Since you dislike subscriptions so much, it makes one wonder how you pay for: access to the Internet; electricity to recharge your iPad; a room to house you, your iPad and that waste paper basket; a trash pickup to haul away the contents of that waste paper basket ...
That's not an appropriate argument. Paying monthly for your Internet service and electricity is not the same thing as having to pay multiple subscriptions just to be able to use dozens of necessary apps just to get through your day. It all adds up and will end up being a hell of a lot more expensive for customers over time, than the current model of paying an affordable fixed amount with free upgrades to use your favourite apps indefinitely. This is good for developers and Apple but a bad deal for customers. And if you somehow can't pay that subscription for that essential app anymore you're screwed with no alternative. And now they're adding ads to the app store too! They're becoming like bloody Google.
Free upgrades indefinitely? Were you expecting the developers to code whilst homeless?
AppleInsider said: After a subscriber's first year of an auto-reneweable subscription, a developer's share of revenue increases to 85 percent.
So developers will be incentivized to write better apps for us. I'll be happy if--but only if--there's a single, simple place for users to go to review all the subscriptions they have. Remember how one infamous online service used to keep auto-renewing for years after people had dropped the service...?
The one thing I dislike about subscriptions is it may remove incentive from the developer to develop. An upgrade model, at least as an option, which incentivizes a developer to earn the upgrade fee, should be offered.
Or it could encourage them to keep developing or watch their subscriptions whither and die.
This begs the question: if Schiller has been able to do all this in the few months that he's been at the helm of the App Store then wtf was Eddie Cue doing in HIS time overseeing the App Store?
Keeping App Store respectable. Subscriptions are anti consumer and frankly pretty disgusting from the users stand point. I suspect that Cue wouldn't want to be associated with such a move.
Please no. Subscription based apps would be unaffordable for people like me, who save up for a week to be able to afford an app like Minecraft.
I'm not sure how anybody could see something positive in this change. Subscriptions suck from the standpoint of the user. It is especially a problem for apps that aren't used frequently. I suspect that this will be a powerful disincentive for people to make use of the app stores.
Not too thrilled about the idea of subscriptions. I've got a lot of apps, I mean a LOT of apps. If even a small percentage goes subscription, then these apps will suddenly cost a lot more over time. That's not good.
if an app that now costs $5 is a subscription at $5 a year, how many people will even want it? Most of the apps I've obtained are useful just a few times a year. That's enough for me to spend a few bucks for, not not nearly enough to subscribe to. I suspect that if a lot of developers take this route, then their sales will drop substantially.
This issue of costs is apparently something many aren't grasping here. It is an extremely bad policy for consumers. As far as sales dropping I think consumers need to get aggressive here and boycott any developer entering into the subscription program. Make them eat cake!!!!
Not too thrilled about the idea of subscriptions. I've got a lot of apps, I mean a LOT of apps. If even a small percentage goes subscription, then these apps will suddenly cost a lot more over time. That's not good.
if an app that now costs $5 is a subscription at $5 a year, how many people will even want it? Most of the apps I've obtained are useful just a few times a year. That's enough for me to spend a few bucks for, not not nearly enough to subscribe to. I suspect that if a lot of developers take this route, then their sales will drop substantially.
This issue of costs is apparently something many aren't grasping here. It is an extremely bad policy for consumers. As far as sales dropping I think consumers need to get aggressive here and boycott any developer entering into the subscription program. Make them eat cake!!!!
In the end that doesn't work. People need apps / software and there will always be those that need them bad enough (or want them bad enough) to pay for for them. Everybody griped about Adobe going to a subscription model but their profits have increased steadily since. The market will weed out the developers that abuse it but if software has value people will pay for it as long as they feel they are getting something in return.
Why do I get the sense that ads is Apple's quick way of saying they fixed search and discovery while at the same time being able to show an increase in "services" revenue. Honestly I think it makes more sense to fix search and discovery first and then maybe implement ads.
I think Ads are Apples way of Saying organized trolls are cashing in on gaming app store reviews and rankings. So we should just allow the developers to pay us direct for a more reliable effect.
Next step will be more aggressive restrictions on user reviews and rankings.
Please no. Subscription based apps would be unaffordable for people like me, who save up for a week to be able to afford an app like Minecraft.
I'm not sure how anybody could see something positive in this change. Subscriptions suck from the standpoint of the user. It is especially a problem for apps that aren't used frequently. I suspect that this will be a powerful disincentive for people to make use of the app stores.
I tend to respectfully disagree a little bit.
If a tool or piece of software is used day in and day out I would prefer to purchase it. Own it. Use the living daylights out of it.
If I only need a tool or piece of software for a limited time to complete a specific task or project, why not rent it?
