As someone who buys a lot of apps this is very disappointing. Things that would make me buy MORE apps (demos, upgrade pricing, better support) are still not in the app store, meanwhile the one pricing model I detest (subscriptions) is being added.
I suspect I'll be buying far fewer apps if there's a mass movement from a purchase model to a subscription model among app developers. I'm perfectly happy to pay $20-30 for an app (even a simple app) if it provides value and I'm happy to pay for major upgrades or additional content/features, but I won't pay $20-30 a year just to maintain the ability to launch an app on an ongoing basis.
In addition, after years of terrible search in the app store, coupling search improvements with search-based ads is just a kick in the shins.
I think the mindset change that needs to happen is this:
Apps are a service.
I would actually prefer to pay developers of apps that are truly useful to me a monthly amount so I know they can continue to update and improve the app. If an app saves me $1000/yr in headache, I'd prefer to spend $30/yr on a subscription rather than lose the app entirely because the developers can't keep the lights on.
I've been very pleased with the subscription experience on the App Store.
The reason I usually hate subscriptions is that they are a headache remember, changing credit cards requires me to remember and update subscriptions in many different places, and providers make it hard to cancel. My experience with subscriptions on iOS has been very positive. It's easy to pay for and easy to cancel.
Personally, I would rather pay a small amount per month while being able to cancel at any time than pay a larger amount up front for something I've never tried. If the app is compelling enough to keep using, I'm happy to keep paying.
Why do you need MORE apps? I'm a developer and heavy iPhone user and it rare for me to download apps these days. I browse the store regularly just to check out what's going on but most new apps provide little use. They let me make my face look phone. Share emojis created by reality stars. etc. I think this move will lead to higher quality apps. Developers will be able to invest more in updates and developing their product instead of abandoning it once sales drop.
What about $0.99/mo, or even $0.49/mo? My initial reaction is the same as yours, but I could see myself agreeing to $0.99/mo for some of the apps I paid $2 or $3 for. Still relatively cheap for me but would dramatically increase income for the developer.
That's where you diverge from the population. Apple needs a solution for the general problem of people not wanting to pay much for iOS apps. It may disappoint those of us who prefer spending more up front for quality, but Apple has surely determined that more people will buy more apps this way.
(By the way, you compared paying $X upfront to paying $X per year which of course is a worse deal. A more representative comparison would be $X * 0.33 per year.)
> Things that would make me buy MORE apps (demos, …
It's been pretty much proven that demos actually sell fewer apps than no demos, at least at the price levels seen in the App Store (once you get up to several hundred dollars or higher, then presumably things change). Even at the $60 price point of AAA console games, demos have been proven to hurt sales (which is why you never seen demos of AAA console games anymore).
A subscription keeps the developer's incentives in line. If you buy a piece of software, what incentive is there for the developer to fix bugs and security holes in the older versions?
Anyway, why would a $30 purchased app become $30/year? Nobody prices like this. Photoshop used to cost $585. Now it's $10/month. I think a $30 app would probably become $1/month.
Apps have existed with subscriptions long before now. I suspect you will still be able to buy a flashlight app for a fixed price, but maybe you'll subscribe to Hulu through Apple rather than Hulu's backend.
But the 2 models are not mutually exclusive, are they? Probably some apps will offer both alternatives or the one that fits the purpose of the app. Not sure why, in essence, this is wrong.
Indeed I find subscriptions annoying too, hope the new AppStore comes with a friendly subscription management section along.
As an indie developer my single biggest gripe with the app store (after the obviously asinine review process) is the resetting of visible app reviews any time an app is updated. This is an incredibly expensive tax on shipping app updates which creates a strong disincentive to not incrementally improve your product and a strong incentive for sleazy developers to buy fake reviews when they do ship an update. I detest this part of the app store. DETEST.
The other option is for a single bug in a single release to stay in your app reviews in perpetuity. Why would you want that, rather than give prospective customers the option to look at current vs old reviews?
Also, I would quibble with your description of it as 'resetting of visible app reviews' as the old reviews are still visible, they're just one tap away...
Almost exactly one year ago, we switched Zombies, Run! - a fitness game - from being a paid app ($4-8) to a free-to-play app with subscriptions ($4/month, $20/year). Unsurprisingly, I'm delighted by this announcement, because it rewards apps like ours that provide long-term value and entertainment for our users.
