Apple announces it will offer App Store subscriptions to all apps, take smaller 15% cut

124

Comments

  • Reply 61 of 84
    technotechno Posts: 699member
    Someone help me understand the subscription model. Will Apple mandate that the consumer gets a choice between purchase and subscription? Would the subscription allow you major updates when the iOS had major changes and purchase would keep you at the version at the time of purchase? I do not like subscription software, but that model would seem fair.

    My fear is that that will not be the way it goes down. I worry that developers will only offer subscriptions and still have in-app purchases. When given the chance to make more money, everyone takes it. So will they be lured by the hollow money grab? I say hollow because subscriptions will curb people's spending habits. I know I certainly can't afford to pay a monthly or annual fee for all of my apps.
  • Reply 62 of 84
    asdasdasdasd Posts: 5,285member
    1983 said:

    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? 
  • Reply 63 of 84
    rtdunhamrtdunham Posts: 428member
    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...?
  • Reply 64 of 84
    Rayz2016Rayz2016 Posts: 4,569member
    thrang said:

    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. 

  • Reply 65 of 84
    wizard69wizard69 Posts: 12,756member
    Oh joy. Ads...
    Subscriptions are worst. Subscriptions amount to Apple shitting on App Store, their customers and their reputation.
  • Reply 66 of 84
    wizard69wizard69 Posts: 12,756member
    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.
  • Reply 67 of 84
    wizard69wizard69 Posts: 12,756member
    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.
  • Reply 68 of 84
    wizard69wizard69 Posts: 12,756member
    melgross said:
    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!!!!
  • Reply 69 of 84
    VisualSeedVisualSeed Posts: 217member
    wizard69 said:
    melgross said:
    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. 
    edited June 2016 patchythepirateasdasd
  • Reply 70 of 84
    mattinozmattinoz Posts: 1,043member
    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. 
  • Reply 71 of 84
    techlovertechlover Posts: 879member
    wizard69 said:
    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.
  • Reply 72 of 84
    mattinozmattinoz Posts: 1,043member
    thrang said:

    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.

  • Reply 73 of 84
    techlover said:


    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.
  • Reply 74 of 84
    techlovertechlover Posts: 879member
    techlover said:


    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.
    That is a very, very, extremely fair point.

    I stand corrected.
  • Reply 75 of 84
    dick applebaumdick applebaum Posts: 12,506member
    techlover said:
    techlover said:


    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.
    That is a very, very, extremely fair point.

    I stand corrected.
    A user can cancel  a subscription at any time.

  • Reply 76 of 84
    asdasdasdasd Posts: 5,285member
    techlover said:


    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. 
  • Reply 77 of 84
    brucemcbrucemc Posts: 1,527member
    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.
  • Reply 78 of 84
    crowleycrowley Posts: 5,799member
    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.
  • Reply 79 of 84
    MarvinMarvin Posts: 14,214moderator
    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:

    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.
    edited June 2016
  • Reply 80 of 84
    latifbplatifbp Posts: 544member
    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?
    Dancing to Cuban music
Sign In or Register to comment.