

The Mac App Store Needs Paid Upgrades - mynameisraj
http://blog.wilshipley.com/2012/03/mac-app-store-needs-paid-upgrades.html

======
kennywinker
The consensus among all the devs I've talked to is that this feature will
magically appear the next time Apple does a significant update to one of it's
bigger ticket apps... Final Cut, Aperture, Logic, etc.

I can't see any way they can get around this problem without adding paid
updates.

Until then 3rd party developers are high and dry.

~~~
seanalltogether
Which honestly underscores one of my biggest complaints when working inside
Apples ecosystem. I always get the feeling that they're building solutions for
themselves first, and developers second, they don't take an agnostic approach
to creating a platform. A good example of this is when you look at their UIKit
and Appkit frameworks, all of the components were designed to the specific
behavior that Apples engineers wanted at that time, with no thought on how to
easily extend them. Compare this against other frameworks that were
intentionally built to be easily skinnable and customizable.

~~~
MatthewPhillips
I can't think of a better endorsement of a platform than the creators
investing real development dollars into using it.

The alternative is Google, who doesn't release any top-tier paid apps on
Android or Chrome Web Store. Or host anything important on Apps Engine.

~~~
hammersend
"The alternative is Google, who doesn't release any top-tier paid apps on
Android or Chrome Web Store."

Google's business model isn't to release paid apps on their stores. They have
many free apps that are downloaded by the 50's of millions and have 4.5-5
stars almost across the board so, yes, they do release top tier apps.

~~~
MatthewPhillips
> Google's business model isn't to release paid apps

This differs from every OS vendor I'm aware of in the past. Just noting.

> they do release top tier apps.

Could you point out to me some of these apps where the alternatives are sold
for top-tier prices?

~~~
frio
Compare Google Navigation on Android, to TomTom on iOS. Navigation is free,
works perfectly, and even goes so far as to include a "Car Mode" for docking
your phone in your car.

TomTom costs, at last check, $95NZD. I've not bothered trying it.

~~~
nico_h
I do believe TomTom has data for offline use, unlike Google Navigation.

(I have iOS tomtom for western Europe) Also, it has voices in many languages.
So it will still work when you're out of coverage/country.

Remember, 99% of the land surface has crap/non-existant 2G/3G/4G coverage.

------
ianterrell
It's not a 1-to-1 replacement or panacea, but in app purchases can mitigate
the problem—i.e. free update with new features disabled until purchased.

~~~
Splines
I was thinking the same thing, but I don't think that's sustainable, nor is it
a good user experience. If you have X choices of IAP features available, are
you going to test the 2^(X+1) configurations out there?

Probably the best you could do with IAP is offer current version as IAP, and
roll your n-1 features back into the main app as a free update on a periodic
basis (i.e., want the latest and greatest, buy it now, or wait X months/years
and get it for free).

Nickle and diming your customers for features also leaves a bad taste in the
mouth.

As a customer, I appreciate Apple's model since I know all updates are free
and any major version changes usually warrant a new app entry (I find it
annoying, but understandable, that the previous version is sometimes retired
from the App store), which makes the demarcation clear of what I need to pay
for vs. what I don't.

~~~
metageek
I think ianterrell's idea was that, if you're going from, say, version 2 to
version 3, you release version 3 for free, but _all_ the new version 3
features are a single in-app purchase. No nickel and diming.

One result of this approach is that everybody gets _bugfixes_ for free, which
users are sure to like better than a model where they have to pay for fixes.

One thing you have to decide is what to do if you then release version 4, and
someone never paid for 3. Does he have to pay for 3 and 4 separately, or can
he just buy 4 and get the 3 features for free? (I'm pretty sure you don't want
to let him buy 4 and not have 3; that's where you start getting configuration
explosion.) The latter has precedent in the packaged world, with vendors that
would give you the same discount when upgrading from any earlier version.

~~~
disappearance
Surely one edition only.

All new features are paid for as content upgrades currently are.

If you overhaul your code you release it first as a free demo (old language;
beta), then discontinue it as you release a feature-matched-update to the
single paid for version you maintain.

This reduces new features to an individual cost upgrade and ensures your
existing users aren't left with an unsupported version.

This is actually a very good result for the consumer. (I'm thinking premium
applications such as Audio, Photoshop etc.)

------
deedubaya
As a developer with Apps in the MAS, I can see where this makes sense from the
developer's perspective. But I think it is a mater of laziness on the dev's
part.

Let me explain:

From a users perspective, this would suck. It is an antiquated system. "I have
to pay for an upgrade just so it works on the new OS?" Think of how many times
you've had to do this in the past, and how you felt.

Apple will act in the best interest of Joe User, not Joe Developer.

Instead of paid upgrades, dev's should be providing In-App purchases for new
features. Maintenance of the App should be provided for free. Win-win for all.

Now stop bitching about what the MAS should have, and start using the solution
Apple has given you! :)

