The Mac App Store Needs Paid Upgrades

http://blog.wilshipley.com/2012/03/mac-app-store-needs-paid-upgrades.html

by mynameisraj • 14 years ago

232 122 14 years ago

blog.wilshipley.com

kennywinker7• 14 years ago

The consensus among all the devs I've talked to is that this feature will magically appear the next time Apple does a significant update to one of it's bigger ticket apps... Final Cut, Aperture, Logic, etc.

I can't see any way they can get around this problem without adding paid updates.

Until then 3rd party developers are high and dry.

twiceaday• 14 years ago

Shucks. They will just have to sell another version of the App (Angry Birds, Angry Birds Seasons, Angry Birds Rio) for full price.

kennywinker7• 14 years ago

Did you miss the headline? _Mac_ App Store.

Full price upgrades works for Angry Birds, but anything less episodic or standalone and you have problems. See Tweetie 2, for an example.

This issue is going to be rampant in the Mac App Store very very soon. It's been out for what, a year now? Time for a round of big updates... now you have two copies of all your apps.

wil_shipley7• 14 years ago

Angry Birds and other games are in a totally different category. If you buy “Angry Birds Space” it’s reasonable to assume (a) you’re done with the original, and (b) you’re going to get as many hours of enjoyment out of it as the original, so it’s fair to pay as much.

This isn’t the case with productivity applications, necessarily – you can keep using Delicious Library 2 and it’ll keep working great, so we need a way to reward customers who say, “Yes, I’ll pay to have some extra functionality.”

TetOn• 14 years ago

Nothing in Apple's recent history suggests this is true. Think of the recent kerfuffle over Final Cut; they had no intention of continuing to sell the older version even though the new one was feature incomplete. It is highly likely that, when it appears, Aperture4 will similarly just replace Aperture3 at approximately the same price point. You can choose to buy the new one or not, but there's no discounted upgrade path.

Based on Shipley's numbers, it would seem that developers wanting to make money long-term on the Mac App Store would be wise to get on the same "lower initial price, but all major upgrades are full price" app model as soon as they can.

kennywinker7• 14 years ago

We have yet to see this problem. The switch to FCPX was the first version in the app store. There hasn't been a high priced Apple app that has received a major upgrade via the Mac App Store.

You may be right that they are going to stay at low initial / full price upgrade... I see two issues with that (for Apple).

One, if the upgrade is not major enough to convince people to shell out for it. This fragments their apps ecosystem, and increases the support headache.

Two, how do you carry people forward to the new version. If it's a separate purchase, that means it's a separate bundle, and won't show up as an update when you check for updates in the mac app store. Again causing confusion and fragmentation (you now have FCPX and FCPX.1 on your machine, which one opens that project file?).

Again, I could be wrong, but Apple's current strategy look unsustainable to me.

wil_shipley7• 14 years ago

Based on my numbers, it’d be great if the Mac App Store changed how it works so small developers can continue to reward their customers.

seanalltogether2• 14 years ago

Which honestly underscores one of my biggest complaints when working inside Apples ecosystem. I always get the feeling that they're building solutions for themselves first, and developers second, they don't take an agnostic approach to creating a platform. A good example of this is when you look at their UIKit and Appkit frameworks, all of the components were designed to the specific behavior that Apples engineers wanted at that time, with no thought on how to easily extend them. Compare this against other frameworks that were intentionally built to be easily skinnable and customizable.

markkanof• 14 years ago

That's a fair criticism, but the flip side of it is at least there is one real user of the frameworks they are building, which proves that in at least one situation the provided functionality is useful. Sometimes it seems like frameworks coming out of other big software companies provide what they imagine their customers will want, not what is actually useful when building real applications.

duxup• 14 years ago

Thus the downside of eat your own dog food.

MatthewPhillips2• 14 years ago

I can't think of a better endorsement of a platform than the creators investing real development dollars into using it.

The alternative is Google, who doesn't release any top-tier paid apps on Android or Chrome Web Store. Or host anything important on Apps Engine.

r00fus• 14 years ago

There is one very important stakeholder you are ignoring in your analysis - the end user. Apple creates stuff not for devs or themselves, but for the real customers - who are the users of their devices and comptuers.

