Apple Asked Developers To Adopt Subscriptions and Hike App Prices, Report Says (venturebeat.com) 276
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.
Caught in the middle with you (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re:Caught in the middle with you (Score:5, Insightful)
Why do application developers need recurring revenue from the application?
That like saying, "I need all your money!" It is easy to understand the motivation to want more money, but it doesn't make it a need.
I'll stick with open source apps. Those developers somehow don't "need" my money. And even though I need money generally, when I write an open source app because I wanted to use it, it doesn't cost me any money to release it. So it isn't obvious to me that there is a relationship there where money is necessary to encourage mutually beneficial behavior.
Clearly the hardware vendor needs some money in exchange for the device; once. And the network operator will need recurring payments, as the service is provided in the continuous tense.
Re:Caught in the middle with you (Score:4, Insightful)
As a software developer. I have never written a program and said there it is done, this program is absolutely perfect.
As a software user. I have never used a program where I thought this program is done, absolutely perfect I will never need to upgrade it again.
As a software user even for open source apps, I want bugs fix, security holes closed down, interface improved, updates to match newer system....
This takes time and money. If the application is any good, I would want compensation for the hard work I put into it. Even if I release it Open Source, I will need credit, praises, at least, and for most open source products of complexity. They are developers at these companies being paid to make this software better and work for the business needs for the company. You as the home consumer may get the benefit of these changes, but they were not done for you but for the company building it.
Running a business is expensive. It is more then the sum of all its parts, it needs money in reserve, it needs to support what it has.
Re:Caught in the middle with you (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
So, you just shot your own self in the foot with your final sentence.
Re: (Score:2)
No. I just don't use iPhones and I have good success. Windows and Android don't really have these problems (extremely rare - especially for things like small utilities like I mentioned), while iOS and macOS both cut legacy support out constantly even in point releases.
Re:Caught in the middle with you (Score:4, Insightful)
As a software user. I have never used a program where I thought this program is done, absolutely perfect I will never need to upgrade it again.
That only tells me that you select low quality tools. There are very very few software tools that I use that I would want to upgrade. Some, due to their nature, will require security updates. Others will not.
I don't need to try a new paradigm, all the current user interface paradigms existed already 30 years ago, those decisions should have already been made.
I don't think you actually thought it through, I think you just regurgitate the line that sounds pro-money.
Re: (Score:2)
Running a business is expensive. It is more then the sum of all its parts, it needs money in reserve, it needs to support what it has.
All of you statements are true. I write Windows Business Application s/w for a living. We charge what we want for software products we develop, and for custom development and support services... However, MS REQUIRES that we charge an annual "maintenance" fee for that. ALL of it, IIRC.
Do I like the idea? NO!
But I will say that I would imagine that our "cut" of the Maintenance is occasionally all that allows me to take home a paycheck, when sales and support-work is "thin". And in the end, I am positive tha
So (Score:3)
Developer costs are not fixed, why should apps be (Score:3, Informative)
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 af
Re:Developer costs are not fixed, why should apps (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
But they did just that (Score:3, Interesting)
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 a
Re: (Score:2)
I don't know about you, but when I play a game it's for the content, not for the game engine.
That's like saying someone is stupid because he keeps buying DVDs. Since he already has one disc encoded in MPEG-2, why would he want more?
Re: But they did just that (Score:2)
If Broderbund and Sierra did so well making new products that people want while minimizing the development costs by reusing existing code, ald you can't, then ask yourself: do I suck at making products people want or do I suck at writing reusable code?
Re: (Score:3)
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 Off
Re: Developer costs are not fixed, why should apps (Score:2)
4. Develop a product people want and sell it for a price that covers the cost of further development such as bugfixes or desirable content. ...you know, like a professional would.
Re: (Score:3)
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
Re:Developer costs are not fixed, why should apps (Score:4, Informative)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
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
Re: (Score:2)
Wow, That was good man.
