Ondrej Holzman WWDC is approaching, which is a developer conference designed primarily for developers who are already impatiently waiting to see what Apple has in store for them. Significant changes took place in the App Store a year ago, and it is possible that they will continue this year as well. However, app pricing options are unlikely to expand, even though some developers and users would like it to.
In the App Store, something more significant began to happen after years, after the control over software stores in late 2015 took over marketing expert Phil Schiller. Just before WWDC last year announced big changes, the biggest of which was that all developers can take full advantage of a subscription model that only worked for media content until then.
With subscriptions, Apple wanted to give an alternative to those developers who, for various reasons, were unable to make a one-time payment for the purchase and use of their applications. Thanks to the subscription, they were able to secure regular monthly income of various amounts and thus obtain funds for further development and support.
Phil Schiller already reported a year ago that he sees the future in subscriptions, how not only mobile applications will be sold, so Apple started to push this option in particular. Some developers have jumped on the bandwagon and users are getting used to it too. "Some of our applications have subscriptions, because in their case it makes more sense for us - the customer pays when he really uses the application and wants to use premium functions," explains the possible use of subscriptions, Jakub Kašpar from the studio STRV.
For a long time, the standard in the App Store was a model where a user paid once for an app and then could use it more or less forever for free. Over time, in-app purchases have been added for premium features, for example, but subscriptions turn the whole model even further and respond to the current trend of selling software as a service.
"Subscriptions go hand in hand with the latest trend, which is SaaS (software as a service). Instead of a high one-time fee, the user has the option of paying a small monthly fee and having full functionality available. Microsoft with Office, Adobe with Creative Cloud and many others are good examples," says Roman Maštalíř from the Czech studio TouchArt.
It is true that it was mainly large companies that came up with the form of subscriptions for their applications and services first, but gradually - also thanks to the opening of this option in the App Store - smaller developers are also starting to ride this wave, who have a regular relationship with their users the fee is also justified (regular updates, continuous support, etc.).
Subscriptions definitely no longer work only for large and expensive software, for which the monthly fee could even break the psychological barrier that you don't have to pay several thousand for one application at once. "Subscription is one of the options we are leaning towards in the case of TeeVee 4.0," admits Tomáš Perzl from CrazyApps. They are preparing the umpteenth big update for their application and for that reason they are considering a subscription.
In the case of a subscription, they would have secured funds for further development and, for example, in the case of further major updates, they would no longer have to deal with the dilemma of how much and whether to charge them at all. Studio Cultured Code however u stuff 3, a brand new version of the popular task book (we are preparing a review), which came after many years, bet on a conservative option: Things 3 have a one-time price, like Things 2 years ago.
But since Things 3 costs more than 70 euros for iPhone, iPad and Mac together, I can imagine that many users would rather pay a smaller monthly fee than having to shell out almost 2 thousand crowns in one go. Therefore, it has been debated for several years whether Apple should allow the option of paid upgrades in the App Store.
This would, on the one hand, bring the possibility to pay for a major update - once again, if the developer so desired - and, most importantly, it would also offer the possibility of providing a discount to existing customers. "Sometimes we miss a paid upgrade model that would allow us to have a different price for a new and an existing customer. Most of the features of the paid upgrade can be simulated through in-app purchases, but unfortunately not this one," says Jan Ilavský from the studio Hyperbolic Magnetism, which stands for example behind the popular game Chameleon Run.
On the other hand, many problems would be associated with the option of a paid upgrade. The discount for loyal customers is tempting, but Phil Schiller, who heads the App Stores, thinks that in the end a paid upgrade would not be for as many developers and customers as he said in an interview for 360 Gadgets:
The reason we haven't done the paid upgrade yet is because it's a lot more complex than people think; and that's fine, it's our job to think about complex problems, but the App Store has achieved so many successful milestones without it because the current business model makes sense for customers. The upgrade model, which I'm very familiar with from my time working on many large software programs, is a model where the software was trimmed in different ways, and it's still important to many developers, but for most, it's no longer part of the future where we're headed.
I think for many developers the subscription model is a better way to go than trying to come up with a list of features and different upgrade prices. I'm not saying it doesn't have value for some developers, but it really doesn't for most, so that's a challenge. And if you look at the App Store, it would take a lot of engineering to make that happen, and it would come at the expense of other features that we can bring.
For example, the App Store has one price per app, which when you open it, you can see if it has a price tag and that's how much it costs. There are no multiple prices for multiple types of customers. It's not impossible to figure it out, but it was too much work for a small circle of software for which we hope a subscription model is better for most, that is, one that users are happy with. We'll continue to talk to developers about what their priorities are, we want to know if they have a paid upgrade high or not, and we'll keep the door open for that, but it's harder than people realize.
From Phil Schiller's words, it is so obvious that we shouldn't expect similar new pricing options for applications at this year's WWDC. And it confirms the words and actions of many developers who are starting to deploy subscriptions.