In the case of paid upgrades, if it pains customers and leads to lower device sales, then Apple will come up with a solution to it. Developers (and Apple's internal team as well) come in at a distant second place.

bwooce• 14 years ago

It is already there, lurking, in iOS 5(back to 2, friends say)

See http://t.co/EkqWISbS for an example, appears as a bug when you try and upgrade an app you've deleted -- but it shows the capability does exist.

I agree they won't enable it until they have a reason, the current situation is simple to manage from all angles.

ianterrell• 14 years ago

It's not a 1-to-1 replacement or panacea, but in app purchases can mitigate the problem—i.e. free update with new features disabled until purchased.

Splines• 14 years ago

I was thinking the same thing, but I don't think that's sustainable, nor is it a good user experience. If you have X choices of IAP features available, are you going to test the 2^(X+1) configurations out there?

Probably the best you could do with IAP is offer current version as IAP, and roll your n-1 features back into the main app as a free update on a periodic basis (i.e., want the latest and greatest, buy it now, or wait X months/years and get it for free).

Nickle and diming your customers for features also leaves a bad taste in the mouth.

As a customer, I appreciate Apple's model since I know all updates are free and any major version changes usually warrant a new app entry (I find it annoying, but understandable, that the previous version is sometimes retired from the App store), which makes the demarcation clear of what I need to pay for vs. what I don't.

metageek• 14 years ago

I think ianterrell's idea was that, if you're going from, say, version 2 to version 3, you release version 3 for free, but all the new version 3 features are a single in-app purchase. No nickel and diming.

One result of this approach is that everybody gets bugfixes for free, which users are sure to like better than a model where they have to pay for fixes.

One thing you have to decide is what to do if you then release version 4, and someone never paid for 3. Does he have to pay for 3 and 4 separately, or can he just buy 4 and get the 3 features for free? (I'm pretty sure you don't want to let him buy 4 and not have 3; that's where you start getting configuration explosion.) The latter has precedent in the packaged world, with vendors that would give you the same discount when upgrading from any earlier version.

phil2• 14 years ago

Here's an excellent blog post that explores that option (at the end):

http://shapeof.com/archives/2012/03/brent_simmons_on_deflati...

deedubaya7• 14 years ago

As a developer with Apps in the MAS, I can see where this makes sense from the developer's perspective. But I think it is a mater of laziness on the dev's part.

Let me explain:

From a users perspective, this would suck. It is an antiquated system. "I have to pay for an upgrade just so it works on the new OS?" Think of how many times you've had to do this in the past, and how you felt.

Apple will act in the best interest of Joe User, not Joe Developer.

Instead of paid upgrades, dev's should be providing In-App purchases for new features. Maintenance of the App should be provided for free. Win-win for all.

Now stop bitching about what the MAS should have, and start using the solution Apple has given you! :)

phillmv3• 14 years ago

Can you currently do in-app purchases on the Mac App Store? That was my first thought as well.

sharth• 14 years ago

Yes. You can. However, I would much prefer the world Wil describes over a world with in-app purchases.

I would much rather pay the 20$ or whatever to upgrade my software, than be nickel and dimed all over the place.

falcolas3• 14 years ago

I'd hate to pick up a piece of software, only to find that there are 50 new features that I want that I have to buy piecemeal.

It's how the gaming industry currently works (with DLC), and while it's working for them right now, there's an ugly backlash against those companies that forms with every new DLC release that requires a lot of PR to counter.

As Joe User, I depend greatly on Joe Developer to make my Mac more usable. If Joe Developer is driven away for greener pastures, and my Mac experience degrades as a result, the chance I may not stick with this platform grows.

deedubaya7• 14 years ago

It's all about implementation. Instead of 50 features, perhaps there is a "2012 Feature Pack" that provides all the new features for 2012 and previous. The developer has a lot of flexibility on how to manage In-App purchases.

All In-App purchases are listed in the Available In-App Purchases section in the App Store.

campnic• 14 years ago

Your comment only makes sense under the argument that when a user purchases an app, the developer is indebted to the user to provide future functionality of any variety.