Clearly a subscription model isn't for many apps - probably most apps. But it was right for us, as we've been maintaining and improving Zombies, Run! for over four years now, and every week we add new content. With a subscription model, we only get paid if people decide we're good enough to commit to over a long period of time. Since we're about helping people exercise, I think that's fair enough.
People fear that the subscription model is an easy grab for continued revenue.
I do think that Zombies, Run! is an example of an app that justifiably fits the subscription model. The continued added content makes that make sense. (I am a fan!)
I just hope subscription doesn't become the norm - I'd hate to see a calculator on a subscription model.
I don't see a reason to subscribe for apps that are one-time pay and periodic long term use. There is a fine line here that developers will have to be cautious not to cross. A lot of apps have no reason to be subscription model, but the prospect of recurring revenue is too tempting.
Edit: On the other hand, this is totally awesome for services and products that already offer subscriptions on other platforms or on the web, like online streaming, education, and as someone mentioned here, tools like Sketch.
Maybe this model is good for games, but as a predominately "Music Creation App" user I sincerely hope this "Subscription 2.0" model doesn't catch on in that arena. Paying up-front is suitable to me, and sometimes updates offer a lot (Propellerhead Figure has been through several improvement phases, for instance). I seem to recall other software trying to go 'subscription' in the music or creative arena with not-so-great public reception.
>I don't see a reason to subscribe for apps that are one-time pay and periodic long term use.
This. I'm a developer of such a "sporadic use" app and I don't see how a subscription model would benefit my users. And I honestly wouldn't feel too good about introducing subscription pricing to a tool someone might need once in a few weeks.
On the other hand this might be a solution to the upgrade pricing problem if one could set the subscription interval to 1 year.
One interesting side effect of this might be that reasonably priced single-payment apps might seem desirable again. If a lot of apps switch to a $0.99/month subscription, then even a $4.99 one time payment might seem ok, whereas right now it would considered expensive by most users.
One recent example on the Android side (don't use iOS very often) was an app that regularly publishes curated watch faces for Android Wear. There are literally thousands of free, user generated ones out there and I can make my own without too much trouble but I liked quite a few of the ones on this app.
Additionally, they allow designers to submit their own watch faces and share the revenue which I thought was cool. It helps combat the glut of "brand" knockoffs that fill many of the free/user-generated sites.
Originally, they offered a "pro" version that gave you access to all current and future watch faces for a subscription fee. I was not very keen on this because, like so many, I tend to forget to cancel these things when I stop using them. I mentioned this in an app review and so did many others. We requested a one-time IAP for the "Pro" version and soon after, the developer did just this.
So I paid $10 and every week or so I check out the new watch faces available for download. I like that some of the money goes to the platform and some to the designers. I like that the designs are high quality and don't include any knockoffs or blatant copyright infringement. And I like that I could just buy the full app after trying out the free options.
I've done the same with similar light-verion/paid-upgrade apps but this was the first one I'd run across that offered both a subscription or a one-time purchase.
"Part of that energy has been channeled into figuring out how to sell developers on subscription services, and not only that, but how to keep them keeping on with those subscriptions. Previously, only apps classified as news, cloud services, dating apps, or audio / video streaming apps could sell subscription content. Now it’s open to all product categories.
For the first year of a subscription Apple will maintain its 70 / 30 revenue share; after one year, the new 85 percent / 15 percent revenue share will kick in (applied per subscriber). The new app subscription model will roll out to developers this fall, though if app makers have subscribers they’ve already retained for a year, the new revenue split starts June 13th."
Also: "Apple is also going to start showing search ads for apps in its iOS App Store search results for the first time, something the company had previously resisted."
All I know is that their review process has gotten WAY faster and better over the last month, as in 24 hour review which has been awesome. Have other people noticed this?
I wonder if they added capacity or dropped review quality - so far we haven't seen a drop in quality and they are able to catch problems at about the same rate.
That change happened because App Store's management was transferred from Eddy Cue over to Phil Schiller. While Eddy Cue was completely deaf to developers' complaints and needs, Schiller seems to be giving a damn and he's trying to improve things. They now employ ML/algorithmic means to test submitted apps and catch simple rejection issues. I'm also pretty sure that if you have a pretty good record of submissions & approvals, they spend less time scrutinizing your app. And if you're just issuing fixes or simple changes, they don't spend any time "human testing" at all.
PS: I've come to a conclusion that whatever Cue runs, it is shit or turns to shit quickly. He's in charge of all the Apple services and they're a complete mess. I hope Cue retires or just transfers his responsibilities to someone who cares about them.
