Seems like the guy who chopped up TV content, packaged it up and delivered it in subscription format has finally met the man who chopped up the internet and charged us 59p/99¢ minimum per segment.
I don't think subscribing to apps is coming, but otherwise I think it is bound to happen. What do you think will happen for iWorks apps next year? Don't really think that Apple wants to give all upcoming releases for free to everyone who has already paid. But at the same time I don't really see people having two different Keynote apps side by side, that's not very Apple like.
A subscription is when payment is required. MS has been working this for Office and other programs for years. It's proven to be a very unpopular way of requiring people to upgrade, so it's been dropped for most things.
If you have the option of buying the newer version, but can stick with the older one, then it,s not a subscription. It's just the old upgrade path. I can't see Apple requiring people to subscribe for updates, or for use.
Think World of Warcraft. It costs money to keep those servers and network connections up, and right now developers have 3 choices: fixed price and hope for ever-expanding sales and have later users subsidize earlier users (pyramid scheme), in-game ads, and hokey Farmville-style in-app purchases of game currency.
Give me a nice, clean subscription any day.
I can think of similar situations with business software where you want to give someone the option of an all-you-can-eat cloud service for N months for X dollars.
That's a different story. People play that game for many hours at a time. We don't need the servers constantly when using apps, and when we do, it's mostly the isp's servers. We do pay a subscription for that use.
But, in addition, unlike an online game, Apple makes most of its money from hardware sales. If they try to squeeze their hardware customers too much, it will be a problem for them, which is why they charge so little for the software on iOS that they have now. They could have charged more than $9.95 for iWork, and they could charge more than they are planning for the OS X version in that app store.
I hope they make it so regular apps can go subscription as well. That way, for example, you could make a game that costs 99 cents to buy, and 99 cents a week to keep it, unless you specifically unsubscribe.
That way, the devs will flock to iOS and keep making lots of great apps. Google is just a one-trick pony with advertising.
You must be a developer, because that sounds like the worst possible consumer outcome of adding a recurring revenue model for apps. I like Cut the Rope for 99 cents, but I'm not on board for 99 cents A WEEK.
For level-based games, adding new levels as in-app purchases and adding spin-offs like Angry Birds Halloween already generate additional revenue for the developers. I think you would see low acceptance and potentially major push-back against developers if they change games to a recurring revenue model.
You must be a developer, because that sounds like the worst possible consumer outcome of adding a recurring revenue model for apps. I like Cut the Rope for 99 cents, but I'm not on board for 99 cents A WEEK.
For level-based games, adding new levels as in-app purchases and adding spin-offs like Angry Birds Halloween already generate additional revenue for the developers. I think you would see low acceptance and potentially major push-back against developers if they change games to a recurring revenue model.
Please look at my post a few back. He's not sincere.
One thing that I don't think people here have talked about is upgrades that cost money.
I bet you it's coming.
Several reasons.
iWork. You don't want the older version side by side with a new one right. The only way to solve this would be an upgrade function developers can charge for.
I think it would be sweet. Instead if having different versions of a game, developers could program different modes. A free, limited mode. And if you like the game you can upgrade it to the full version. Away with all the Lite apps.
One app. When you upgrade it just unlocks features.
Let's say you conquered all the levels in Angry birds Lite.
You like it so you pay for the full version. But you don't want to loose your hard earned 3 stars. You upgrade!
They would have to change the AppStore a bit to get this working of course. I would hate to have these things under the updates section. An ugly number on the icon all the time if there was an app I didn't want to upgrade. I foresee a new tab called "optional upgrades" or something.
One thing that I don't think people here have talked about is upgrades.
I bet you it's coming.
Several reasons.
iWork. You don't want the older version side by side with a new one right. The only way to solve this would be an upgrade function developers can charge for.
I think it would be sweet. Instead if having different versions of a game, developers could program different modes. A free, limited mode. And if you like the game you can upgrade it to the full version. Away with all the Lite apps.
One app. When you upgrade it just unlocks features.
Let's say you conquered all the levels in Angry birds Lite.
You like it so you pay for the full version. But you don't want to loose your hard earned 3 stars. You upgrade!
My 2 cents.
I?d much rather have a trail version added to the App structure that can be set up at the developers discretion.
I’d much rather have a trail version added to the App structure that can be set up at the developers discretion.
Well, trail versions are just that. A trail. Usually they are timebased. Sometimes you can run then indefinitely but mostly not. Timebased suck and would not be very popular among users. What if you'r on a plane and you want to play some Cut the rope. Your 30 days are up but you hadn't noticed. When you start it up somewhere over Michigan the frog won't bite. No wifi, no 3G. You have the 99cents saved up but you can't use them. That would suck.
