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.
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.
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 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.
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).
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