RyuWith @[email protected] I’m not sure why I will pay for Ivory. Nothing against paid apps, just hate subscriptions. I would pay for a new version of an app yearly, but will never pay a regular sum per month to rent it.
John Gruber@ryuworks @[email protected] IceCubes is good so if you’re happy, you’re happy. But you do realize that “paying for a new version once a year” isn’t possible on the App Store unless it’s a subscription, right?
@gruber @[email protected] maybe not every year, but apps like Reeder release new versions every now and then, on a regular basis. Tweetbot too, until version 6. There are some of us who prefer this monetisation method over subscriptions for apps.
Guillaume Laurent@ryuworks @gruber @[email protected] as far as I can tell, it's a major hassle for the devs, a medium hassle for the users, and it leaves the App Store littered with old app versions. Really not scalable at all.
@glaurent @gruber @[email protected] Not sure if it’s really a hassle for users. The hassle of calling Apple for refunds after realising you have forgotten to cancel a subscription is probably bigger. And old versions of apps can be taken off so they won’t be “littering” the App Store. Devs know that they will alienate a sizable portion of their users once they go subscription, that is probably why they price subs high enough to cover their potential losses.
@ryuworks @gruber @[email protected] AFAIC, having to purchase and install a new version of an app and getting rid of the old one is a hassle and I much prefer a subscription, that canceling is just a few taps away.
The old versions have to stay for a while for the benefit of users who haven't updated.
Not sure if subscriptions really alienate that many users these days, I doubt I'm the only one preferring them.
@glaurent @gruber @[email protected] As a iOS dev yourself I guess you definitely prefer subscriptions. As mentioned, there are some of us who prefer to buy apps outright. Maybe over time there will be less and less of us and everything will go subscription only. Or maybe more people start having subscription fatigue and start culling their subscription lists, putting a bunch of devs out of business. The market will eventually work things out.
@glaurent @ryuworks @[email protected] That method (completely new SKU for each new version) works so poorly in the App Store that I’m not aware of a single app or game that still uses it. It doesn’t work.
Todd Hensley@gruber @glaurent @ryuworks @icecubesapp please do not retire an existing app and create a “new” one as the next major version. I stop using apps that pull that nonsense.
@ryuworks @glaurent @[email protected] It is an enormous hassle and *very* confusing to most users. The uptake even from users who *want* to get the new version and are willing to pay for it is low, because the App Store just isn’t set up to handle it.
Containedmultitudes@gruber @ryuworks @glaurent @icecubesapp People like to blame finance guys for the general drift towards subscription software, but I have to imagine Apple refusing to permit traditional upgrade pricing is just as relevant.
@Containedmultitudes @gruber @ryuworks @[email protected] I guess that’s likely to be a contributing factor, but the subscription model trend spans the whole software industry, and in its basic form largely predates the app store (they were called yearly licenses).
@ryuworks @glaurent @[email protected] If you don’t like subscriptions, I get it. But that’s where commercial software has gone, especially on the App Store. Your choice, effectively, is to pay for subscriptions or stick to free apps.
@gruber @glaurent @[email protected] Fortunately for now the majority of the apps I used either have a one-time purchase IAP or are outright paid apps. I’m really just forgoing Ivory/Tweetbot from my previous list of apps. Maybe things will change in the future, but that’s a story for another day. Especially if the App Store stops being the only game in town.
@ryuworks @glaurent @[email protected] But how many of those one-time IAP apps have been around for more than 5 years?
@gruber @glaurent @[email protected] Apollo is. And a couple more that I use and reinstall less frequently. The rest of them are paid apps.
@ryuworks @glaurent @[email protected] Do you think Apollo gets updated more regularly with more features than most apps?
Aaron Abernethy@ryuworks @gruber @glaurent @icecubesapp Apollo has a pretty large number of subscription payers like myself. I would assume they are carrying the users who don’t. You’d have to ask @christianselig though.
Christian Selig@theronster @ryuworks @gruber @glaurent @[email protected] In my experience the vast majority of users are fine with a reasonably priced subscription that provides ongoing value, it's not as alien/weird as it was in like, 2016 for instance. (A small group is quite vocal though and can seem large.)
I'll mention that resubmitting a brand new app is just a terrible idea though, you'd lose so much SEO, high review rating, any lists/features your app was added to, Editor's Choice status, etc.
Paul McGrane@ryuworks @gruber @glaurent @[email protected] The official Reddit app does get updated essentially weekly with apparently no changes and obscure bug fixes.
@glaurent @gruber @[email protected] going subscription only definitely benefits mostly the devs, and power to the users who love the app enough to subscribe. But targeting users who refused to support subscription-only apps is probably not the answer.
@ryuworks I didn’t realize Reeder was still pay-per-major-version. A notable exception for sure — but an exception. I can’t think of any other apps that work this way.
Jay 🆘
Ruan Viljoen
phisch
Redknots
gumbario@ryuworks an not mentioned advantage of purchased apps is that you can have multiple versions installed. Recently I bought the app „WatchApp 2“ but still can use the old version too (which I do). I think it was Reeder who broke something in a new version so I just used the old version for a while.
Helge Heß@ryuworks @gruber @[email protected] This is the way, I'd love it if the AppStore would more proactively support this model.
Subscriptions are essentially a financing instrument, and if Apple wants to get into this, it should (like "this app is $99, but you can buy it for $9/m"). Developers definitely shouldn't.
Subscriptions are essentially a financing instrument, and if Apple wants to get into this, it should (like "this app is $99, but you can buy it for $9/m"). Developers definitely shouldn't.
@gruber @ryuworks @[email protected] Depends on your financing terms, that's part of my point. Purchase financing is an own business SMB devs shouldn't (usually) get into. There are tons of options how that could work, think Amazon monthly payments, or the way telcos finance phones, ...
All this would of course be more competitive once there are alternative app stores.
All this would of course be more competitive once there are alternative app stores.
Kevin C@gruber @[email protected] @ryuworks Apps like Working Copy and Agenda seem to do this well. They have an IAP that lets you access all current pro features as well as those added one year after purchase. If you want more pro features after that, you do the IAP again, but if you’re happy with what you have, then you don’t have to. I remember @palmin saying it was a bit of work to keep track of, but as a consumer, I think this is ideal.
@somelinguist @gruber @[email protected] @ryuworks @palmin Working Copy always has enough new features that I pay again when I need to.