demark newer major versions of an app along with upgrade pricing for major updates would fix all this. If a new buyer for an app could be charged $15 while an upgrade user from v3 of the app could be charged $10, it would all work out a lot better... you can rig in-app purchases to kind of work this way but it would be much nicer for all with an officially supported upgrade path.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Sky is blue, water is wet, corporations want more profit. You expected otherwise?
LUDDITE Apple wants LUDDITES to pay with LUDDITE money instead of paying with modern appy app apps! Only apps can app apps!
Apps!
This change is intended to keep users paying for apps "on a regular basis, putting money into developer coffers on a regular schedule," the report claims.
This change is intended to keep users paying for apps "on a regular basis, putting money into Apple's coffers on a regular schedule," the report claims.
Software becomes a true cash cow when it's "maintenance" or subscriptions.
However, I've still yet to find an app that I need badly enough that I'd pay $0.01 for it, so whether it's a one-time fee or a monthly fee, it won't matter because I'll never pay for it.
It'll keep growing until suddenly nobody has enough money to subscribe to the next app. What follows will make the 1983 market crash look tame.
God I'm so fucking tired of apps. App this, app that.
Blah blah blah. There's so little fucking software I'd subscribe to it isn't funny, even fewer apps.
Apps exist to collect your data, monetize it, and show you ads. The average app is a steaming piece of shit, written by idiots and sold by assholes.
Fuck Apple, fuck apps, fuck app developers. We've reached peak goddamned fucking app.
Enough of this mobile app bullshit, it's seriously reduced the quality of software as everyone writes some piece of shit software with the intention of getting rich off ads. Fuck that, show me a fucking ad and I uninstall your software.
I shit on your fucking apps.
This 'rental' business model is complete and utter bullshit, and I don't limit that to computers: it seems like everything is moving in that direction, and I don't see it being good for anyone except the people on the receiving end of the money.
This sounds suspiciously like illegal market collusion and price fixing! Collusion! Fake News!
So nice of Apple looking out for the little guy and giving them additional revenue without taking their usual cut.
Oh wait, no it seems that they want their 30% cut of that too. So a product that has already been released and doesn't require users finding or downloading, Apple is going to take a 30% share of that too? Sheesh, why not just make a variable Apple tax that all users get charged each month so Apple makes their profit margin they want? Isn't 1Trillion enough for them?
Either greed or incompetence.
You want more money.
Or you need it to keep the people on to fix your piece of crap.
The millennial that doesn't like most of the stuff designed for millennials.
putting money into developer coffers
More like putting more money into Apples coffers.
sudo rm -r -f --no-preserve-root /
Why do application developers need recurring revenue from the application?
Because I cannot live forever on $10.
If people want a company to keep developing an application over many years, they need to provide the revenue to do so...
Demanding that the one time you pay for software should pay for $20 years of use is way more of a "fuck you" to the app developer than a recurring payment is...
it doesn't make it a need.
How can you seriously claim there is not a real NEED for more money to continue development after a few years? A company needs employees to be paid, they do not get paid once. They need to keep up with modern devices for testing, that requires laying out cash over time. Web sites and other online resources are paid for over time as well. *ALL* costs for a company are over time, not a single charge only paid for once. So how can you reasonably expect to use software forever without helping the developers out again at some point?
Like I said, I feel like a one time payment that you can expect to cover two years is fair. That way you are not paying for 10 or 20 years that may never happen, but at the same time it's enough of a buffer for the company to reasonably pay for updates and R&D.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
you can fund the cost of the update from those new sales
I agree with that though I think to some extent you should pan to pay at least in part for major versions through previous purchases already made and not just newer sales.
personally I wouldnâ(TM)t want to pay a subscription fee or pay for major upgrades
I agree about subscriptions but why not pay something for major upgrades? Again it does not have to be full price... that's the way software has worked for quite a long time. I'm not a stickler to do things a certain way jus because they have aways been done that way, but that model seems pretty good and has evolved over a long period of time.
In app purchases are another matter, I donâ(TM)t mind paying extra for extra features. And Iâ(TM)ve been asked often enough to implement a certain feature by someone willing to pay for it... I wonder how well voluntary in app donations would work for this sort of stuff.
That makes me wonder if you could have an in-app donation Kickstarter to fund features, give users a price at which a feature will be developed, some different tiers they could purchase in-app, and some kind of extra reward... only downside is the app developer cannot give back money for an in-app purchase I think, in the case that a feature didn't get enough interest to be developed.
Perhaps there's some minimum level of feature people would get regardless, and the in-app donations were trying to reach another level of capability... with some alternative reward if that level was not met.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
ianal, that sounds rather like a price fixing scheme of some variety to me. I wonder what a lawyer in the appropriate field would think of that
It's a wonder how companies like Broderbund, Sierra, and others survived back in the latter decades of the 20th Century without charging over and over and over for the same game or other piece of software?
Oh, that's right. Programmers back then continued to work on new products to also sell. It was almost like having a job.
And if your software right out of the box requires constant updates, then you sold a defective product, and it is on you to make it right, without making your customer shell out even more $$ to fix your fuckups.