That is essentially the subscription model. From a user standpoint, being able to rent (subscribe) a product that is used infrequently is quite ideal. Not having to pay hundreds or thousands for a package I need for 90 days for a project is ideal. If I need it for years, I would like the option to just buy it.
I don't need to buy a truck because I can rent one for the three times a year I actually need it. I bet lots of people are the same with software.
If you are using the software/tool infrequently then don't pay for the subscription. If you all of a sudden need said software for a project, pay for the subscription. Seems cheaper to me for the infrequent user.
If you need said software/tool to make a living, well no matter how you slice it, that is simply the cost of doing business.
The one thing I dislike about subscriptions is it may remove incentive from the developer to develop. An upgrade model, at least as an option, which incentivizes a developer to earn the upgrade fee, should be offered.
It can work the other way as well. It can give them a known revenue stream to underwrite development costs knowing the improvements keep customers happy and paying.
I known a few pro-apps we use moved to the subscription model and we had the same worries but the opposite was true. Developers really focused on things that made life better everyday instead of things that looked good in upgrade sales pitches. Over 5 years we still have all the new features the upgrades that would have been used as sales pitch but they were introduced piecemeal so our staff came along for the ride and were ready and trained for the features as they dropped. With upgrade features didn't hit the public release till they were a bit to far developed so worked in a way the programmers thought they should instead of how the user would want them, a bit buggy due to limited user time and needed a bit training and thinking before they could be used in the workflow.
If I only need a tool or piece of software for a limited time to complete a specific task or project, why not rent it?
Because app subscriptions will be for a 1 year term even if you only plan to use it once. Would you rent a truck if it required a yearly rental? Also, I've never seen a subscription with any type of money back guarantee. You subscribe and if it sucks...your out of luck. Superscription based models are a lose, lose for consumers.
If I only need a tool or piece of software for a limited time to complete a specific task or project, why not rent it?
Because app subscriptions will be for a 1 year term even if you only plan to use it once. Would you rent a truck if it required a yearly rental? Also, I've never seen a subscription with any type of money back guarantee. You subscribe and if it sucks...your out of luck. Superscription based models are a lose, lose for consumers.
If I only need a tool or piece of software for a limited time to complete a specific task or project, why not rent it?
Because app subscriptions will be for a 1 year term even if you only plan to use it once. Would you rent a truck if it required a yearly rental? Also, I've never seen a subscription with any type of money back guarantee. You subscribe and if it sucks...your out of luck. Superscription based models are a lose, lose for consumers.
More expensive apps could try a model where it's $10 or $1 every 2 months, giving you the two months as a trial effectively at the cost of a dollar. After that pay $10 or subscribe.
This should encourage better quality apps. As for those of you who don't like the subscription model, don't use it.
FFS people, subscriptions are simply one method of monetizing an application, and this isn't even new. All Apple has done is reduce "their cut" from subscriptions after a year of continuous enrolment by a user. There are many apps which are based on services (video, music, magazines, ...) which are a perfect fit for subscriptions - and we are seeing some of the major software players who provide more comprehensive and evolving apps also go subscription.
In the end, if a s/w or app vendor tries to be truly greedy, then they will lose. Period. It is called business - price and market for the functionality. Apps that are successful with in-app purchases are unlikely to ditch success for something that is unknown, and potentially alienate all of their customers. The app vendors have to find out what works best - it is their business after all, not Apple's.
It is just giving the app vendors "a little" more flexibility by making subscriptions more viable. By keeping the 30% for year 1, Apple is balancing against those that might try to shift to subscriptions just to increase their share. To make it into that second year per subscriber, they have to have a good product/service.
As always, lots of criticism of Apple being greedy by keeping the 30% cut for subscriptions, and same people now complaining when Apple cuts the rate. Sadly, such muddled thinking is dominate today.
I hope there's some kind of rule whereby if the developer is not actively developing or supporting the app for a certain amount of time (a year perhaps, for some equivalence) and it's a wholly device-bound app with no web service component, then Apple does something about the subscription.
Not or sure exactly what the rule should be, but I don't think developers should be able to sit on subscription apps in perpetuity.
I'm not afraid of subscription pricing because I already subscribe to Netflix, HBO Now and more. Subscription pricing is going to it easier for developers that have a suite of apps and potentially harder for the developer of a single app.
Subscription also works great in some cross-platform scenarios. I just subscribed to 1Password Families and much of the allure is knowing that the product exists on Mac, Windows, iOS and Android. Wherever I find myself my data will be there and the apps are all free to use as a sub.
The subscription changes will mainly apply to the content subscription services like the ones you've mentioned. Some people seem to be worried about lots of apps going subscription but I don't see it appealing to many software providers. This was reported on last year:
Content providers like Netflix, Hulu, Spotify are currently taking a hit to profits by offering subscriptions on mobile platforms or raising the prices. This is just making it easier on them. It's just speculative that a 15% subscription cut would encourage more subscriptions to avoid having a 30% cut from IAPs and upfront payments.