Updates for new tax law (Score:2)
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
Even if the updates are mostly to reflect changes in tax law or other externally imposed requirements since the product was shipped? Intuit TurboTax and H&R Block At Home (formerly TaxCut) have annual editions for this reason.
Re: (Score:2)
There are always outliers of course.
Re: Developer costs are not fixed, why should apps (Score:3)
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 upstan
Re: Developer costs are not fixed, why should apps (Score:5, Insightful)
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).
Re: (Score:3)
I made a program that didn't have any bugs.. It is however pretty hard to fuck up "Hello World".
Re: (Score:2)
You keep on with that "dialing in from another world" my assumption is you have a fair bit of years on me, and don't understand the humor. I'm basically saying "Fuck that, nobody is dumb enough to fall for you bullshit, "app" developers are lucky they find the morons they do tot buy their garbage. I hope this helps :) glhf.
Re: Developer costs are not fixed, why should apps (Score:3)
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.
Re: Developer costs are not fixed, why should app (Score:2)
How many years of bugfixes? Are you supposed to sell an app once and support it on all new devices for the next 20 years?
It seems like there needs to be a way to either charge for updates at some point or make it so that someone can't roll all their purchased apps onto their new device indefinitely. It doesn't matter how much you charge, over a long enough timespan the cost of maintenance will eventually be more than the initial price.
Re: (Score:2)
Because I cannot live forever on $10.
Try selling more than one copy of the application!
Re: (Score:2)
Because I cannot live forever on $10.
Neither can the guy who I bought a used Timex/Sinclair 1000 from 30+ years ago. But guess what? That has nothing to do with the price of a computer. And there is no fucking way I'd still be paying him.
11 years ago I was paid $25 for a 10 line Perl script that took about 15 minutes to write, including talking to the client about the requirements. Should I still be getting paid? If that fucker kept sending me payments, I'd be returning them.
If you want residual payments, instead of just saying "need" in place
Re: (Score:2)
Because I cannot live forever on $10.
And because for every Angry Birds, there are exactly 1.29 X 10^97 Applications that fill a particular want or need, but do so for a smaller audience.
It is both our problems (Score:2)
What the fuck do I care? Why is your business model my fucking problem?
The business model is BOTH our problems, developer and user alike. Because a bad business model either prevents you from getting software you would really like using, or gives you great software that is only around for a year (or less) before dying and going useless, or stopping updates.
Why the fuck would I sign up for a subscription for your software
See here is the part where I am with you, as I described in my first post - as a user I
Re: (Score:2)
What the fuck do I care? Why is your business model my fucking problem?
The business model is BOTH our problems, developer and user alike.
Bullshit. If your business model sucks, I'm probably not you user, or not anymore, and I have no reason to care.
Tissue?
Re: It is both our problems (Score:3)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
This is that part of "everybody deserves a trophy" that fucks up society.
Re: (Score:2)
Because Apple is constantly rewriting APIs and breaking apps that are even only a few years old. The only reason you don't see apps breaking more often is because developers are still getting new buyers and fixing the apps to earn those sales. Older abandoned apps just quit working forever.
Re: (Score:2)
Why do application developers need recurring revenue from the application?
If I wrote a program for an iPhone in 2007, that's probably not going to run on modern iOS. Unlike Microsoft, Apple changes their software stack on a fairly regular basis.
As a developer, it's not worth it for me to maintain an app that maybe even a decent number of people still use every but who purchased it ten years ago when I can spend my time writing a new app and actually making money unless there's a bunch of new people buying i
Re: (Score:2)
Don't forget to include a comment with your fine print next time.
Re: (Score:2)
Why do application developers need recurring revenue from the application?
That like saying, "I need all your money!" It is easy to understand the motivation to want more money, but it doesn't make it a need.
I'll stick with open source apps.
That is incredibly short sighted. Apps run on phones, which are always-connected devices. Security vulnerabilities are found every day (yes, open source too) and some, such as specter and meltdown are very complex to fix. When you pay for an app, how long do you think the developer should be supporting the app even if releasing nothing more than security patches so that you phone doesn't get hacked? That is what costs time and money, and I said nothing yet about new functionality or simply keeping up with n
Re: (Score:2)
That's all very hand-wavy.