This space unintentionally left blank.
People so self-indulgent they'd rather fork out for some stupid app on a monthly basis instead of buying it outright need a quick kick in the crotch. It would serve as a reminder that rewarding behaviour like this simply encourages more of it.
It doesn't matter whether you're talking about apps, full programs, cars, hardware or houses, the case for leasing/renting always favours the big guy. The best you can do is decide whatever small conveniences accrue to you are worth the boning you're going to get in many other respects.
I've calculated my velocity with such exquisite precision that I have no idea where I am.
Can you still get a 16gig iPhone? I have a little over 250 apps on my phone now. A mass adoption of the subscription model would cut that down to a dozen or so. I'd be left with whatever $dayJob is willing to fund.
I've always liked this approach. If the end user doesn't see the need to pay for an upgrade, they are still left with a functioning program.
Exactly, that's why I like that approach also - I think it's reasonable for some people to ant to skip a major update, either for a while until they know it is stable or altogether and wait a few major version changes before updating.
That's why different separate apps for major version updates make a lot of sense to me. I just want to be able to have easy way for a new major version purchaser to pay less if they already bought the previous version (maybe even free if they bought it within a certain window of time).
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
I basically object to being made to pay for software subscriptions.
I've got enough monthly expenses, etc.
Now, that being said, if I were given an option to re-buy certain pieces of software every 2-3 years, I'd fucking do it in a heartbeat.
I have a piece of software on my phone now, EasyTether. Their sale price was a measly $10. And it's saved me THOUSANDS of dollars in hotel Internet fees over the last 8 years or so. And, every time I upgrade to a new phone (or have to handset swap because of warranty replacement), I simply send them my previous auth code and my new IMEI and they send me an updated auth code.
Quite simply, if the asking price was $20, it'd be a steal. If it was $20 every time I had to move to a new handset? I'd STILL pay it. GLADLY!
But if they switched to a subscription model, where the software just stopped working unless my payments continued?
Nah! Fuck that! I refuse to allow ANYONE that manner of control over me.
Chas - The one, the only.
THANK GOD!!!
Amen brother
The millennial that doesn't like most of the stuff designed for millennials.
Back then software wasn't constantly updated since there was no distribution mechanism to do so.
Now people don't want a new version of a program, they want one program that evolves over time.
Other than big name companies, like Netflix, who pays for a subscription to an app?
I'm not, can't imagine many people are.
sure fire way for me to not buy an app
Programmers now also work on new features on the same product. To offset the cost of development and derive some income from it they can either call it a new 2.0 product and sell it to offset the cost of development, or they can ask for a subscription to help pay for ongoing development and release of new functionality. If your software right out of the box *gets* constant updates that means someone is committed to ongoing development and support. If you think there is any developer on this planet who has released a bug-free product then you are dialed in from somewhere else and you are clearly not a "programmer".
It's a wonder how companies like Broderbund, Sierra, and others survived back in the latter decades of the 20th Century without charging over and over and over for the same game or other piece of software?
That shows either a really bad understanding of technology or an unwillingness to seriously debate.
A) Those are games, which most people play for a while and they drop. It didn't matter if updates didn't follow along for newer OS versions, people didn't expect them past a certain point of time. Exactly as I stated with my thought that you should pa once for about two years of support.
B) Broderbund, Sierra and others used the HELL out of different game engines to produce multiple games. So in fact they DID charge you over and over, where you were basically paying for the same game engine use with new content.
And if your software right out of the box requires constant updates,
It's not that it necessarily requires it; it's that users can reasonably expect continued support through OS updates and new hardware that comes more frequently now. Even back then you still got game updates at times.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
What the fuck do I care? Why is your business model my fucking problem?
See, you as an app developer offer a product. If it is priced such that it has value to me, I might buy it. If it is priced such that id doesn't have value to me, I won't.
Just because a company makes software, it doesn't mean they make good software, or that they deserve to stay in business or are capable of doing so.
Big fucking deal, you wrote an app .. apparently the bar for that is pretty low, and most any halfwit can do that. Which means you are just as likely to be a drooling idiot trying to cash in on an app as you are to have been someone who has something of value.
Why the fuck would I sign up for a subscription for your software without finding out for myself which of those two is true?
You're not entitled to on-going revenue from me, so please don't give me some hardship story about all of the mouths you need to feed and how onerous it is to collect and sell my personal information.
Apps are transactional. If it's free, I'll try it and decide if I care. If it's not free, I better have a good solid reason to believe it's worth it to me.
You're also free to fuck off, go out of business, and stop acting like the world owes you a revenue stream. From what I've seen, the shitwads running most app companies don't deserve the benefit of the doubt, and sure as fuck aren't going to get a subscription out of anybody.
All that apps have done it make it easier for the low-lives and shit-weasels to get the suckers to install their apps so they can be spied on. In that sense, you as an app developer are just another shitpile in a pile of shitpile ... and somehow you feel entitled to more money.
I hope the death of apps comes soon, because I'm tired of all of the whiny cunt app developers who think they are owed an income for writing mediocre software.
how nice of apple to care for the developers...oh wait, don't apple get a nice share of the proceeds?