Maintenance should not be expected for free. New features should not be expected for free. How much those two pieces of work cost should be dependent on future expected earnings for the developer and the perceived value to the consumer, not on whether or not they are "expected" by users.

For an argument that starts out pandering to the "users perspective", I don't see how having a dedicated upgrade process is less "pro-user" then in-app purchases. Not only does it introduce more testing (altering the expected earnings vs. perceived value equation) but it also inserts delivery and design issues for the purchases which wouldn't be necessary with an upgrade system.

To me this looks lose(devs)-win(apple)-push(consumers)

deedubaya7• 14 years ago

Just different types of thinking I guess.

I justify charging for new features, not maintaining the ones the user already paid for.

webjprgm• 14 years ago

> Maintenance should not be expected for free.

Users who purchase an app definitely expect there to be maintenance on the app. This is because we know no one tests their app to 100% perfection.

If I knew that the app I get at the time I pay is all I get with no future updates, not even bug fixes, then I'd wait several months to make sure no one else finds any bugs before I ever dare to buy the app. So developers give users the expectation of future updates and fixes to assuage user fears so that they actually buy the 1.0 release and give the developers some money to keep living on.

tbsdy• 14 years ago

If I've paid for an app, then I expect it to work. If it's not working, then I expect you to fix it. I don't expect to pay for those fixes.

Features, on the other hand, I expect to pay for.

ryannielsen• 14 years ago

As a developer with apps in the MAS, this sounds like a sales, maintenance, and support nightmare.

How would you architect your app to have separate, modular features?

How would I reliably test all combinations of all features?

How do I properly advertise app functionality without deceiving users?

How do I properly support users when they have issues? (Depending on what they've purchased, they could have a very unique set of features and UI enabled.)

You're taking a hammer and using it to tighten a screw. Instead, Apple should be offering the proper tools we need to offer reasonable app upgrade paths.

msbarnett6• 14 years ago

It wouldn't, necessarily, have to be excessively modular.

Say, one in-app purchase, the "2012 Feature Pack", or some such.

That said, I'm not convinced its a better idea than just creating a new FooBar2 app in the store and pushing an update to FooBar1 advertising the launch sale of the new version.

smackfu• 14 years ago

Don't IAPs reset after you reinstall, and you need to "purchase" each one separately, and then the purchase is free if you already bought it but there is no prior indication of that?

If so, that is pretty crummy for your best customers.

deedubaya7• 14 years ago

The ability to restore previous purchases to an app is built into In-app purchases, the developer just has to implement it.

davepeck2• 14 years ago

To address your point: this might seem like a good idea until you follow it to its logical conclusions. The support burden, especially on smaller developers, would be massive after even a small number of upgrades. Moreover, it's unclear how this would work in practice given that new purchasers of the app should have access to the upgraded features that old users need to acquire through IAP.

To address your side comment about laziness: the author of the original post is Wil Shipley, the guy who started both Omni Group and Delicious Monster. In other words, he's one of the longest-running and most financially successful "indie" devs in the Apple community. When he says stuff, people (including people at AAPL) pay attention, because what he says is a product of both a lot of experience and a lot more customers than most indies will ever see.

deedubaya7• 14 years ago

I wasn't directing the laziness comment specifically at Wil Shipley, I'm sure he isn't. It was more of an aside; a widely generalized comment. Most of us know "indie" devs aren't lazy. It was more to the point that it is easier to complain about what you want than to work with what you've got.

To address your counter point: it is all a mater of implementation, implementation, implementation.

1) I don't think it is unreasonable to say that developers should maintain the features they've already been paid for gratis.

2) It require planing from the get-go within your app, you can't tack this on after the fact. Basic features are covered by the initial purchase of the app. Additional features (AKA what one would want to charge for with a major version upgrade) or perhaps feature "packs" are provided via In-App purchases. New users always start out at the same level, requiring purchases for new features. Features already purchased to be restored via the facilites available in StoreKit.

wil_shipley7• 14 years ago

We generally don’t charge to update our apps to a new operating system. In fact, that’s been a lot of what we’ve done to version 2 over the last couple years – it now runs on an OS TWO major versions beyond what we wrote it for. And that was a free upgrade for all users.