From the article: "Finally, Schiller says that the App Store has been speeding up app review times — to the point where 50 percent of submitted apps are now reviewed in 24 hours, and 90 percent are reviewed within 48 hours."
We've been seeing this too, with some apps being approved in <24 hours. Originally thought it was a fluke (it's happened a couple times over the past several years), but now it appears to be a regular occurrence.
Now if we could see a similar factor improvement in TestFlight beta review times...
Yep, I was really surprised when we had an app go from submission to 'ready for sale' in 4-5 hours this week. Much better than times past (when we would quote 2 weeks expected to customers).
Bleh, subscriptions. I'm fine with them if your app is offering features that require use of your servers, but it seems many indie developers are interested instead in charging for the "privilege" of running local code on your device (as with Photoshop). I'll pass.
There are so many problems with the AppStore that need to be fixed and I hope atleast some are with these additions to the AppStore.
1. Fix app discovery
2. Fix app search before putting search ads. e.g. if your app name has a symbol in it searching by app name will NOT return your app in the search results.
3. App review times can be further reduced by automating the review process
Few customers realize that how much it costs to keep an app going: platform API and UI change will either break your app or uglify it. If the app is using external service, then the service API could change too and that causes a lot of work. New device models come, and you will need a lot of work in redesigning the user interface. Even if you are not adding new features, the cost is real to developers especially if the market for this app is small.
I wonder if Apple is taking more than a 50% haircut on this post year one.
Credit card fees come out of their share and those could very well account for the bulk of the 15%. Even if Apple pays nothing in payment processor markup, there is a fixed minimum "interchange" cost that everyone has to pay (even Walmart). For "ecommerce" it's:[1]
Credit: $0.10 + 1.8-2.4%
Debit: $0.21 + 0.05%
Those 10-21 cent minimums make a big dent in smaller transactions. For a monthly recurring charge of $1.99, already 6% of that goes to credit card interchange. That leaves a 9% gross margin for Apple (4% if debit).
At $0.99, Apple's margin drops to 3% on credit, and they lose money on a debit card.
Now, there is a "small ticket" interchange category that one would hope these transactions would qualify for. That's just $0.04 + 1.65%. But it says it requires a swipe, so I'm not sure. From a fraud risk standpoint Apple Pay should be treated better than a swipe, but I'm not sure if the rules have caught up yet.
Interestingly Sketch app announced today they're changing to a subscription model soon. Sketch app abandoned Apple store last December. Looks like Sketch will be back to Mac App Store this fall.
It is sad that Apple only took action now, after years of requests and complains by indie developers. Now that app boom is over, I doubt this App Store changes will have any impact.
Oh damn it. Sketch 3 owner, this is news to me. As a hobbyist, their subscription price will almost certainly not be worth it.
The reason I quit Adobe and bought Sketch was to support software that I could actually buy. Not this "Good deal for professionals, even cheaper for students, fuck anybody who just wants to use a decent art program every couple of months" model.
I'll see what I can track down on details, but I'm preemptively very disappointed about this.
EDIT: Sketch is _NOT_ switching to a subscription model. Sketch is breaking from the "paid major, free minor" upgrade schedule, and going to "rolling releases, $99 buys the app and a year of upgrades."
Personally I think that's a fair system. It frees them from having to plan new features around the major/minor release schedule, but you can still buy the software and just keep using it.
My biggest concern is going to be OS compatibility. With OS X on a yearly upgrade treadmill, if there are any compatibility issues (and there almost always are), then the Sketch upgrade is effectively not optional. That's not so different from how it is now, except there have only been two major upgrades since the original release (September 2010), so you'll be buying OS compatibility fixes more than twice as often. So I still don't love it.
A subscription model would definitely benefit specific types of apps (we make games and are excited at this possibility).
The easy money's already been made in the App Store; with a million+ apps it's a visibility issue. No amount of changes to the App Store will remove the problem of there being a dozen apps that already solve the problem that your app solves.
That said, a subscription model with a reduced cut could improve monetization prospects for a lot of developers, indie especially.
> Looks like Sketch will be back to Mac App Store this fall.
If Apple adds subscriptions to the Mac App Store that is. We're still waiting for "App Analytics" on the Mac. (The stats where you can see how many people viewed your app's page in the app store and how many downloaded the app. Even though it's the same backend those stats are only available for the iOS store).
I wouldn't be surprised if Sketch left the app store in order to break away from the sandbox. It's simply too restrictive for many production tool apps.