Anyway, I remember my first subscription based software, it was an antivirus. You buy the full version, then pay for a yearly update then after a couple of years, you pay full price again. Good thing there was free antiviruses available. I heard windows is about to go subscription, sure glad linux is still free.
I don't mind paying for an app to bypass the ads but to make it a yearly subscription would make me look for something else. True the developers need to get paid but give me something that has added value, not just a refresh look if subscription based.
Now people don't want a new version of a program, they want one program that evolves over time.
Bullshit. Go to any forum on any popular software after an "evolution." 90% bitching.
People don't want what they bought to change. People want what they bought to work and keep working.
What the fuck do I care? Why is your business model my fucking problem?
The business model is BOTH our problems, developer and user alike. Because a bad business model either prevents you from getting software you would really like using, or gives you great software that is only around for a year (or less) before dying and going useless, or stopping updates.
Why the fuck would I sign up for a subscription for your software
See here is the part where I am with you, as I described in my first post - as a user I do not like subscriptions either. That is TOTALLY DIFFERENT than the concept of recurring revenue, which as a user I don't mind paying so much in the form of major software releases. I think that's where the confusion came in.
Apps are transactional. If it's free, I'll try it and decide if I care. If it's not free, I better have a good solid reason to believe it's worth it to me.
Exactly why I (and many others) continue to advocate that Apple provide good support for trial versions. To date people kind of hack that by free versions you can in-app purchases to full versions but I find that way more annoying than something like a 30 day free trial for all features.
You're not entitled to on-going revenue from me,
And never said I was; however you the user *are* I feel entitled to around two years of support and (some) improvements for the amount you pay initially.
An app developer should EARN future revenue. But eventually that future revenue has to be there or the business will die and software you might have liked using will fade away.
I am really sad you are so angry about this that you can't even see I was on your side all along, and trying to figure out how companies can stay in business while treating users fairly. But the users have to treat business fairly too at some point, and sometimes I feel like the complaining goes too heavily to the place where users demand infinite updates for free... something that can't go on forever, won't.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
No, that's what some programmers (and mostly managers) think. People don't want programs that constantly change for change sake. See the reception that windows 8 and 10 got. Most people still run 7. Or for a more modern example, the interface changes in Snapchat, or the changes that FB messanger wants to push on everyone (even to the point where they disabled their own debug interface because some hackers had found out how to disable the "stories" functionality).
It's a wonder how companies like Broderbund, Sierra, and others survived back in the latter decades of the 20th Century without charging over and over and over for the same game or other piece of software?
Well, this is true. To be fair though, a whole lot of software has the problem of having matured, and done so many versions ago. Typically the number of additional features in the 2.0 release would easily double the 1.0 release, and 3.0 would streamline those and add even more broadly useful features than that. It was an easy sell to have people buy every version.
If I did a bit of research I could likely find a legit answer, but I'm having trouble coming up with even five new features in MS Word between Office 2007 and Office 2016 which I readily use. A four version difference and I can't think of even one occasionally-useful feature? That's software that was in bug-fix-only mode.
Adobe was in the same spot. I still rock my copy of Production Premium CS6 I bought back in 2012, primarily because I'm hard pressed to find even one feature in Creative Cloud that I need...and aside from 4K editing and one or two other random things, CS3 would be just fine. Photoshop, Acrobat, InDesign...basically everything they sell hit maturity at some point in the 2000s.
The examples go on and on of software that achieved success, but got to the point where upgrading every 3rd version was enough. It's tough for many companies to keep their staff paid that way.
Oh, that's right. Programmers back then continued to work on new products to also sell. It was almost like having a job.
Well, this is true. However, new products are always a gamble. Branching out from a core product and providing integration can help to an extent, and sometimes there's a clear market need like with InDesign (when *everybody* hated Quark but also used Photoshop, the DTP market was Adobe's for the taking)...but trying to keep a software company viable to be a place where careers can be made at some point will end up requiring a predatory practice of some kind. Intuit will milk the SMB Accounting cow because they artificially cripple their software after a few years. Oracle is notorious for needing their software installed by lawyers. Microsoft is selling spots on the Start Menu to the highest bidder. Quite simply, the three choices a software company has is:
1. Fold up when the software is done being written.
2. Employ some sort of predatory, artificial revenue stream.
3. Get bought out by another software company, probably one that employs a predatory, artificial revenue stream.
And if your software right out of the box requires constant updates, then you sold a defective product, and it is on you to make it right, without making your customer shell out even more $$ to fix your fuckups.
This, I completely agree with. I don't think anyone is expecting 100% code perfection, but reliable operation and "not being a massive security leak" should be reasons for patches...and by 'patches' I mean "a service pack or two", not "an infinite number of bug fixes".
For the record, I'm very much against subscription-based software for the very reasons you specify. I do, however, understand that software companies who have made their money on mature software are stuck between a rock and a hard place.
As a developer I have absolutely no need of other apps, be it free, paid or subscription based. If I need an app to do task X, I write it myself. It's a win-win situation:
- I don't have to pay a penny. Ever. Free apps are hardly ever usable as their only purpose appears to be to "convince" users to buy a paid version.
