AppStore Subscriptions

I think we’ll find more about this when WWDC gets going. For now there are a lot of unanswered questions. I don’t know if the subscription system works by limiting access to the entire app if you’ve unsubscribed or if it’s just that certain features will be limited. I haven’t found out about that yet. If it’s that you subscribe to just using the software and keep paying while you still want to use it, then Apple will probably have some fairly inexpensive price tiers. In that scenario a developer probably doesn’t even need to write very much code or any at all to enable this. It would be something built-in to iOS. If it’s a feature subscription, then I don’t see it as being any different than a recurring in-app purchase. You pay for just those features that you want to keep using. Maybe it reverts back to a form of a Lite version if you don’t keep your subscription active.

Lots of questions, so few answers.

FWIW, I’m all in favor of app developers being able to make enough to sustain (and improve) apps that I use and like. Having said that, some apps (and categories of apps) will inevitably be worth more to me than others. If Apple sticks with a $0.99 per month minimum, a lot will not make the cut. BTW, that is not meant as a warning. Database and other “full-time” productivity apps can and should be worth at least that much. I’m thinking more of occasional usage utility apps, games, etc.

The announcement isn’t very clear (at least to me anyway), but I hope that it is possible to get annual subscriptions instead of just monthly. To me anyway, the psychology is different. I don’t mind paying an annual fee if I’m sure I’m going to use a service at least several times during the year. OTOH, it annoys me to pay monthly during those times that I may not use the service at all.

For example, I still subscribe to a few dead tree magazines even though I know that not all of the monthly issues are likely to appeal to me — but the overall convenience of not missing the good issues makes it worthwhile.

With software, I think the issues are similar. For better or worse, most of us have grown up with the concept of “purchasing” software for a one time fee (in spite of the near ubiquitous “licensed not sold” verbiage in the fine print). Even though the iOS and Mac OS app stores have confused the issue with their “free re-downloads for life” policies, I think most people can understand (and agree with, perhaps grudgingly) the need to pay upgrade fees for additional functionality.

I think an annual fee / annual upgrade cycle makes a lot of sense for software. NO ONE really likes the idea of “software as a service”. Paying a monthly fee simply to “maintain access” is too similar to paying your cable or cell phone bill. Prices seem to creep up, service gets worse, and there is a strong tendency to get “locked-in” because switching is expensive and/or difficult.

OTOH, most software should be upgraded annually — for security at least. For a lot of reasons, it is impractical to add new features on a monthly basis. End-user learning curve issues alone make it a bad idea. In addition, any really significant new functionality (not to mention security issues) often require a non-trivial architecture change — not something that can be safely done every month. There are good reasons that virtually all significant software products have carefully defined release cycles.

Like I said, I don’t have any idea what Apple is going to allow, but I hope they do permit annual billing. If you happen to be attending WWDC, please suggest it if you can. While it is clearly not as “developer-friendly” (or Apple friendly) as a predictable monthly income, I do feel that annual billing will be much more palatable to end-users and thus more successful overall.

AngriB,

I had to laugh/cry at your comment about non-physical items having little to no value. Sadly, it does seem to be true, but I really believe that we, as a society, need to get past that attitude. It seems to me that as automation inevitably is responsible for producing a greater percentage of physical goods, then more and more jobs will have to migrate to service industries of one kind or another.

Not to get all political, but I think we are seeing that already. As more and more manufacturing is either automated or moved over-seas, people have to take lower-paying service industry jobs leaving them less money to buy stuff with in the first place. Personally, I’m very afraid that this vicious cycle will cause our overall economy to shrink.

Which is why I’m glad to see that Apple is at least trying to address the issue of developers being able to make a living wage on an ongoing basis. I hope it works well and doesn’t have too many growing pains.

Sadly, I’m probably in a small minority, but I think that most app pricing is way too low. I’ve been around since the days of 300 baud modems, and many of my favorite and most used applications have been from indy developers. I really want to have a continuing supply of clever, useful (sometimes niche) products to pick from in the future.

Unfortunately, very few of the $0.99 apps are worth even a nickel. And finding the ones that are worth the price is extremely difficult. OTOH, some of the $5 or $10 apps are equal to or better than stuff I willingly paid $40 – $70 for in the case of games (or even hundreds for productivity apps) not too many years ago. It’s crazy.

It infuriates me when people refuse to pay the price of a cup of coffee or a fast-food meal for an application that could be MUCH more useful and long-lasting than a Starbucks or BigMac. Great apps don’t come from nowhere — developers need to be able to make a living wage to be able to continue to create them.

BTW, my reasoning is entirely selfish, but only because I want to have a good selection of indy apps in the future. I’d like to think that I “could” write a good iOS or Mac app, but I’ve never had a sufficiently good/unique idea for one that could stand a chance of not getting lost in the app stores. Besides, I’m retired and fully intend to dedicate my spare time to fun — programming for money is hard work.

AngriB,

“We all place value on different things. It’s not always based on what went into a thing but instead what we get out of that thing.”

Fair enough — I didn’t mean to imply otherwise. Life isn’t fair. There is no reason to believe that any particular customer will (or should) place the same value on a product that it took to create the product to begin with. Lots of businesses have failed because they couldn’t produce a product at a price customers were willing to pay. I have no problem with that.

Nope. I was simply expressing my surprise at HOW people value different items/products. It never fails to amaze me when people balk at spending a buck or two (or even five or ten) on a product that will provide hours, weeks or months of entertainment or time-savings. Yet those same people often spend far more money on beverages or meals that have literally a few dollars or less worth of ingredients. I bet the average person spends thousands per year on entertainment and convenience products or services, yet is unable to see the same value in software.

I think a lot of this was caused by the race to the bottom in the iOS app store. Unfortunately, now that the genie is out of the bottle, I’m not sure if we can ever get it back in. I really hope that the new pricing schemes can do something to restore the value/price relationship to something that will make it easier for good developers to have a sustainable business model.

I saw a tweet today that productivity apps are good candidates for subscriptions, even if the productivity app goes into a read-only mode if the subscription ends.

I still haven’t decided if I would entertain even going down that route. It didn’t seem to be a good move for TextExpander. They got lots of flak for it. I think people will just take a little time to get used to the idea, especially if more apps go that way.