I detest subscriptions of all kinds. I don't want to manage them. I don't want to figure out how much I'm paying out per month across all types of subscriptions. I don't want a service to manage it for me, I just don't want the cognitive overhead. I don't want to remember the terms of each subscription, how long it takes to cancel (if and when I can get through to someone to cancel it). Or the fact that I lose access to something when I stop paying. I don't want to forget to cancel it only to find I'm bound to another 6 months. Etc, etc. I could go on.
I also strongly dislike that they know that x% of users after signing up will barely use the service and it's essentially free money. I know this is why they do it, and I won't support companies for trying to take advantage of users.
the +15% more after a year is a joke. like this article mentioned - the majority of the apps are games, games after a year are usually forgotten and they make most of the revenue on their first year on the market.
about subscriptions - i don't see any reason a developer would share the subscriptions revenue with apple while they sale it for free and make in-app subscriptions.
This won't substantially change anything, given the existing power-law type distribution of app-store earnings.
When the ~app~ store debuted, I called it the K-Martization of software.
This is just Apple expanding into Rent-A-Center.
I wonder if this will further reinforce the notion of the "Dunbar's number of apps". In the sense that on a country-by-country basis, the disposable income of people could become the limiting factor affecting how many apps that users install.
If the supposed cognitive load of people for using apps is around 26-27, then is there an economic load that says that people will max at say--- $60/month--- in total app subscriptions in the US? And this number could change drastically for users in other countries based on fluctuating dollar values.
Unless there's a legitimate reason for subscription (if it's cloud based and deals with private content) the law of supply and demand will kick in, which means it will work for these particular types of apps but won't work for others because there's always going to be a competitor who will provide the same service for free.
In my opinion, the two most important features as a developer for the App Store:
1. Rolling deploys - right now releasing on iOS is scary and big bang, combined with the review process it keeps devs up at night worrying.
2. AB Testing on images and copy - you can only update this on each (scary) release, so you can't learn what works quickly.
Am I the only one exhausted by "apps"? I've gone as far as to limit myself to only two pages worth on my phone, without folders. I feel like most apps could just be the mobile/responsive versions of the existing site. Maintaining separate interfaces always leads to inconsistencies.
If Apple supported the latest standards in mobile Safari, you could write web apps that work offline and have push notifications like on Android. That's not in Apple's interest though.
[+] [-] AlexandrB|9 years ago|reply
I suspect I'll be buying far fewer apps if there's a mass movement from a purchase model to a subscription model among app developers. I'm perfectly happy to pay $20-30 for an app (even a simple app) if it provides value and I'm happy to pay for major upgrades or additional content/features, but I won't pay $20-30 a year just to maintain the ability to launch an app on an ongoing basis.
In addition, after years of terrible search in the app store, coupling search improvements with search-based ads is just a kick in the shins.
[+] [-] chasing|9 years ago|reply
Apps are a service.
I would actually prefer to pay developers of apps that are truly useful to me a monthly amount so I know they can continue to update and improve the app. If an app saves me $1000/yr in headache, I'd prefer to spend $30/yr on a subscription rather than lose the app entirely because the developers can't keep the lights on.
[+] [-] salmonet|9 years ago|reply
The reason I usually hate subscriptions is that they are a headache remember, changing credit cards requires me to remember and update subscriptions in many different places, and providers make it hard to cancel. My experience with subscriptions on iOS has been very positive. It's easy to pay for and easy to cancel.
Personally, I would rather pay a small amount per month while being able to cancel at any time than pay a larger amount up front for something I've never tried. If the app is compelling enough to keep using, I'm happy to keep paying.
[+] [-] k-mcgrady|9 years ago|reply
Why do you need MORE apps? I'm a developer and heavy iPhone user and it rare for me to download apps these days. I browse the store regularly just to check out what's going on but most new apps provide little use. They let me make my face look phone. Share emojis created by reality stars. etc. I think this move will lead to higher quality apps. Developers will be able to invest more in updates and developing their product instead of abandoning it once sales drop.
[+] [-] dapearce|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] abalone|9 years ago|reply
That's where you diverge from the population. Apple needs a solution for the general problem of people not wanting to pay much for iOS apps. It may disappoint those of us who prefer spending more up front for quality, but Apple has surely determined that more people will buy more apps this way.
(By the way, you compared paying $X upfront to paying $X per year which of course is a worse deal. A more representative comparison would be $X * 0.33 per year.)