~~~
campnic
Your comment only makes sense under the argument that when a user purchases an
app, the developer is indebted to the user to provide future functionality of
any variety.

Maintenance should not be expected for free. New features should not be
expected for free. How much those two pieces of work cost should be dependent
on future expected earnings for the developer and the perceived value to the
consumer, not on whether or not they are "expected" by users.

For an argument that starts out pandering to the "users perspective", I don't
see how having a dedicated upgrade process is less "pro-user" then in-app
purchases. Not only does it introduce more testing (altering the expected
earnings vs. perceived value equation) but it also inserts delivery and design
issues for the purchases which wouldn't be necessary with an upgrade system.

To me this looks lose(devs)-win(apple)-push(consumers)

~~~
webjprgm
> Maintenance should not be expected for free.

Users who purchase an app definitely expect there to be maintenance on the
app. This is because we know no one tests their app to 100% perfection.

If I knew that the app I get at the time I pay is all I get with no future
updates, not even bug fixes, then I'd wait several months to make sure no one
else finds any bugs before I ever dare to buy the app. So developers give
users the expectation of future updates and fixes to assuage user fears so
that they actually buy the 1.0 release and give the developers some money to
keep living on.

------
cjensen
The Mac software scene has always had lots of indie developers. Let's look at
that scene for some facts... The indies generally charge an upgrade fee for
"major" versions, and give free upgrades for "minor" updates.

Most, like Wil, do the right thing. Delicious Library hasn't had a major
release in years, but it is maintained.

Others (for example, in my experience "DVD Remaster Pro" and Parallels
Desktop), clearly abuse the major update system as a revenue source. They
release fake major releases with lots of new skin but few features every six
months or a year to rake in the dough.

Honestly, it's a mess. But the solution to me is obvious: Angry Birds from
Rovio. Rovio didn't just release the thing and stop. They keep adding
significant features (the game is probably 10X as large as when I bought it
for the iPad). Customers feed back with great reviews. Rovio is rewarded with
continuing sales and stays in the top seller lists. Meanwhile, apps like
"Plants v. Zombies" are static and drop off the top lists quickly after a
quick burst of popularity.

~~~
dorianj
Angry Birds is one of the most popular applications for the iOS platform ever.
It has sales in the millions, and this model isn't comprable for indie
software that doesn't have that big of a potential market.

Rovio also just released Angry Birds in Space, which is a separate app,
meaning they'll get new income from it. But because it's a $0.99, giving
existing customers a discount isn't important.

------
mmuro
Perhaps the incentive is the wrong one. If the goal is to get users to
upgrade, offer a launch sale that entices existing and new users to upgrade.

I don't think it's so terrible that there is multiple versions out there.
Reduce the price of the older version and setup the page to let people know
there's a new one out there before buying.

------
mikebracco
I feel like the solution isn't paid upgrades but instead monthly/yearly
subscription for access in the Mac App Store. The 'appification' of the web is
eliminating the idea of major release "versions" of software...it's just an
app in consumers' minds and it will always be the same product (with gradual
improvement of course). As a result, just charge users for ongoing access to
your app and keep them paying by providing regular updates.

~~~
RandallBrown
I had an idea for a subscription service that would give developers a share of
the subscription based on how much their app was used compared to other apps.
That may work perfectly for the Mac App Store.

So I pay 10 dollars a month to have access to the MAS and I download 3 apps. I
use App A 50% of the time, App B 20% of the time and App C 30% of the time.
(To keep the math simple lets pretend Apple doesn't take their share). App A's
developers would get $5 a month, App B's developers would get $2, while App
C's gets $3.

Maybe to handle the Pro apps like Final Cut you could have different
subscription tiers?

To users, this would be a simple netflix like subscription model. Developers
would have an incentive to make their apps more useful and engaging. (I'm sure
it could be abused too)