- I can have the exact functionality I need.
- I don't have to be afraid that any of the apps will change in 2 months.
- I don't need to worry about my privacy as I am the one controlling my data.
- I know exactly what my apps do in the background.
- I'm not forced to see ads every minute of my life.
- My apps are always optimised and preserve battery life.
- I experience personal growth and become a better programmer.
All of them are the same. I believe the app gold rush is coming to an end. They will do anything to try boost those numbers, not just Apple, Google is the pioneer with this and that's the reason Play store does a ridiculous fraction if compared with App store.
Some will, probably enough to keep CRapple going. Not that they need the app developers, but you know CRapple gets a cut, and by moving to subscriptions, they make more, and can plan for future events by knowing a guaranteed source of revenue will come in each month.
Why do application developers need recurring revenue from the application?
Because I cannot live forever on $10.
If you sold 10 million copies at $10 per copy, you can live forever on $10. If you failed to do that your app was never worth the initial $10.
Anyone can make an app. Not everyone can make a successful app. If you can't make a successful app, then you tried, thanks for showing up, don't quit your day job.
You are not 'entitled' to live off of anything you make, least of all an app. If you're lucky, people will want what you make and reward you with the financial incentive to keep paying you to do it. Otherwise you're just piling more crap on to the pile.
We did quite well back then. IMHO it was a lot more fun. I really miss the 80's.
Because I cannot live forever on $10.
Try selling more than one copy of the application!
I'd have no problem with this if it were rolled out like the old model, where:
1. You buy a specific version of an application
2. You are guaranteed bugfixes and minor feature releases for a year or two
3. To get the next version with more features, you have to pay, but you can keep your "old" unsupported version if you want
Of course it probably won't be like this.
My Other Computer Is A Data General Nova III.
I doubt I am alone in being increasingly displeased by stuff Apple does.
The absence of a headphone jack means I will never buy an iPhone again. You don't have to be Sherlock Holmes to understand that Apple is trying to compel customers to buy headphones ( gee what a coincidence, Apple just happens to have headphones to sell ... ).
If Apple forces a subscription model for software, I won't buy that either.
I've had enough of companies insulting me with stuff like the above. If Apple wants to make sure it never gets any more money from me, Apple is
on the right track.
I don't see subscriptions as a bad thing per se, if done right. If the price is right, I'm willing to pay for software on an ongoing basis, especially if there is a data service and/or regular updates included in the subscription.
This allows developers to have a secure source of funding and know when to stop development (when the # of subscriptions drops to an unsustainable number).
But subscriptions just to add money to a coffer, especially if it goes to subsidize other unrelated products, seems to me to be a bad practice, especially if the price is high.
Because I cannot live forever on $10.
Neither can the guy who I bought a used Timex/Sinclair 1000 from 30+ years ago. But guess what? That has nothing to do with the price of a computer. And there is no fucking way I'd still be paying him.
11 years ago I was paid $25 for a 10 line Perl script that took about 15 minutes to write, including talking to the client about the requirements. Should I still be getting paid? If that fucker kept sending me payments, I'd be returning them.
If you want residual payments, instead of just saying "need" in place of "want" it might be more effective to look for a business model where it is natural for that to be the case. Businesses love recurring payments, and that implies they should learn something about them. Instead of just fantasizing. In software, that generally means either selling support or making a product where users are willing to pay for data updates. For example, an anti-virus program might reasonably be based on subscription, because the data is the product more than the software itself. Or a chess database program; it makes sense that they sell updated databases every year with new games and analysis. And it makes sense to also offer a cloud-based version of the program on subscription.
There is no reason to think you'd only have to work one time in your life, so there is no reason to even perceive a personal need for recurring payments.
Apple is blurring the lines between software and SAAS.
I expect to pay a one time purchase price for an mobile application that has no additional maintenance besides support for OS upgrades. The developer is going to make those anyway to continue selling their app on my chosen platform. There's no reason I should have to pay just to keep the lights on. Patches should also be included. I paid for a working app, not a bundle of bugs. If you're going to add a bundle of new features and sell it as a "pro" version of the app, or whatever, I'll give it a look, but I may be perfectly happy with my original purchase and have no desire to "upgrade". I'll keep using the one I bought until you stop supporting it, and then I'll delete it an find a replacement that may or may not be your product.
SAAS is a different story. Say I install an app like MLB At Bat. There is an annual subscription for content (similar to buying a season of NFL Sunday Ticket). The app is secondary because what I'm primarily paying for is the content. If the content provider is doing their job then the subscription should cover the cost of the product, product improvements, and patches.
The bottom line is that not all software is a service even though money-grubbing Apple would like to treat it that way.
then get rid of ALL microtransactions and make your shitty game work without them, without slowing things down to a crawl needlessly.
This is why I still use my Apple II and Macintosh computers - the OS doesn't keep changing and the software remains the same! Good luck developers, you can't get a subscription penny out of me!