But if I rewrite an app and improve the art and the flow and the interaction and every little part of it, there’s no way to say, “Hey, pay and we’ll give you the better interface.”

I spend years tweaking every single part of my apps when I make a new version. I can’t just throw a switch to turn those on or off.

Finally: it’s pretty much my job to bitch about what Apple does wrong, just as it is yours: it’s the only way they will improve. They’re not gods. They need feedback.

demallien• 14 years ago

Wil, have you looked at lowering the upfront price of new versions - You would get more customers(but probably less revenue), but you would make back the money on upgrades to a larger user base.

Actually, I'm not really asking if you have looked at it - you probably have. But I'd be interested in hearing your analysis, particularly as this seems to be the route that Apple has taken themselves - cheaper software but you pay full price for each new version.

mikebracco• 14 years ago

I feel like the solution isn't paid upgrades but instead monthly/yearly subscription for access in the Mac App Store. The 'appification' of the web is eliminating the idea of major release "versions" of software...it's just an app in consumers' minds and it will always be the same product (with gradual improvement of course). As a result, just charge users for ongoing access to your app and keep them paying by providing regular updates.

ghaff2• 14 years ago

As with other ideas mentioned, depends on the app. In general, I think people have a limited appetite for subscriptions because every subscription is a "money leak" to be monitored and managed. There is something of a trend in that direction but I'm skeptical that it becomes the standard way to pay for software.

J3L2404• 14 years ago

Saas sucks for the user but is great for the developer because people forget to stop the service. Also that protects them from copyright violation, which most users of this site believe is their natural born right.

RandallBrown2• 14 years ago

I had an idea for a subscription service that would give developers a share of the subscription based on how much their app was used compared to other apps. That may work perfectly for the Mac App Store.

So I pay 10 dollars a month to have access to the MAS and I download 3 apps. I use App A 50% of the time, App B 20% of the time and App C 30% of the time. (To keep the math simple lets pretend Apple doesn't take their share). App A's developers would get $5 a month, App B's developers would get $2, while App C's gets $3.

Maybe to handle the Pro apps like Final Cut you could have different subscription tiers?

To users, this would be a simple netflix like subscription model. Developers would have an incentive to make their apps more useful and engaging. (I'm sure it could be abused too)

ghaff2• 14 years ago

Interesting idea and somewhat akin to how music streaming pays the artists (well, the labels mostly). The challenge, as you allude to, is that software is a lot less homogenous. You only do one thing with a song--listen to it. You use software in a lot of different contexts and it's not obvious that time running is going to give equitable results. And Pro-ishness is also very context-dependent. For me, Final Cut might be a hobby thing. For you, it might be something you depend on for your livelihood.

That said, I do think we're going to see more experimentation with subscription models. Adobe's Creative Cloud is one example. I could imagine some sort of aggregator of games as well.

mmuro2• 14 years ago

Perhaps the incentive is the wrong one. If the goal is to get users to upgrade, offer a launch sale that entices existing and new users to upgrade.

I don't think it's so terrible that there is multiple versions out there. Reduce the price of the older version and setup the page to let people know there's a new one out there before buying.

killion• 14 years ago

I really like how most applications in the iOS store have been about upgrades. When a new version comes out I get it automatically without paying. Camera+ is a great example.

Because the user base for the platform has been growing the potential install base for your application grows with it. The graph in Wil's post shows that the same application had a huge sales surge just because more people were exposed to it.

If a new version of Delicious Library comes out his existing customers will be very happy with the new features and bring more customers in with them. I bet Apple would even promote the new app and a huge sales spike would happen again.

In my mind the new model isn't how to get the most money from your customers, it's getting the most customers.

kennywinker7• 14 years ago

The constant expansion model works for some apps, but not for all of them.

I appreciate the free upgrades as much as the next guy, but without the paid-upgrade option niche products will suffer.

lowlevel• 14 years ago

I find the current 'goat users into paying X/per year to keep things current' model so distasteful that I will seek any and all possible alternatives before I consider buying any app. I tend to think developers would sell a lot more if people only had to pay once... but who knows.

phillmv3• 14 years ago

I want to say something about sharecropping, but I have a hard time thinking of the appropriate analogy.