"A paid upgrade would certainly be an interesting option, but there would be many pitfalls to overcome. It could cause inconvenience for users and worries for developers. For example, if the developer released a paid update and some current users decided to stay on the original version and a serious error appeared in it, which could only be solved by updating. These are precisely the questions and potential problems that the possibility of paid upgrades would bring," Tomáš Perzl lists possible difficulties and confirms Schiller's words that the whole thing is far from that simple.
Only because of the possibility of discounts for existing customers, a paid upgrade does not make sense from a broader perspective, moreover, if the developer really wanted to, he can offer the new application cheaper even now.
"It is possible to bypass it quite effectively in the form of so-called packages," adds Roman Maštalíř. When Tapbots released Tweetbot 4 as a new app for 10 euros, they created a Tweetbot 3 + Tweetbot 4 bundle in the App Store at the same time. euros, so he paid only 3 euros. "It's not quite an elegant solution, but it's an existing way to offer the user a discount for an upgrade," adds Maštalíř.
Due to the growing popularity of subscriptions, for example, the STRV studio could imagine minor changes for the App Store. “We'd love to be able to buy subscriptions directly from the App Store, which could make some apps a lot easier. The user would buy the given application only for a certain period of time, similar to Photoshop, for example," adds Jakub Kašpar.
I'm not sure about that. I don't use such programs, I want to own the program. I might consider it, but the monthly fees are usually set horribly high.
I wanted photoshop (subscription), but for two subscriptions I found Affinity photo - a great cartoon in some things even better than Photoshop for a fixed amount.
So developers can try to keep monthly, but they should consider if they don't become unpopular... But then again, they give a chance to others - not so hungry :)
Exactly, I agree.
Those fees are incredibly greedy. But it's interesting how they nicely (somewhat politically) try to impose on us the idea that the subscription is the best for us. As if we don't know what's good for us :-)
Affinity is the bomb, the publisher is still missing and it will be painted. And there will be an option to do Adobe papa.
I think it will be similar to how Quark turned out with Adobe applications (PSH, AI, IND) - he was also uneaten.
Enough with how the nice developers screw with apps by releasing version 2, 3, 4, etc. Each time for a full bat (mostly more expensive than the previous version). Such a Skylink presented by the Appstore.
And I believe that I would be able to find the complaints of the aforementioned nice developers about how bad Adobe was for introducing subscriptions.
Speaking of app versions 2,3,4.. does the App Store even allow developers to offer something like an "upgrade"? I think it's still decent for regular sw. That the person who already owns the previous version can purchase an upgrade to the current version on more favorable terms. If only a minimum has changed and the given program producer does not want to lose a long-term customer in the stupid thinking "It costs the same as the competition. So how about I try it there for a year?'
Just read the text above.
"That's why there has been a debate for several years whether Apple should allow a paid upgrade option in the App Store.
This would, on the one hand, bring the possibility to pay for a major update - once again, if the developer so desired - and most importantly, it would also offer the possibility of providing a discount to existing customers."
Oh. Truth. Only now I realize that somehow I skipped half of the article.. I apologize and thank you. There is a lot of valuable information.
I find the package-assisted upgrade form quite elegant. You can also do more complex "marketing" actions with it - for example, if you own version 1 and 2, upgrading to 3 will be cheaper than if you only own version 2. Or if you own two of our products, you get a third with a discount, etc... I can't do that at all introduce implement only using upgrade. On the other hand, having the option to click with each new version that it will be a paid upgrade would not be bad, and it would basically replace the simplest form of package where the last two versions are. For the customer, it could then be presented in a more friendly way in the app store.
And isn't such a solution possible in the form of a purchase from the developer of the application outside the App Store, and then download the application for free using the coupon obtained in this way, or somehow ensure that the developer then gives it to me as a gift?
I don't know how it works with donations, there probably aren't any restrictions there, but I can't imagine it could work that way - it would be logistically quite complicated. And promo codes are definitely limited in number.
So maybe they won't have it as stupid as JetBrains...
Where a person buys a subscription and when he stops paying, he has the last year's old version at his disposal, instead of the latest current one...
Well, the Appstore already has Czech price tags... I mean, I buy a lot of apps, but it looks terribly expensive in those CZK :)
Well, the developers should slowly think about the fact that the subscriptions somehow add up...
5 euros here... something for office there, something for adobe, for brain.fm... those wallets are not bottomless... I no longer buy applications with a subscription as a matter of principle. You want an upgrade, ok pay. You don't pay and you have nothing.
I am not willing to pay a subscription, but I am willing to pay the higher amount for an application that is useful to me. But if they switched from a one-time payment to a subscription for my favorite app, I'd start looking for an alternative. And if there was no alternative, I would probably stop using the application anyway.