Quite simply, the three choices a software company has is:
1. Fold up when the software is done being written.
2. Employ some sort of predatory, artificial revenue stream.
3. Get bought out by another software company, probably one that employs a predatory, artificial revenue stream.
Sorry, but that's crap. All businesses which have had huge successes selling something new to the market had to deal with the leveling off effect, and the vast majority kept right on going afterwards. In previous generations those businesses would have been selling objects, and succeeded (often massively) despite the fact that they still had to pay out serious money to keep manufacturing the items they sold, whether there were updates to it or not.
A finished program's incremental cost is zero, and companies selling them can't make a go of it without sleazy business practices? Really? Do you know how ludicrous that sounds to anyone who's run any other kind of business?
Software's problem is actually that the companies creating it have gotten used to truly obscene profits, and built their businesses around protecting those margins rather than producing a quality product. A company producing a mature program which only needed updating to keep up with changes in the environment in which it ran and the occasional feature request could easily support itself; its owners and employees would just have to accept that they'd make a good living, but nobody was going to be a billionaire.
To be fair, that era wasn't as bug-free as we'd like to remember. For example, the release of Sierra On-Line's Leisure Suit Larry 4 was riddled with problems at launch, such as the Vohaul virus that got on the production floppy disks and was then used as the master for the commercial release, etc.
#DeleteFacebook
Apple only take 15 percent after 12 months of a subscription. That's the carrot here.
Is there some sort of convergence of evil once corporations reach critical mass?
So is software like a thing or an object, where it's the same today as it was yesterday and will be tomorrow? Like a hammer or something?
Or is it more like a living thing that needs to be fed to stay alive, like a dog?
I mean there's some software I still use all the time that I've had since the late 1990s and I don't know how it still works on Windows 2016, but it does. But there's applications I've bought much more recently that I'd like to use, but they don't work anymore because the OS changed in some way and it broke the application.
And then there's some that I don't want to run anymore, they don't do what I need done anymore. Not enough pixels, or not enough SMP, or something about it is inadequate for what I want to do. Or the data it uses it out of date and irrelevant, like an encyclopedia.
I think mostly the software world is in constant flux and it takes a lot of maintenance to keep it running right and doing what's relevant. I'm just disappointed they charge money like they were going to do meaningful fixes and improvements and instead just create monopolies and never tend to the software.
I'm left with a worthless hammer and a mean and unpredictable dog.
And if your software right out of the box requires constant updates, then you sold a defective product, and it is on you to make it right
Even if the updates are mostly to reflect changes in tax law or other externally imposed requirements since the product was shipped? Intuit TurboTax and H&R Block At Home (formerly TaxCut) have annual editions for this reason.
corporate greed knows no bounds, already most of the world cannot afford first world software, or hardware. Funny how billionaires are so fing needy. Talk about a crime ... it's tragic just how unethical the upper class really is ...
sure we can, we can pirate your shitty software and mock you while doing so.
I'm not so sure about adobe. I've had a couple of photographers tell me they wish they just had the subscription as opposed to their now outdated version of adobe. My wife got the subscription and some of the features she uses to touch things up are made much easier in the LIVE software vs prior years models. I'm sure you could use the prior years and get the same effects, but apparently they have changed it to make it easier.
Not really that into photography but that's what my wife and friends have told me about their experience with adobe.
I still generally agree with your post overall, but their are definitely edge cases.
I made a program that didn't have any bugs.. It is however pretty hard to fuck up "Hello World".
Yeah a Hello World program is not a product but if you were dialing in from another world then I guess it would be in context.
...I just worked out why MY "Hello Wrold" program isn't selling...
Wow, That was good man.
It's not about writing bugfree software. It's about pricing your software properly to include the cost of bugfixing up front. If you can't do that you're an amateur who doesn't deserve my money.
Because I cannot live forever on $10.
Try selling more than one copy of the application!
Or find another job.
This is that part of "everybody deserves a trophy" that fucks up society.
4. Develop a product people want and sell it for a price that covers the cost of further development such as bugfixes or desirable content. ...you know, like a professional would.
Right. So how many bugs do you think the purchase price should cover and for how long? Does it cover just the current product or does it include any new bugs introduced as new features are added to the product? Would you be upset if I introduced a new version of the product that included new features but you had to purchase the new version? Or would you prefer to get the product free but pay a subscription in order to access the new features as they're released? And maybe you could ask your mom for some extra pocket money to cover the cost of the subscription so you wouldn't even be out of pocket.
I made a program that didn't have any bugs.. It is however pretty hard to fuck up "Hello World".
type type type *execute* "Hello Worled"
How many years of bugfixes? Are you supposed to sell an app once and support it on all new devices for the next 20 years?
It seems like there needs to be a way to either charge for updates at some point or make it so that someone can't roll all their purchased apps onto their new device indefinitely. It doesn't matter how much you charge, over a long enough timespan the cost of maintenance will eventually be more than the initial price.
I thought we hated capitalism here?! LOL
Personally I hope Apple keeps this up. It will open up competitive versions of apps whereby they will undercut those developers who were talked into being greedy.
Because I cannot live forever on $10.