Security vulnerabilities are not found every day in the vast majority of my apps. They're found every day somewhere in the world, in some application but that is a very very different bar to set.
If your application vendor tricked you into thinking you need to pay them to fix Intel's hardware bugs, "there's one born every minute."
Re: (Score:2)
I never said in your app. They are found every day, in various libraries, or specter/meltdown in a CPU(so yes, it affects every app - if you think Intel or ARM is going to fix your app for specter/meltdown family of vulnerabilities you are sticking your head in the sand). The support burden is to evaluate all the found vulnerabilities and see whether they apply to your app or not, then fix the ones that do apply.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, good, so that was just a red herring, I'm glad I dismissed it out of hand.
Re: (Score:2)
You just perfectly demonstrated ignorance of an average user. "I can't see security, so if I can't hack it, it's totally secure".
Re: (Score:2)
I imagine Apple is encouraging this to help make the developer's business sustainable. Unfortunately, for some of the apps that have never had meaningful upgrades over time, it is annoying to pay "rent" for the app, and would generally discourage me from buying more. When one of the weather apps I use asked for a renewal fee, it was just deleted. It just doesn't offer that value to me; I would argue that the model becomes less sustainable when people don't feel like they get any value-- why go with "apps
Re: (Score:3)
I imagine Apple is encouraging this to help make the developer's business sustainable.
Imagination is a great tool, however, I'm not sure it is useful to apply to that exact part of the subject.
They get a cut of the money. They still get a cut of the money if the app maker makes bad business decisions. If they can get half the apps to raise their prices, even if most of those went out of business, as long as other apps didn't raise their prices then Apple only makes more money.
Their users will generally only blame the individual app makers, they won't even consider it possible that it was App
Re: (Score:2)
> Why do application developers need recurring revenue from the application?
One reason is that the application developers are constantly improving the application. In "boxed software" if I release an application, you buy that version and that's it. If I release BoxApp 2.0 next year, you have to buy an upgrade. App store/Play Store apps don't work that way. You buy in on the ground floor once and then updates are free for life, the only way around that is for the app developer to abandon the current a
Re: Caught in the middle with you (Score:2)
I can't think of any boxed software I've purchased in the last 20 years that did not continue to receive FREE updates.
Stop making excuses. Mobile app stores aren't revolutionizing anything. Selling software is easier than ever, but you mobile app developer amateurs can't figure out how to make money.
Re: Caught in the middle with you (Score:2)
Only if version 1.0 was crap. Stop trying to sell us your shitty betas.
Re: Caught in the middle with you (Score:2)
If you don't have enough new users buying your software to support your continued development, then just open source it. Stop making excuses for being unable to operate a business selling software. The problem isn't the users or the economic model of owning software. The problem is you suck at business or app development.
Re: (Score:2)
In-App Kickstarter (Score:2)
you can fund the cost of the update from those new sales
I agree with that though I think to some extent you should pan to pay at least in part for major versions through previous purchases already made and not just newer sales.
personally I wouldnâ(TM)t want to pay a subscription fee or pay for major upgrades
I agree about subscriptions but why not pay something for major upgrades? Again it does not have to be full price... that's the way software has worked for quite a long time. I'm not a stickler to
Re: (Score:2)
- reach $10K, get feature X
- reach $20K, get features X and Y
In-between $10K and $20K, get feature X and thank you for all the fish.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
I've always liked this approach. If the end user doesn't see the need to pay for an upgrade, they are still left with a functioning program, while people willing to pay the upgrade fee receive all the new bells and whistles.
On a related note, I'm happily using Adobe CS6 at home. People who want the latest and greatest additions are welcome to subscribe to Adobe CC. I actually have CC at work... and frankly, I don't see anything it does which would entice me to purchase a subscription for home use.
