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?
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.
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!!!
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).
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