And because for every Angry Birds, there are exactly 1.29 X 10^97 Applications that fill a particular want or need, but do so for a smaller audience.
that's a gross idea and when it catches on I want ads gone. No more ads ever. That's fair you want regular payments then apps will be worth it and there will be no ads at all. No product placement, not interrupting videos, no analytic data collection. But that's not what will happen. They'll do subscriptions, high costs, AND have ads. We've seen this in consoles and it's coming to mobile which is only fair since consoles stole so much of the monetizaton ideas from mobile in the first place.
You keep on with that "dialing in from another world" my assumption is you have a fair bit of years on me, and don't understand the humor. I'm basically saying "Fuck that, nobody is dumb enough to fall for you bullshit, "app" developers are lucky they find the morons they do tot buy their garbage. I hope this helps :) glhf.
THIS, it was a different era of pride in development that saw the potential of a system perform beyond its initial design. Many games on cartridge could not be changed once shipped, so people did real work to make it work. And work it did.
Fuck I miss cartridge. Instant on always amazed me compared to tape, floppy, hdd, cd etc.
Gaming houses shipped actual physical copies with pewter figurines and maps of cloth and thick ass manuals with lore. All for under $60AUD back in the late 80's, early 90's. Now-a-days, we get jack shit filled with ads AND STILL pay money for gems.
Fuck that. It's the dumbass's of the world we are being forced to devolve towards now that the neckbeards of the early era have retired.
If you develop an application that is worth a damn AND not treat your userbase like the only reason they exist is to give you money, you won't need a subscription model.
One application off the top of my head that fits this description:
Zbrush from Pixologic
Cost me $600 many, many years ago and every update and even upgrades cost exactly nothing for legitimate, registered users.
One could say the pirated / cracked versions also cost nothing assuming you trust the folks doing the cracking to be honorable upstanding types. ( I don't, thus do I pay full price for quality applications I use frequently )
I have been burned too many times when an upgrade / update broke something and rendered the entire platform useless.
I want the option to determine if your application upgrades are worth my support or not.
This puts pressure on YOU to keep developing an application worthy of use vs being lazy because subscription dollars are rolling in.
Oh, funny.
Yes! Keep fucking the Apple lovers! Whooha!
Software's problem is actually that the companies creating it have gotten used to truly obscene profits, and built their businesses around protecting those margins rather than producing a quality product. A company producing a mature program which only needed updating to keep up with changes in the environment in which it ran and the occasional feature request could easily support itself; its owners and employees would just have to accept that they'd make a good living, but nobody was going to be a billionaire.
The owners are shareholders and demand increasing profits, so a subscription model where incremental small changes are released perfectly fits that model, regardless of the value delivered for the subscription cost.
The cost for subscription licences is massively increasing software budgets in my organisation, and the only way to reduce them is to drop users and consequently service delivery. In the meantime these companies are smoothing out revenues streams and reducing pressure to deliver something worth buying every few years - a lose-lose situation for their customers.
A lot of "developments" on Google Play along the same lines. Good, established software is being bought out, gutted of features and switched to a "subscription model".
aCar, jrummy, QuickPic, to name a few. But the list is much, much longer.
It's not really a wonder when you look at what has changed:
1. Physical distribution model where there were boxes, manuals and diskettes required to be shipped and accounted for with profit markup.
2. Developers weren't circle-jerking themselves with a constant treadmill of not-real-feature releases with the Agile cult.
3. The operating systems were not a moving target being released every single year, and the API ecosystems weren't as deep or complex. (Privacy wasn't a concern and devs could have COMPLETE CONTROL of your computer for the entire application run time.)
4. There were no 30% skims off the top of the profit from another company.
5. The end users have become deadbeats, expecting an all-singing all-dancing program to work perfectly for $0.99, where the app dev takes home $0.66 per user before taxes!
Adoption of subscription models by devs is just a natural reaction to the mess of a marketplace expectations that is FUBAR.
CGP Grey mentioned this year on the Cortex podcast how he favors subscription-based apps for his productivity needs. The rationale being that app developers without a steady revenue stream are prone to abandoing their apps. Subscriptions are an indicator that they will hang around and maintain their app.
They can keep their crAPPs if they're going to start "charging subscriptions." Apple needs to be broken up. Where the FUCK is the FTC in all this bullshit? Oh, I almost forgot. It's part of the US govnerment that doesn't work worth a fuck anymore because some idiots and assholes let a fucking reality show clown run it.
There was no Leisure Suit Larry 4. The series went straight from LL3 to LL5. The "missing game" was a major part of the backstory for LL5.
Hello Wurld
Be kind, for everyone you meet is fighting a difficult battle. - Plato
Still good enough for microsoft.
Both you and the moderator have no sense of humour.
"how many bugs do you think the purchase price should cover"
As many as are introduced.
"for how long?"
Depends. If you fix all bugs that appear in the first year, you're probably good, but it really depends on the type of software and the severity of the bug.
"cover just the current product or does it include any new bugs introduced"
If you keep adding bugs, you should keep fixing bugs. Again, this period depends on the scope o& what's being added and how it impacts existing features (probably not a big deal if a new bug only hits a new feature, for example).
"Would you be upset if I introduced a new version of the product that included new features but you had to purchase the new version?"