A trail without a timelimit would be the same thing I described. I "lite" version with upgrade option.
Changing the revenue model to subscriptions may for the forerunner to daily or the buying an individual newspaper or magazine. Hard to say if subscriptions will be popular. However I would not be a fan of a subscription type newstand
The frequency and content of these updates are getting to be a bit perplexing. I'd prefer that Apple did them less frequently but with more substance, and getting it close-to-100% right (like they used to).
We don't need yet another time-wasting downloading/syncing chore just because Apple struck a deal with someone or has some new cute-sy thing-y to announce (e.g., Ping).
Sometimes, it's good to go way for a while and let us enjoy a product in peace.
The frequency and content of these updates are getting to be a bit perplexing. I'd prefer that Apple did them less frequently but with more substance, and getting it close-to-100% right (like they used to).
We don't need yet another time-wasting downloading/syncing chore just because Apple struck a deal with someone or has some new cute-sy thing-y to announce (e.g., Ping).
Sometimes, it's good to go way for a while and let us enjoy a product in peace.
This is the beginning of a new industry. I wouldn't get annoyed, as it's going to take time for things to simmer down. but I'd rather see updates so I could get the product than be forced to wait. And don't forget that Apple is being chased, and that other publishers have developed a platform that's going to Android first, because Apple won't play ball. That's what happens when Apple takes forever to get something done, and wants too much control.
Options are a good thing! App subscriptions would not only be great for apps with frequent content updates (newspapers, magazines) but also for those people that want to try the full version of the game but don't want to spend the full price (you can try it out for $1 per week to decide if you want to buy it outright). This model also works for games with that need servers (as has already been mentioned). I'd much rather pay a subscription for full use of server access games (shooting games, farm ville type stuff) then on weapons or smurfberries which you now must buy in order to get a full experience. It's straightforward vs gimmicky. I hope this happens.
Another update in a few weeks already? That was fast. I'm hoping there will be no delays again like iOS 4.2
I"m trying to figure out why such an update would be needed. Seems more like an issue for the other end, as in the actual servers handling your itunes account info. And perhaps updating a handful of apps that would not perhaps be able to use some API they couldn't before.
Quote:
Originally Posted by kiwee
One thing that I don't think people here have talked about is upgrades that cost money.
I bet you it's coming.
In a technical sense they can already do it via in app purchases. That would totally allow you to add more levels etc. Or more photo packs or whatever. Just some folks refuse to do it that way. And Apple hasn't yet put down the hammer to make them do it that way
It is only a full on change of the app that you can't charge to update and that is due to the rules of play.
Quote:
iWork. You don't want the older version side by side with a new one right. The only way to solve this would be
exactly the way the system works now. The app is tagged with an id number and a version number and when you download the new version itunes deletes the old one.
Why would anyone want a movie subscription? Music I can kinda understand if you are into music.
Well both would go hand in hand. One monthly payment for Music, Movies, TV shows and....News, if you like that sort of thing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69
The problem with movie or TV subscriptions is that you as a consumer quickly loose due to being nickeled and dime'd to death.
Well it would be optional not compulsory. More choice on iTunes.
An example: Take the new Predators movie. It's been £9.99 in the store since release and due to go for rent later this month (£4.49 HD no doubt). Asda retailed for £12.71 on release but now £8.99 (within weeks).
By the time a film goes for rental in iTunes the film is in every bargain bucket at £5 or less. So its £4.49 for HD rental or own it for £5. A no brainer.
I find iTunes too slow to react to prices in Supermarkets, the place i have to visit weekly in order to feed my children. Ultimately i end up buying from the bargain bucket, ripping it and sticking on iTunes/iPad etc..
So we're already being "nickeled and dime'd to death"
Music - Same thing. 99p a track (still) and only 79p on Napster (ok mp3 but I can't hear the difference) and i have the option of monthly subscription plus 5 free tracks a month and all for £5 a month.
I used to use iTunes as my Jukebox whilst at work but i now just open Napster, with the choice of limitless music. I also get to hear the full track with the choice of purchasing if my credits have ran out. 79p v's 99p hmm let me think about it.
When i'm at home i just stream from Napster to my Sonos. iTunes has now become my repository for apps/podcasts and syncing.
So while i can understand Apple jumping through hoops to get the big media moguls on board, i'd like to see subscriptions to iTunes content. After all, music and movies, kinda got the whole iPod/iPhone/iPad ball rolling.