That is why I like that approach also (Score:2)
I've always liked this approach. If the end user doesn't see the need to pay for an upgrade, they are still left with a functioning program.
Exactly, that's why I like that approach also - I think it's reasonable for some people to ant to skip a major update, either for a while until they know it is stable or altogether and wait a few major version changes before updating.
That's why different separate apps for major version updates make a lot of sense to me. I just want to be able to have easy way for a new
Re: (Score:2)
Still using CS2 here. Since I don't need more, why would I pay?
Re: (Score:3)
I'm OK to pay a monthly fee if :
Same for phones. I wouldn't mind paying my phone cheaper but paying a monthly fee for security (and feature) updates. That would give some incentive to companies to actually maintain products, make them more durable and repairable.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
It's sort of like that with routers. Except they don't offer the upgrades and they just remain insecure. It's also sort of like that with some smart TV's. Again, they want you to buy a new TV to fix it rather than offer any sort of firmware update.
Re: (Score:2)
That's the problem. Apple, despite the cries of developers for years, has never come out with a way to deal with upgrades. Developers have tried to hack around it. For example they would include the original with the upgrade in a combo that was lower than the cost of both together.
This is just Apple doing anything other than implementing a way to do proper upgrades.
Re: (Score:2)
One one hand you don't mind paying for a major version upgrade but on the other hand you don't want to pay for a minor version update.
The problem is, the author decides what a major version upgrade is vs a minor version update - not you.
So if all users were like you, I would follow Chrome's upgrade path where almost all updates are major versions. Would you be happy to pay every time?
Re: (Score:2)
With the way some "updates" fuck up my workflow, slow down my system with unwanted useless features and new bugs introduced because of these useless features, sometimes I would rather pay to continue using the same old version.
Re: (Score:2)
*cough**microsoft*cough*
Re: (Score:2)
A new version of my app is available. Please pay 99 cents to upgrade to version 1.0.1.
Hot news: next week, keep an eye out for the required 1.0.2 upgrade of my app!
lulz, so you think. (Score:2)
sure we can, we can pirate your shitty software and mock you while doing so.
Re: Caught in the middle with you (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
One upgrade everyone here could use: a Slashdot update to finally support unicode. Did they get the memo yet that we're in 2018?
Re: (Score:2)
Somewhere out there, there's an anal-probe-of-the-month company that's going to use that as its slogan.
Re: (Score:2)
According to the parent AC above, I haven't posted enough comments in this thread.
Look at my user name and do that.
No surpruse (Score:2)
Sky is blue, water is wet, corporations want more profit. You expected otherwise?
FTFY (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Fuck Apple, fuck Microsoft, fuck all similar (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Fuck Apple, fuck Microsoft, fuck all similar (Score:4, Insightful)
If you want security patches you need the developers to have an incentive to release them. Some are extremely complex fix (specter/meltdown for example) and there isn't sufficient ROI to do that - they already have your money, no more money coming in. This is a big reason why most phones don't get updates, no longer in production and no more money coming from customers to fund it, so people walk around with phones which can be hacked any script kiddie can download. With a subscription service, there is funding to continue support. Without it, developers time is better used creating new products.
Re: (Score:2)
Ahhh, Apple wants to help fund developers (Score:5, Insightful)
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?
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Oh wait, no it seems that they want their 30% cut of that too.
IIRC, recurring subscriptions are facilitated at a much lower rate.
Re: (Score:3)
Apple wants secure phones. They want developers to have an incentive to continue patching apps rather than moving to new ones and leaving the old ones with gaping security holes leaking your passwords, contacts, emails, pictures, etc (whatever the app has access to at least, but possibly more if it can be used a launch point on your device to attack other parts of the phone or other devices on your network). Once they move enough top apps, they will probably ban unsupported/unpatched apps.
You're saying 30% a lot. (Score:2, Informative)
Apple only take 15 percent after 12 months of a subscription. That's the carrot here.