No. Just find a good way to present the differences in your app materials, so I can make an informed decision. It's better to not introduce a feature I don't want or that has bugs in it than it is to not introduce a feature.
"would you prefer to get the product free but pay a subscription in order to access the new features as they're released?"
No. I would be very unlikely to pay for your software if that was the model. It's nice to have a demo, though. Crippleware is a pretty good model so you don't have two versions of the app on the store, but has to be done with care.
"maybe you could ask your mom for some extra pocket money to cover the cost of the subscription so you wouldn't even be out of pocket."
This has to do with value. I regulary drop $15+ on apps. Recently I downloaded a free app that had integrated donations between $1 and $32. I payed $16.
Stop making excuses. Act like a professional and stop whining that you can't figure out how to run a business.
"How many years of bugfixes?"
Depends on the type of software and the severity of the bug. As a rule of thumb, if you're not introducing any new bugs and you fix all the bugs reported in the first year, you're probably pretty good.
"are you supposed to sell an app once and support it on all new devices for the next 20 years?"
If you fixed the bugs as mentioned above, there are almost no support costs. If you develop against non-deprecated APIs (if you're not, you're a crap developer) then there's literally nothing you have to do to support new devices. You don't stop supporting the platform, the platform stops supporting you.
"seems like there needs to be a way to either charge for updates at some point"
No. No there doesn't. If your app is desirable, you have new customers coming in to cover costs. If your app is no longer selling, start working on your next app. If you are concerned about supporting two apps, open source the old one.
"make it so that someone can't roll all their purchased apps onto their new device indefinitely"
No. No there doesn't. That's a pure money grab. You didn't do anything to earn that revenue. I purchased a license to use your software. I did not rent it.
"It doesn't matter how much you charge, over a long enough timespan the cost of maintenance will eventually be more than the initial price."
Then stop supporting it and move on to your next app. This is about being a professional, not about tying you up it the basement to work as a slave. If your app isn't earning you money, make a new app. If none of your apps are earning you money, stop making apps. If the worst 99% of the app developers went out of business tomorrow, the app ecosystem would be a much better place.
But the user wanted it to say "Hello $name" and now it has a buffer overflow.
Slow down, cowboy! It has been 4 hours since you last posted. You must wait another few hours.
In other words, Apple is trying to push people into artificially inflating prices for software in order to increase profits. Sounds like it's time for a gov't investigation of Apple.
Sorry, but that's crap. All businesses which have had huge successes selling something new to the market had to deal with the leveling off effect, and the vast majority kept right on going afterwards. In previous generations those businesses would have been selling objects, and succeeded (often massively) despite the fact that they still had to pay out serious money to keep manufacturing the items they sold, whether there were updates to it or not.
Yes, but there are businesses where there are, for lack of a better term, "de facto subscriptions"- like restaurants and supermarkets, since I will need to eat daily. Other businesses benefit from thermodynamics; cars and toaster ovens and clothing wear out eventually. Perpetually licensed software doesn't wear out, and if I buy it once there's no need to ever buy the same version of the product again.
A finished program's incremental cost is zero, and companies selling them can't make a go of it without sleazy business practices? Really? Do you know how ludicrous that sounds to anyone who's run any other kind of business?
Not ludicrous at all, actually. At some point, everyone who needs a particular piece of software will already have it. The issue is on the demand side - a piece of mature software has only so many customers, meaning that the revenue a particular piece of software can earn will decrease with time rather than increase, and commercial software vendors still need to pay rent and payroll. The incremental cost of a finished program is only 'zero' if the company lays off all its developers and closes its offices and distributes the software on a torrent; even if a piece of software is not developed further but is still sold to the asymptotic client base the company itself needs to remain solvent.
Now, I'm wagering that your response is going to be "so then developers should work on different software!" Well, that works, but only if a development firm can consistently produce disparate pieces of software that are all commercially successful with relatively little overlap. It's an incredible feat to make happen.
Software's problem is actually that the companies creating it have gotten used to truly obscene profits, and built their businesses around protecting those margins rather than producing a quality product. A company producing a mature program which only needed updating to keep up with changes in the environment in which it ran and the occasional feature request could easily support itself; its owners and employees would just have to accept that they'd make a good living, but nobody was going to be a billionaire.
I agree with this to a certain extent, but it is tough to make the raw numbers work. Prior to Creative Cloud, Photoshop cost $699. Let's pretend CS2 was the 'finished' version, with subsequent releases exactly what you describe - Formal Windows 7/8/10 support, a minor feature request here or there, and so forth. Do you think they'd be able to sell de facto service packs at $700 a pop? Let's assume that $600 of that was profit...would everyone buy $99 service packs every few years? Even if everyone decided they would be comfortable with a middle class lifestyle, I'm hard pressed to say that $99 service packs would be enough to keep everyone employed. Let's pretend that $199 would be able to sustain everyone...well, first off that's about the same price as they're charging for CC now, and second, it's high enough for there to be greater expectations on what comes in those service packs, especially since Serif is selling Affinity Photo for $50 outright.