[+] [-] eridius|9 years ago|reply
It's been pretty much proven that demos actually sell fewer apps than no demos, at least at the price levels seen in the App Store (once you get up to several hundred dollars or higher, then presumably things change). Even at the $60 price point of AAA console games, demos have been proven to hurt sales (which is why you never seen demos of AAA console games anymore).
[+] [-] acchow|9 years ago|reply
Anyway, why would a $30 purchased app become $30/year? Nobody prices like this. Photoshop used to cost $585. Now it's $10/month. I think a $30 app would probably become $1/month.
[+] [-] mrdrozdov|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] samsonradu|9 years ago|reply
Indeed I find subscriptions annoying too, hope the new AppStore comes with a friendly subscription management section along.
[+] [-] unknown|9 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] localhost3000|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] djrogers|9 years ago|reply
Also, I would quibble with your description of it as 'resetting of visible app reviews' as the old reviews are still visible, they're just one tap away...
[+] [-] adrianhon|9 years ago|reply
Clearly a subscription model isn't for many apps - probably most apps. But it was right for us, as we've been maintaining and improving Zombies, Run! for over four years now, and every week we add new content. With a subscription model, we only get paid if people decide we're good enough to commit to over a long period of time. Since we're about helping people exercise, I think that's fair enough.
[+] [-] coroutines|9 years ago|reply
I do think that Zombies, Run! is an example of an app that justifiably fits the subscription model. The continued added content makes that make sense. (I am a fan!)
I just hope subscription doesn't become the norm - I'd hate to see a calculator on a subscription model.
[+] [-] surds|9 years ago|reply
I don't see a reason to subscribe for apps that are one-time pay and periodic long term use. There is a fine line here that developers will have to be cautious not to cross. A lot of apps have no reason to be subscription model, but the prospect of recurring revenue is too tempting.
Edit: On the other hand, this is totally awesome for services and products that already offer subscriptions on other platforms or on the web, like online streaming, education, and as someone mentioned here, tools like Sketch.
[+] [-] 6stringmerc|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] joezydeco|9 years ago|reply
Do users still expect the upgrade for free?
[+] [-] kybernetyk|9 years ago|reply
This. I'm a developer of such a "sporadic use" app and I don't see how a subscription model would benefit my users. And I honestly wouldn't feel too good about introducing subscription pricing to a tool someone might need once in a few weeks.
On the other hand this might be a solution to the upgrade pricing problem if one could set the subscription interval to 1 year.
[+] [-] unknown|9 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] matt2000|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] soylentcola|9 years ago|reply
Additionally, they allow designers to submit their own watch faces and share the revenue which I thought was cool. It helps combat the glut of "brand" knockoffs that fill many of the free/user-generated sites.
Originally, they offered a "pro" version that gave you access to all current and future watch faces for a subscription fee. I was not very keen on this because, like so many, I tend to forget to cancel these things when I stop using them. I mentioned this in an app review and so did many others. We requested a one-time IAP for the "Pro" version and soon after, the developer did just this.
So I paid $10 and every week or so I check out the new watch faces available for download. I like that some of the money goes to the platform and some to the designers. I like that the designs are high quality and don't include any knockoffs or blatant copyright infringement. And I like that I could just buy the full app after trying out the free options.
I've done the same with similar light-verion/paid-upgrade apps but this was the first one I'd run across that offered both a subscription or a one-time purchase.
[+] [-] uptown|9 years ago|reply
For the first year of a subscription Apple will maintain its 70 / 30 revenue share; after one year, the new 85 percent / 15 percent revenue share will kick in (applied per subscriber). The new app subscription model will roll out to developers this fall, though if app makers have subscribers they’ve already retained for a year, the new revenue split starts June 13th."
That's a big change.
[+] [-] jontayesp|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jaxondu|9 years ago|reply
Also for Search Ads (Coming this fall): https://developer.apple.com/app-store/search-ads/
[+] [-] AndrewKemendo|9 years ago|reply
I wonder if they added capacity or dropped review quality - so far we haven't seen a drop in quality and they are able to catch problems at about the same rate.
[+] [-] Jerry2|9 years ago|reply
PS: I've come to a conclusion that whatever Cue runs, it is shit or turns to shit quickly. He's in charge of all the Apple services and they're a complete mess. I hope Cue retires or just transfers his responsibilities to someone who cares about them.
[+] [-] jontayesp|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ingsoc79|9 years ago|reply
Now if we could see a similar factor improvement in TestFlight beta review times...