I'm sure it'll happen one day.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69
In any event if the subscription service for magazines and newspapers is well done I think you will quickly find that most people disagree with you.
I'm not seeing that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69
There is value in good journalism that people are willing to pay for.
Comments
Murdoch & Jobs - Oh my days!!!
I don't think subscribing to apps is coming, but otherwise I think it is bound to happen. What do you think will happen for iWorks apps next year? Don't really think that Apple wants to give all upcoming releases for free to everyone who has already paid. But at the same time I don't really see people having two different Keynote apps side by side, that's not very Apple like.
A subscription is when payment is required. MS has been working this for Office and other programs for years. It's proven to be a very unpopular way of requiring people to upgrade, so it's been dropped for most things.
If you have the option of buying the newer version, but can stick with the older one, then it,s not a subscription. It's just the old upgrade path. I can't see Apple requiring people to subscribe for updates, or for use.
Think World of Warcraft. It costs money to keep those servers and network connections up, and right now developers have 3 choices: fixed price and hope for ever-expanding sales and have later users subsidize earlier users (pyramid scheme), in-game ads, and hokey Farmville-style in-app purchases of game currency.
Give me a nice, clean subscription any day.
I can think of similar situations with business software where you want to give someone the option of an all-you-can-eat cloud service for N months for X dollars.
That's a different story. People play that game for many hours at a time. We don't need the servers constantly when using apps, and when we do, it's mostly the isp's servers. We do pay a subscription for that use.
But, in addition, unlike an online game, Apple makes most of its money from hardware sales. If they try to squeeze their hardware customers too much, it will be a problem for them, which is why they charge so little for the software on iOS that they have now. They could have charged more than $9.95 for iWork, and they could charge more than they are planning for the OS X version in that app store.
I hope they make it so regular apps can go subscription as well. That way, for example, you could make a game that costs 99 cents to buy, and 99 cents a week to keep it, unless you specifically unsubscribe.
That way, the devs will flock to iOS and keep making lots of great apps. Google is just a one-trick pony with advertising.
You must be a developer, because that sounds like the worst possible consumer outcome of adding a recurring revenue model for apps. I like Cut the Rope for 99 cents, but I'm not on board for 99 cents A WEEK.
For level-based games, adding new levels as in-app purchases and adding spin-offs like Angry Birds Halloween already generate additional revenue for the developers. I think you would see low acceptance and potentially major push-back against developers if they change games to a recurring revenue model.
You must be a developer, because that sounds like the worst possible consumer outcome of adding a recurring revenue model for apps. I like Cut the Rope for 99 cents, but I'm not on board for 99 cents A WEEK.
For level-based games, adding new levels as in-app purchases and adding spin-offs like Angry Birds Halloween already generate additional revenue for the developers. I think you would see low acceptance and potentially major push-back against developers if they change games to a recurring revenue model.
Please look at my post a few back. He's not sincere.
I bet you it's coming.
Several reasons.
iWork. You don't want the older version side by side with a new one right. The only way to solve this would be an upgrade function developers can charge for.
I think it would be sweet. Instead if having different versions of a game, developers could program different modes. A free, limited mode. And if you like the game you can upgrade it to the full version. Away with all the Lite apps.
One app. When you upgrade it just unlocks features.
Let's say you conquered all the levels in Angry birds Lite.
You like it so you pay for the full version. But you don't want to loose your hard earned 3 stars. You upgrade!
They would have to change the AppStore a bit to get this working of course. I would hate to have these things under the updates section. An ugly number on the icon all the time if there was an app I didn't want to upgrade. I foresee a new tab called "optional upgrades" or something.
My 2 cents.
One thing that I don't think people here have talked about is upgrades.
I bet you it's coming.
Several reasons.
iWork. You don't want the older version side by side with a new one right. The only way to solve this would be an upgrade function developers can charge for.
I think it would be sweet. Instead if having different versions of a game, developers could program different modes. A free, limited mode. And if you like the game you can upgrade it to the full version. Away with all the Lite apps.
One app. When you upgrade it just unlocks features.
Let's say you conquered all the levels in Angry birds Lite.
You like it so you pay for the full version. But you don't want to loose your hard earned 3 stars. You upgrade!
My 2 cents.
I?d much rather have a trail version added to the App structure that can be set up at the developers discretion.
I’d much rather have a trail version added to the App structure that can be set up at the developers discretion.
Well, trail versions are just that. A trail. Usually they are timebased. Sometimes you can run then indefinitely but mostly not. Timebased suck and would not be very popular among users. What if you'r on a plane and you want to play some Cut the rope. Your 30 days are up but you hadn't noticed. When you start it up somewhere over Michigan the frog won't bite. No wifi, no 3G. You have the 99cents saved up but you can't use them. That would suck.