It's making me think about the service model as being a superior revenue stream, for-better-or-for-worse. From a user's perspective, the MAS already acts as a service; the subsidy is just being paid for at the developer's end of the scale.

I love the iTunes/MA stores as a marketing and distribution channel, but I hate how heavy handedly Apple behaves with enforcing business models. I think there's an argument to be made that we can avoid the Android marketplace crapware without forcing everyone to become serfs.

benihana• 14 years ago

>without forcing everyone to become serfs.

Calling people who willingly cede less than a third of their profits for access to the giant infrastructure and advertising Apple has at their disposal is a bit of hyperbole. It's a mutually beneficial arrangement for both parties, which both parties are free to sever at any time. Doesn't seem like serfdom to me.

kennywinker7• 14 years ago

Obvious hyperbole is obvious. IMO, the analogy stands. I'm not the only one who thinks so http://www.codinghorror.com/blog/2011/10/serving-at-the-plea...

phillmv3• 14 years ago

Well… I don't know if "willingly" is the right word.

I can very easily imagine a near future where it's not rational for small vendors to opt out of it. You're not wrong; it's just… more complicated than I am capable of articulating at present.

IMO, there are just very real reasons to be weary of the shifting power dynamics in the consumer software space.

fpgeek3• 14 years ago

But it is effectively equivalent to sharecropping (with a somewhat lower percentage, I suppose), which some people reasonably consider a form of serfdom. Developers are willingly ceding 30% of their profits for the benefits of using Apple's infrastructure the same way sharecroppers willingly ceded a portion of their crop (typically 50%, but higher in more exploitative relationships according to Wikipedia) in return for the right to use an owner's land.

In both cases, landlord is more powerful than the sharecropper and can set "take-it-or-leave-it" terms (which, if you consider game theory, suggests that the landlord will capture most of the profits of the relationship - limited only by a sharecropper's alternative ways of making a living and their willingness to make decisions that are economically irrational in the short term in order to improve their situation in the long term).

I could even go on to talk about sharecroppers buying seed, fertilizer from the landlord and compare that to developers buying laptops, paying for developer programs and so on, but this analogy has probably been pushed far enough as it is.

megakwood• 14 years ago

You could use in-app purchases to unlock new features.

abruzzi• 14 years ago

Something similar that the Mac App store is killing is the competitive crossgrade. It used to be a boon to buy Logic at full price, then be able to buy its competitors like Digital Performer or Cubase for half price. Currently the App Store can't support that.

cjensen• 14 years ago

The Mac software scene has always had lots of indie developers. Let's look at that scene for some facts... The indies generally charge an upgrade fee for "major" versions, and give free upgrades for "minor" updates.

Most, like Wil, do the right thing. Delicious Library hasn't had a major release in years, but it is maintained.

Others (for example, in my experience "DVD Remaster Pro" and Parallels Desktop), clearly abuse the major update system as a revenue source. They release fake major releases with lots of new skin but few features every six months or a year to rake in the dough.

Honestly, it's a mess. But the solution to me is obvious: Angry Birds from Rovio. Rovio didn't just release the thing and stop. They keep adding significant features (the game is probably 10X as large as when I bought it for the iPad). Customers feed back with great reviews. Rovio is rewarded with continuing sales and stays in the top seller lists. Meanwhile, apps like "Plants v. Zombies" are static and drop off the top lists quickly after a quick burst of popularity.

dorianj• 14 years ago

Angry Birds is one of the most popular applications for the iOS platform ever. It has sales in the millions, and this model isn't comprable for indie software that doesn't have that big of a potential market.

Rovio also just released Angry Birds in Space, which is a separate app, meaning they'll get new income from it. But because it's a $0.99, giving existing customers a discount isn't important.

wil_shipley7• 14 years ago

A game is a different animal. If you add some new levels to a game people have finished, they’ll dive back in. That’s news.

If you’re making a productivity app, and you dribble out features, the press is going to ignore you. Can you imagine anyone running a story like, “Delicious Library 2.8 is out, and it includes a pretty new way to look at tables”? It’s just not going to happen, unless your name is Apple.