[+] [-] JamesSwift|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] archagon|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] djrogers|9 years ago|reply
One could argue that those should be included in the purchase price, but today's app store economy often doesn't allow that.
[+] [-] palakchokshi|9 years ago|reply
1. Fix app discovery
2. Fix app search before putting search ads. e.g. if your app name has a symbol in it searching by app name will NOT return your app in the search results.
3. App review times can be further reduced by automating the review process
4. Try it before you buy it option
5. Better UX
[+] [-] pault|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] chj|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] abalone|9 years ago|reply
Credit card fees come out of their share and those could very well account for the bulk of the 15%. Even if Apple pays nothing in payment processor markup, there is a fixed minimum "interchange" cost that everyone has to pay (even Walmart). For "ecommerce" it's:[1]
Credit: $0.10 + 1.8-2.4%
Debit: $0.21 + 0.05%
Those 10-21 cent minimums make a big dent in smaller transactions. For a monthly recurring charge of $1.99, already 6% of that goes to credit card interchange. That leaves a 9% gross margin for Apple (4% if debit).
At $0.99, Apple's margin drops to 3% on credit, and they lose money on a debit card.
Now, there is a "small ticket" interchange category that one would hope these transactions would qualify for. That's just $0.04 + 1.65%. But it says it requires a swipe, so I'm not sure. From a fraud risk standpoint Apple Pay should be treated better than a swipe, but I'm not sure if the rules have caught up yet.
[1] https://usa.visa.com/dam/VCOM/download/merchants/Visa-USA-In...
[+] [-] jaxondu|9 years ago|reply
It is sad that Apple only took action now, after years of requests and complains by indie developers. Now that app boom is over, I doubt this App Store changes will have any impact.
[+] [-] wlesieutre|9 years ago|reply
The reason I quit Adobe and bought Sketch was to support software that I could actually buy. Not this "Good deal for professionals, even cheaper for students, fuck anybody who just wants to use a decent art program every couple of months" model.
I'll see what I can track down on details, but I'm preemptively very disappointed about this.
EDIT: Sketch is _NOT_ switching to a subscription model. Sketch is breaking from the "paid major, free minor" upgrade schedule, and going to "rolling releases, $99 buys the app and a year of upgrades."
Personally I think that's a fair system. It frees them from having to plan new features around the major/minor release schedule, but you can still buy the software and just keep using it.
My biggest concern is going to be OS compatibility. With OS X on a yearly upgrade treadmill, if there are any compatibility issues (and there almost always are), then the Sketch upgrade is effectively not optional. That's not so different from how it is now, except there have only been two major upgrades since the original release (September 2010), so you'll be buying OS compatibility fixes more than twice as often. So I still don't love it.
https://blog.sketchapp.com/versioning-licensing-and-sketch-4...
[+] [-] ingsoc79|9 years ago|reply
The easy money's already been made in the App Store; with a million+ apps it's a visibility issue. No amount of changes to the App Store will remove the problem of there being a dozen apps that already solve the problem that your app solves.
That said, a subscription model with a reduced cut could improve monetization prospects for a lot of developers, indie especially.
[+] [-] kybernetyk|9 years ago|reply
If Apple adds subscriptions to the Mac App Store that is. We're still waiting for "App Analytics" on the Mac. (The stats where you can see how many people viewed your app's page in the app store and how many downloaded the app. Even though it's the same backend those stats are only available for the iOS store).
[+] [-] seanalltogether|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] have_faith|9 years ago|reply
I also strongly dislike that they know that x% of users after signing up will barely use the service and it's essentially free money. I know this is why they do it, and I won't support companies for trying to take advantage of users.
[+] [-] sagivo|9 years ago|reply
about subscriptions - i don't see any reason a developer would share the subscriptions revenue with apple while they sale it for free and make in-app subscriptions.
[+] [-] lips|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] canistr|9 years ago|reply
If the supposed cognitive load of people for using apps is around 26-27, then is there an economic load that says that people will max at say--- $60/month--- in total app subscriptions in the US? And this number could change drastically for users in other countries based on fluctuating dollar values.
[+] [-] galistoca|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] rodeoclown|9 years ago|reply
1. Rolling deploys - right now releasing on iOS is scary and big bang, combined with the review process it keeps devs up at night worrying. 2. AB Testing on images and copy - you can only update this on each (scary) release, so you can't learn what works quickly.
[+] [-] overcast|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] sotojuan|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] rimantas|9 years ago|reply