A trail without a timelimit would be the same thing I described. I "lite" version with upgrade option.
I'm calling it now: That server farm is for 1 purpose...
Apple's xmas gift to us: Free MobileMe.
We don't need yet another time-wasting downloading/syncing chore just because Apple struck a deal with someone or has some new cute-sy thing-y to announce (e.g., Ping).
Sometimes, it's good to go way for a while and let us enjoy a product in peace.
My letterbox took a long time to recover from the last time and I don't want the same thing happening electronically.
I don't mind if this decreases the savings in the subscription price a bit, as I figure my peace of mind is worth more than that.
The frequency and content of these updates are getting to be a bit perplexing. I'd prefer that Apple did them less frequently but with more substance, and getting it close-to-100% right (like they used to).
We don't need yet another time-wasting downloading/syncing chore just because Apple struck a deal with someone or has some new cute-sy thing-y to announce (e.g., Ping).
Sometimes, it's good to go way for a while and let us enjoy a product in peace.
This is the beginning of a new industry. I wouldn't get annoyed, as it's going to take time for things to simmer down. but I'd rather see updates so I could get the product than be forced to wait. And don't forget that Apple is being chased, and that other publishers have developed a platform that's going to Android first, because Apple won't play ball. That's what happens when Apple takes forever to get something done, and wants too much control.
I'm all for subscriptions of newspapers etc as long as the publishers don't get their greedy hooks into my private information and start spamming.
My letterbox took a long time to recover from the last time and I don't want the same thing happening electronically.
I don't mind if this decreases the savings in the subscription price a bit, as I figure my peace of mind is worth more than that.
I don't think publishers want anything more than they've already got with print.
Another update in a few weeks already? That was fast. I'm hoping there will be no delays again like iOS 4.2
I"m trying to figure out why such an update would be needed. Seems more like an issue for the other end, as in the actual servers handling your itunes account info. And perhaps updating a handful of apps that would not perhaps be able to use some API they couldn't before.
One thing that I don't think people here have talked about is upgrades that cost money.
I bet you it's coming.
In a technical sense they can already do it via in app purchases. That would totally allow you to add more levels etc. Or more photo packs or whatever. Just some folks refuse to do it that way. And Apple hasn't yet put down the hammer to make them do it that way
It is only a full on change of the app that you can't charge to update and that is due to the rules of play.
iWork. You don't want the older version side by side with a new one right. The only way to solve this would be
exactly the way the system works now. The app is tagged with an id number and a version number and when you download the new version itunes deletes the old one.
Why would anyone want a movie subscription? Music I can kinda understand if you are into music.
Well both would go hand in hand. One monthly payment for Music, Movies, TV shows and....News, if you like that sort of thing.
The problem with movie or TV subscriptions is that you as a consumer quickly loose due to being nickeled and dime'd to death.
Well it would be optional not compulsory. More choice on iTunes.
An example: Take the new Predators movie. It's been £9.99 in the store since release and due to go for rent later this month (£4.49 HD no doubt). Asda retailed for £12.71 on release but now £8.99 (within weeks).
By the time a film goes for rental in iTunes the film is in every bargain bucket at £5 or less. So its £4.49 for HD rental or own it for £5. A no brainer.
I find iTunes too slow to react to prices in Supermarkets, the place i have to visit weekly in order to feed my children. Ultimately i end up buying from the bargain bucket, ripping it and sticking on iTunes/iPad etc..
So we're already being "nickeled and dime'd to death"
Music - Same thing. 99p a track (still) and only 79p on Napster (ok mp3 but I can't hear the difference) and i have the option of monthly subscription plus 5 free tracks a month and all for £5 a month.
I used to use iTunes as my Jukebox whilst at work but i now just open Napster, with the choice of limitless music. I also get to hear the full track with the choice of purchasing if my credits have ran out. 79p v's 99p hmm let me think about it.
When i'm at home i just stream from Napster to my Sonos. iTunes has now become my repository for apps/podcasts and syncing.
So while i can understand Apple jumping through hoops to get the big media moguls on board, i'd like to see subscriptions to iTunes content. After all, music and movies, kinda got the whole iPod/iPhone/iPad ball rolling.
I'm sure it'll happen one day.
In any event if the subscription service for magazines and newspapers is well done I think you will quickly find that most people disagree with you.
I'm not seeing that.
There is value in good journalism that people are willing to pay for.
I agree, just not a priority for me.