Like I said, we agree that subscription software is undesirable, and it's why I don't subscribe to anything. However, I really don't see how the three options I presented don't describe the majority of outcomes for commercial software vendors.
Are you willing to pay $20 for every security fix, or just prefer to save money and have the app being a gaping security hole on your phone?
Security holes are defects. Defective software should be either refunded in full or patched by the developer at no additional charge, on penalty of being banned from publishing in the app store altogether. This applies not only for security issues but also for any advertised features which do not function properly.
It is reasonable to expect users to pay for new major versions with new features. The old versions should remain usable for existing users who are not interested in upgrading, with no built-in expiration dates or malicious "security updates" which disable existing features. If the platform changes such that the app no longer works (and not because the developer put in checks for specific platform versions—a form of built-in expiration date) then that is a between the platform developers and the user.
The subscription model does make sense for apps which primarily serve as front-ends for centralized network services. In that case you're not so much subscribing to the app so much as subscribing to the service the app depends on, which represents an ongoing expense for the service provider.
"The state is that great fiction by which everyone tries to live at the expense of everyone else." - Bastiat
Security "defects" as you call them are discovered in libraries, communication protocols, CPU's, and other things which the app simply uses. Some stem from bugs, others simply from the fact that more computing power is becoming available - what was not feasible to brute force 10 years ago can be hacked today with a couple of high end GPU's. The fixes are often still needed in the app. Sure, you can say app needs to be supported forever, but you wouldn't be able to afford such an app because it would need a designated developer so that next time there is something like new old TLS being depricated because it's too weak, or there are CPU bugs like specter and meltdown which will allow the attacker to ready any credentials your app is using. Then there is the fact that if the app is using a library which is no longer supported, you need to port the app to the new library because the old one is left unpatched.
Personally, I used to hate the software lease model, but over the years I learned to appreciate it, mostly because it gives the maker incentive to patch and keep things compatible with the world. Today, I'd rather pay $1/month for an app than $20 one time fee.
Technically, if the dog is mean and unpredictable, you might have a use for the hammer. In case you need it for self defense, or playing fetch.
Security "defects" as you call them are discovered in libraries, communication protocols, CPU's, and other things which the app simply uses. Some stem from bugs, others simply from the fact that more computing power is becoming available...
The app developer chooses the libraries which ship as part of the application. That makes them responsible if there is a defect in the library, regardless of who originally developed it. Security holes in system libraries, CPUs, etc. are still defects, but they aren't defects in the app and so I wouldn't expect the app developer to be held responsible for fixing them. The focus here is on bugs in the app's code and reasonable security expectations as of the time the product was sold. Updating the app to address new threats is more akin to implementing new features than fixing defects.
it gives the maker incentive to patch and keep things compatible with the world
You don't need a lease model for that. If ongoing compatibility is an issue then users will pay for upgrades. The incentive for patching is to maintain one's reputation, avoid liability for security holes in the app, and discharge the reasonable minimum obligations enforced by the app stores. What the lease model gets you is the ability to extract an ongoing, unearned rent from users who are perfectly happy with the existing version of the software and see no reason to upgrade.
Personally—assuming I can't find an open-source application to do what I need—I would much rather pay a reasonable amount up front for indefinite access to a particular version of the software, upgrading to newer versions at my own discretion and expense, than enter into any kind of lease arrangement where my access to the software can be revoked without warning at the developer's whim. I'm in the market for a tool, not a long-term, and typically one-sided, relationship.
"The state is that great fiction by which everyone tries to live at the expense of everyone else." - Bastiat
So close to having a reasonable discussion. The answer is "it depends". It depends on the purpose of the software. Something like monument is a great game but a big bet for the developers involving many hours of effort by a team. How do you bankroll something like that, who would back something that carries so much risk?
If the sole purpose of your software is to extract money from your customers, then in-app purchases are perfect and there is plenty of background material on how to make apps addictive.
If you have an itch that needs scratching then open source is a good option.
Back in the day I worked for Unisys and they had a software switch in their mainframes (I assume they're not the only ones) that when flipped gave the machine more horsepower. But you had to pay them to flip the switch - not a model I subscribe to.
There is no single right answer but as a professional developer who isn't working for a corporate, who isn't contracting, who is trying to build something of value while raising a family, there are no obvious good choices. I take the approach that whatever I do, there needs to be a fair exchange of value. That means I don't take your email address and sell it, I don't make your browsing history available to Facebook, I don't clip the ticket on payments. And virtue signalling doesn't make you an authority.
How's life in the hypocrite lane?
Should have used QBasic.
Those little physical trinkets really helped give each company its own distinct personality.
I remember back when I started selling online, almost any swag from any of the Ultima games up to then was always a pretty much guaranteed cha ching.
Nowadays, I have no idea (guess I could look it up, but don't feel like it. :p ). I think back in the day, almost anyone trying to sell Ultima related stuff almost always did so hoping to attract the attention of one particular buyer: Fortrandragon.
But alas, it looks like he must have finally retired from active collecting after achieving what I presume is the most holy grail (and not just a grail shaped beacon) of Ultima Collectors.
This space unintentionally left blank.