Re: Ahhh, Apple wants to help fund developers (Score:2)
If a developer keeps a subscriber for more than a year, then Apple's cut goes down, and the amount to the developer goes up (to 85%, I believe). This encourages developers to make products worth subscribing to. If your updates are minor, people will go somewhere else. The one thing about app stores is that there's always another app that does what you need.
Subscription based software usually shows... (Score:2)
You want more money.
Or you need it to keep the people on to fix your piece of crap.
Yer greedy cunts (Score:3, Insightful)
putting money into developer coffers
More like putting more money into Apples coffers.
Re: (Score:2)
Pretty shady (Score:3)
Fuck subscriptions...but... (Score:4, Interesting)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Same here. This means no Office 365, no Adobe Creative Cloud, and I may be a few versions behind for now. Later, if they keep it up I'm moving on.
Re: (Score:2)
Depends on what I'm doing.
Take Adobe Creative Cloud. I am not a graphic artist. I've never played one on television. But I've run across the occasional time that I need to do some stuff that I could do with Photoshop. Is it worth it for me to spend $120 for Photoshop? Nope. Is it worth it for me to spend $20 for a month's use? Maybe. It might be more worthwhile for me to spend $5 for a week.
That said, if I were a graphic artist, I'd probably spend a lot of my time using Photoshop. Paying $120 once
Re: (Score:2)
It's too bad Photoshop was $699.99 when it was standalone. Photoshop Elements is $119. However, I am a sometimes graphic artist / photo editor and I think that at least half of pros would agree that buying the suite or individual software once every 4 or 5 years is sufficient at most. I have one computer with a 7 year old suite (CS5.5) and the version I bought before that was 4 years older (CS3). The only reason for the shorter gap was knowing they were going to go subscription only.
Re: (Score:2)
Photoshop CS: $20/month
Photoshop Elements: $120
Over 5 years of continuous use:
CS: $1200
Elements: $120
Over 5 years of use with half the active time:
CS: 600
Elements: $120
Over 5 years of use with 10% of the active time:
CS & Elements: $120
Basically you're leaving it up to Adobe when and where you use it.
I refuse to allow them that sort of control.
Re: (Score:2)
Once the developer has your money, there is no incentive to patch it for you, unless the app keeps selling in large volume so it's worth for the developer to keep updating it rather than move to a whole new app. Are you willing to pay $20 for every security fix, or just prefer to save money and have the app being a gaping security hole on your phone?
Who pays for app subscriptions? (Score:3)
Other than big name companies, like Netflix, who pays for a subscription to an app?
I'm not, can't imagine many people are.
I stay away from subscription based software (Score:2)
how nice of apple to care for the developers...oh wait, don't apple get a nice share of the proceeds?
Anyway, I remember my first subscription based software, it was an antivirus. You buy the full version, then pay for a yearly update then after a couple of years, you pay full price again. Good thing there was free antiviruses available. I heard windows is about to go subscription, sure glad linux is still free.
I don't mind paying for an app to bypass the ads but to make it a yearly subscription would mak
Old Model (Score:2)
I'd have no problem with this if it were rolled out like the old model, where:
1. You buy a specific version of an application
2. You are guaranteed bugfixes and minor feature releases for a year or two
3. To get the next version with more features, you have to pay, but you can keep your "old" unsupported version if you want
Of course it probably won't be like this.
Fuck Apple (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
There is no economic mechanism to ensure that compensation is adequate to effort.
Fair price or don't buy. That's an economic mechanism that does all that.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
$0 is not a fair price. I see loony in your username and will stop at that. The restrictions are real and neither artificial nor arbitrary. That's like saying wages are an artificial restriction to slavery - it's not, it's real.
Re: (Score:2)
Not entirely sure. Maybe it's because I still view my phone as, well, a phone. As long as it does web/phone/text/email/voicerec/maps/basicnetworktroubleshooting/filesystem for free (and I still have free Google Docs subscription from back in the day), it's good enough. If I need to do any real work (beyond an email that I can voice-dictate), I'll pull out a laptop. If I really want to play any games, I'll pull out a tablet (where