Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Apple Asked Developers To Adopt Subscriptions and Hike App Prices, Report Says (venturebeat.com)

Posted by msmash on from the road-to-a-trillion-dollar dept.

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.

13 of 276 comments (clear)

  1. Caught in the middle with you by SuperKendall · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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
    1. Re:Caught in the middle with you by Aighearach · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Why do application developers need recurring revenue from the application?

      That like saying, "I need all your money!" It is easy to understand the motivation to want more money, but it doesn't make it a need.

      I'll stick with open source apps. Those developers somehow don't "need" my money. And even though I need money generally, when I write an open source app because I wanted to use it, it doesn't cost me any money to release it. So it isn't obvious to me that there is a relationship there where money is necessary to encourage mutually beneficial behavior.

      Clearly the hardware vendor needs some money in exchange for the device; once. And the network operator will need recurring payments, as the service is provided in the continuous tense.

    2. Re:Caught in the middle with you by jellomizer · · Score: 3, Insightful

      As a software developer. I have never written a program and said there it is done, this program is absolutely perfect.
      As a software user. I have never used a program where I thought this program is done, absolutely perfect I will never need to upgrade it again.

      As a software user even for open source apps, I want bugs fix, security holes closed down, interface improved, updates to match newer system....
      This takes time and money. If the application is any good, I would want compensation for the hard work I put into it. Even if I release it Open Source, I will need credit, praises, at least, and for most open source products of complexity. They are developers at these companies being paid to make this software better and work for the business needs for the company. You as the home consumer may get the benefit of these changes, but they were not done for you but for the company building it.

      Running a business is expensive. It is more then the sum of all its parts, it needs money in reserve, it needs to support what it has.
       

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    3. Re:Caught in the middle with you by omnichad · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I have never used a program where I thought this program is done, absolutely perfect I will never need to upgrade it again.

      Well I absolutely have. There are plenty of small utilities especially where I don't need anything new for the foreseeable future - so long as some OS update doesn't come in and sabotage/break it.

    4. Re:Caught in the middle with you by Aighearach · · Score: 3, Insightful

      As a software user. I have never used a program where I thought this program is done, absolutely perfect I will never need to upgrade it again.

      That only tells me that you select low quality tools. There are very very few software tools that I use that I would want to upgrade. Some, due to their nature, will require security updates. Others will not.

      I don't need to try a new paradigm, all the current user interface paradigms existed already 30 years ago, those decisions should have already been made.

      I don't think you actually thought it through, I think you just regurgitate the line that sounds pro-money.

    5. Re: Caught in the middle with you by DontBeAMoran · · Score: 5, Insightful

      As a developer, I can't see why I should keep charging for the same shit. Sure, new features/functionality are a reason since they take time , but it'll soon get to a point where I'd be adding 'features' just for the sake of it, ending up with a pile of bloatware and pissed off customers.

      You just described the problem of all the big players out there: Microsoft, Apple, Google, Adobe, Autodesk, etc.

      There's a reason a lot of us are still using older computers, older operating systems and older programs. Apart from security patches, we don't want anything except to keep using our systems as they are today.

      All updates do is break stuff we do use, add shit we'll never use, mess around with configurations and workflows and just add bloat to things that used to work fine but now need a computer that's twice as powerful to do the things we used to do - because of bloat we'll never use. Fuck that.

      --
      #DeleteFacebook
  2. FTFY by Daemonik · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  3. Fuck Apple, fuck Microsoft, fuck all similar by Rick+Schumann · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:Fuck Apple, fuck Microsoft, fuck all similar by misnohmer · · Score: 3, Insightful

      If you want security patches you need the developers to have an incentive to release them. Some are extremely complex fix (specter/meltdown for example) and there isn't sufficient ROI to do that - they already have your money, no more money coming in. This is a big reason why most phones don't get updates, no longer in production and no more money coming from customers to fund it, so people walk around with phones which can be hacked any script kiddie can download. With a subscription service, there is funding to continue support. Without it, developers time is better used creating new products.

  4. Ahhh, Apple wants to help fund developers by bob4u2c · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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?

  5. Yer greedy cunts by volodymyrbiryuk · · Score: 2, Insightful

    putting money into developer coffers

    More like putting more money into Apples coffers.

    --
    sudo rm -r -f --no-preserve-root /
  6. Re:Developer costs are not fixed, why should apps by Scarletdown · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.
  7. Re: Developer costs are not fixed, why should apps by johanw · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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).