The press hit we get on a major release is part of what gives us the important spike in sales. It creates “buzz.” There’s a reason why even Apple doesn’t, like, just release iOS 5 feature-by-feature – they want to spring the whole thing on the world, so they get a ton of attention.

adavies42• 14 years ago

delicious 1, delicious 2, delicious ∞--is wil a marathon fan?

jobu• 14 years ago

The App Store also also needs automatic/forced free updates. It sucks releasing something with a bug, creating an update that fixes it within a month, and still having users complaining about the bug several months later.

stevejabs• 14 years ago

You could add a nag screen to your app that would show if you have a heartbeat API call that returns that the user is using an outdated version.

deedubaya7• 14 years ago

I do this. 90% of my users upgrade within 5 days of an update being released as a result.

"Hey! You're using an outdated version of [APPX]. Click okay to upgrade via the App Store, or Cancel to continue"

konstruktor• 14 years ago

From the customer's perspective, it would kind of suck to buy an app because of a certain feature that, from your point of view, gets broken by an upgrade, and be forced to do that upgrade, because the developer fixed a bug or feature that is of no concern to you. Remember, the user is buying a license for the current version of a piece of software, not a SaaS subscription.

Example: I was searching for a tool for file deduplication. Looking at some older screenshots and the current trial of a certain tool, I realized that this was now less geared towards power users, with UI changes that made the tool look better for inspecting a few duplicated pictures but unsuitable for using lots (thousands) of files. Imagine being the user who bought the tool for more serious use, and is forced to "upgrade".

hack_edu• 14 years ago

The Mac App Store has been a huge boon to Mac software developers

It has? Whenever I look, I tend to see trivial little apps of the same depth and quality as your typical iOS App Store app. Feels like a ghetto to me.

RandallBrown2• 14 years ago

are you a Mac software developer? It has boosted sales of lots of already exisiting apps and gave a platform for many other apps to be shown off.

archildress• 14 years ago

On a similar note, the Mac App Store really needs an option for free trials if it wants to become the premiere marketplace for apps.

MarkMc• 14 years ago

Yes! Especially with more expensive software. My software costs £150: No-one wants to fork out this kind of cash without a free trial so I get very few sales through the Mac App Store.

ricardobeat2• 14 years ago

I think this is mostly a mismatch in expectations. "pay full price, suckers" only rings true if it's not actually a major release - small features, security/compatibility updates should be free. A new version should offer enough benefits to be worth the price.

EvanKelly• 14 years ago

I don't know if I agree with this sentiment. Take the author's app, "Delicious Library 2". The main functionality of this app is to catalog your things in an easy and streamlined way. I'd reckon that most people are paying the ~$35 for this app to do just that.

If the developers develop a whole new set of features (while still building off the core functionality) that they could call "Delicious Library 3", but are actually fully compatible with Delicious Library 2, why should they have to ask their users to pay full price for an upgrade, when they already have the core functionality which is the draw for the new users to pay full price.

I've seen positives and negatives to this model in video gaming. I love seeing a full-feature expansion to a game I own, and don't mind paying $5 - $20 in addition to the $60 I already paid, but I wouldn't be happy paying $60 again for the "complete" edition just to get the expansions, but that "complete" edition is great for people who haven't already purchased the game.

wil_shipley7• 14 years ago

I’d rather offer existing customers a discount, since I figure some percentage of what they’re getting is the old functionality, and they’ve been there for me in the past.

Put differently: if I’ve written an app that 50% new, don’t I deserve to get paid by existing customers for that work?

cdog46• 14 years ago

stretchwithme• 14 years ago

I was just thinking about this last week.

Eventually, nearly all your users have already paid, leaving you unable to charge them for enhancing the app. You may have a huge installed base and eventually have no incentive to improve the product.

Terretta• 14 years ago

Apple’s not keeping iWork up-to-date despite sitting on one hundred billion dollars.

And here I was blissfully unaware that Pages and Keynote had rotted into uselessness simply because of the calendar year.

grecy• 14 years ago

> And here I was blissfully unaware that Pages and Keynote had rotted into uselessness simply because of the calendar year.