It may be an incentive to some software providers like someone subscribing to a game like the Kardashian game or whatever and being able to get in-app content while subscribed but that could end up being more cost-effective for players and providers may even make less money that way.
Being able to subscribe to a suite of apps would be ok. EA does this with EA Access:
The buyers will always determine the outcome. Music increased in subscription offerings because the buyers started buying less and moved to subscription services:
If buyers don't want subscriptions, they shouldn't sign up to them. If lots of other people do, it's them to blame for shaping the market to what they are happy with.
This begs the question: if Schiller has been able to do all this in the few months that he's been at the helm of the App Store then wtf was Eddie Cue doing in HIS time overseeing the App Store?
I'm personally not a fan of the subscription / never-ending payment model. I would prefer to pay more upfront and simply own the software, and then pay for updates as and when I need them. I have a number of apps (Apple Keynote 5.3, is a good example) that I would rather continue using than suffer the changes / issues inflicted by their updates. Being at the bleeding edge is fine if you can take the blood loss. I personally value stability — an increasingly rare quality — over new features.
Comments
Next step will be more aggressive restrictions on user reviews and rankings.
If a tool or piece of software is used day in and day out I would prefer to purchase it. Own it. Use the living daylights out of it.
If I only need a tool or piece of software for a limited time to complete a specific task or project, why not rent it?
That is essentially the subscription model. From a user standpoint, being able to rent (subscribe) a product that is used infrequently is quite ideal. Not having to pay hundreds or thousands for a package I need for 90 days for a project is ideal. If I need it for years, I would like the option to just buy it.
I don't need to buy a truck because I can rent one for the three times a year I actually need it. I bet lots of people are the same with software.
If you are using the software/tool infrequently then don't pay for the subscription. If you all of a sudden need said software for a project, pay for the subscription. Seems cheaper to me for the infrequent user.
If you need said software/tool to make a living, well no matter how you slice it, that is simply the cost of doing business.
It can give them a known revenue stream to underwrite development costs knowing the improvements keep customers happy and paying.
I known a few pro-apps we use moved to the subscription model and we had the same worries but the opposite was true.
Developers really focused on things that made life better everyday instead of things that looked good in upgrade sales pitches.
Over 5 years we still have all the new features the upgrades that would have been used as sales pitch but they were introduced piecemeal so our staff came along for the ride and were ready and trained for the features as they dropped. With upgrade features didn't hit the public release till they were a bit to far developed so worked in a way the programmers thought they should instead of how the user would want them, a bit buggy due to limited user time and needed a bit training and thinking before they could be used in the workflow.
I stand corrected.
This should encourage better quality apps. As for those of you who don't like the subscription model, don't use it.
In the end, if a s/w or app vendor tries to be truly greedy, then they will lose. Period. It is called business - price and market for the functionality. Apps that are successful with in-app purchases are unlikely to ditch success for something that is unknown, and potentially alienate all of their customers. The app vendors have to find out what works best - it is their business after all, not Apple's.
It is just giving the app vendors "a little" more flexibility by making subscriptions more viable. By keeping the 30% for year 1, Apple is balancing against those that might try to shift to subscriptions just to increase their share. To make it into that second year per subscriber, they have to have a good product/service.
As always, lots of criticism of Apple being greedy by keeping the 30% cut for subscriptions, and same people now complaining when Apple cuts the rate. Sadly, such muddled thinking is dominate today.
Not or sure exactly what the rule should be, but I don't think developers should be able to sit on subscription apps in perpetuity.
http://www.macrumors.com/2015/06/05/apple-changing-in-app-subscription-cut/
http://www.macrumors.com/2015/09/24/netflix-in-app-subscriptions/
Content providers like Netflix, Hulu, Spotify are currently taking a hit to profits by offering subscriptions on mobile platforms or raising the prices. This is just making it easier on them. It's just speculative that a 15% subscription cut would encourage more subscriptions to avoid having a 30% cut from IAPs and upfront payments.
It may be an incentive to some software providers like someone subscribing to a game like the Kardashian game or whatever and being able to get in-app content while subscribed but that could end up being more cost-effective for players and providers may even make less money that way.
Being able to subscribe to a suite of apps would be ok. EA does this with EA Access:
http://www.ea.com/eaaccess/
The buyers will always determine the outcome. Music increased in subscription offerings because the buyers started buying less and moved to subscription services:
http://venturebeat.com/2014/10/28/applele-confirms-decline-in-sales-of-itunes-digital-music-downloads/
If buyers don't want subscriptions, they shouldn't sign up to them. If lots of other people do, it's them to blame for shaping the market to what they are happy with.