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.
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
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.
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.
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?
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
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.
When you "buy" an app it merely allows you access to it which was artificially restricted before. Doing this costs nearly nothing. So it's basically money for nothing. Yes, development has costs but you're not selling your development effort, but restriction removals, totally different thing. There is no economic mechanism to ensure that compensation is adequate to effort. The app that is used by tens of people isn't necessarily takes 10000 more effort than app used by 100000 of people. As long as this disconnect exists people will always be leery to "buy" apps. From economic perspective sales of "wares" that take no effort or materials, like restriction removals, is almost as bad as unlicensed money printing machines.
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!!!
Other than big name companies, like Netflix, who pays for a subscription to an app?
I'm not, can't imagine many people are.
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
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.
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.
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.
I made a program that didn't have any bugs.. It is however pretty hard to fuck up "Hello World".
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.
Actually, if 95% of the crap devs all went out of business, it would make it way easier to find the great software. So... still only a problem for the shitty devs, not the end users.
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.
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.
How's life in the hypocrite lane?