This is a very good point. In this consumerist society, if a "new" version is not produced at least once a year, obviously the old one is not worth having.

wil_shipley7• 14 years ago

Have you used Pages recently? It’s got a button in the default toolbar to “Publish on iWork” which has never been out of beta and is now cancelled. It doesn’t work in HiDPI modes of Lion. It doesn’t support Lion’s keyboard macros. I wrote one letter in it last week and ended up filing three different bugs.

So, yes, software does “rot,” if it’s not kept up-to-date with the latest operating systems and, to an extent, the latest user interface metaphors.

Tloewald• 14 years ago

I assumed that Apple would add upgrades way back when but I now think the in app purchase model is better. Consider the reason for upgrades: new features? Sell them. Compatibility or big fixes? Why aren't these free for all customers?

The one missing thing I think Apple needs is a neat mechanism for allowing existing apps to be upgrades into app store apps.

jacalata2• 14 years ago

Compatibility or bug fixes aren't free for all users because just like features, the developer had to spend time building them and needs to get paid for that time.

gergles• 14 years ago

And the customer fucking paid for a program that worked right the first time. Customers are absolutely 100% entitled to bug fixes for free.

cynix3• 14 years ago

I build a house for you for $X. You find out that the lights don't work and ask me to fix it. Would you be happy if I told you "Oh, sorry I messed up the electrical connections. It'll cost you $Y though, because I have to spend time fixing them and I need to get paid for that time."?

wil_shipley7• 14 years ago

The model of selling only the new features really doesn’t work well when you’ve spent years refining every part of an app. How do you “sell” a whole new interface?

phil2• 14 years ago

Who's got the open radar for this one?

freiervogel• 14 years ago

Considered charging less for the full product (say $10), and simply having multiple versions available as you post major new releases?

That way, users always have a way to downgrade to previous versions as needed, you probably get more customers due to the entry price, and everyone just understands that the latest version is available for $10 more.

That seems to be the whole app store model: lower prices, more sales -- no "upgrades" in the classic sense. And, with a low enough entry price, I think users would be accepting.

If they don't buy the latest, as a developer you're no worse off than you are today (where they get the latest for free).

gurkendoktor• 14 years ago

Can't we just hop over to a subscription model altogether, now that we pretty much have the infrastructure?

It would lower up-front costs. I bet piracy would go down too. It would give developers an incentive to keep even small apps bug-free. It would make more sense for apps like Instapaper where the server needs to keep running. Everyone would get exactly what they pay for, and nobody would have to keep using an older version for artificial (financial) reasons.

The only downside I can see is that people cannot decide to stick with an older version because they actually like it better. But that's something that Apple customers are probably used to (e.g. surprise 10.6 users, no OTA contacts & calender sync for you anymore!). And for Apple, it may decrease vendor lock-in because people have no sunk costs anymore.

msg• 14 years ago

I'm sorry I didn't read the whole thread and I know this is late.

Why not provide two versions of Delicious Library Inf? One costs $20. It only works/installs correctly if you have the original app. The other one costs $40. It is a standalone app. Make a minor bugfix update that says "hey" to the users of Delicious Library 2, and link to the expansion. Sell both.

warmfuzzykitten• 14 years ago

"I've looked at clouds from both sides now..." I've been an app developer and an app buyer. As a developer, of course I want to get more money from my installed base. They're easy to find; marketing costs are essentially zero. As a buyer, I've always looked at "upgrades" as a scam to suck more money out of my pocket for a product I've already paid for. I hate it more when I'm paying to get bugs fixed - bugs as a money-making opportunity! - and even more if I'm blackmailed into upgrading by the threat of dropping support for my existing product, which, of course, will stop working about 10 seconds later. I have some software that seems to be "upgraded" for a "discounted price" every two or three months!

How about you stop treating software like fresh fruit delivered with a worm in it and start treating it like, say, new cars? Sell it with a warranty. Allow me to extend the warranty, up to a point, for a reasonable price that covers maintenance only. If I have a reason to buy a shiny, new 2013 BozoWare, and the reason isn't that the 2012 model is already broken, I just may. Some people buy new cars every year; everybody buys a new one sometime.

The Mac App Store Needs Paid Upgrades

Related Stories