~~~
ghaff
Interesting idea and somewhat akin to how music streaming pays the artists
(well, the labels mostly). The challenge, as you allude to, is that software
is a lot less homogenous. You only do one thing with a song--listen to it. You
use software in a lot of different contexts and it's not obvious that time
running is going to give equitable results. And Pro-ishness is also very
context-dependent. For me, Final Cut might be a hobby thing. For you, it might
be something you depend on for your livelihood.

That said, I do think we're going to see more experimentation with
subscription models. Adobe's Creative Cloud is one example. I could imagine
some sort of aggregator of games as well.

------
killion
I really like how most applications in the iOS store have been about upgrades.
When a new version comes out I get it automatically without paying. Camera+ is
a great example.

Because the user base for the platform has been growing the potential install
base for your application grows with it. The graph in Wil's post shows that
the same application had a huge sales surge just because more people were
exposed to it.

If a new version of Delicious Library comes out his existing customers will be
very happy with the new features and bring more customers in with them. I bet
Apple would even promote the new app and a huge sales spike would happen
again.

In my mind the new model isn't how to get the most money from your customers,
it's getting the most customers.

~~~
kennywinker
The constant expansion model works for some apps, but not for all of them.

I appreciate the free upgrades as much as the next guy, but without the paid-
upgrade option niche products will suffer.

------
ricardobeat
I think this is mostly a mismatch in expectations. _"pay full price, suckers"_
only rings true if it's not actually a major release - small features,
security/compatibility updates should be free. A new version should offer
enough benefits to be worth the price.

~~~
EvanKelly
I don't know if I agree with this sentiment. Take the author's app, "Delicious
Library 2". The main functionality of this app is to catalog your things in an
easy and streamlined way. I'd reckon that most people are paying the ~$35 for
this app to do just that.

If the developers develop a whole new set of features (while still building
off the core functionality) that they could call "Delicious Library 3", but
are actually fully compatible with Delicious Library 2, why should they have
to ask their users to pay full price for an upgrade, when they already have
the core functionality which is the draw for the new users to pay full price.

I've seen positives and negatives to this model in video gaming. I love seeing
a full-feature expansion to a game I own, and don't mind paying $5 - $20 in
addition to the $60 I already paid, but I wouldn't be happy paying $60 again
for the "complete" edition just to get the expansions, but that "complete"
edition is great for people who haven't already purchased the game.

------
warmfuzzykitten
"I've looked at clouds from both sides now..." I've been an app developer and
an app buyer. As a developer, of course I want to get more money from my
installed base. They're easy to find; marketing costs are essentially zero. As
a buyer, I've always looked at "upgrades" as a scam to suck more money out of
my pocket for a product I've already paid for. I hate it more when I'm paying
to get bugs fixed - bugs as a money-making opportunity! - and even more if I'm
blackmailed into upgrading by the threat of dropping support for my existing
product, which, of course, will stop working about 10 seconds later. I have
some software that seems to be "upgraded" for a "discounted price" every two
or three months!

How about you stop treating software like fresh fruit delivered with a worm in
it and start treating it like, say, new cars? Sell it with a warranty. Allow
me to extend the warranty, up to a point, for a reasonable price that covers
maintenance only. If I have a reason to buy a shiny, new 2013 BozoWare, and
the reason isn't that the 2012 model is already broken, I just may. Some
people buy new cars every year; everybody buys a new one sometime.

------
Tloewald
I assumed that Apple would add upgrades way back when but I now think the in
app purchase model is better. Consider the reason for upgrades: new features?
Sell them. Compatibility or big fixes? Why aren't these free for all
customers?

The one missing thing I think Apple needs is a neat mechanism for allowing
existing apps to be upgrades into app store apps.

~~~
jacalata
Compatibility or bug fixes aren't free for all users because just like
features, the developer had to spend time building them and needs to get paid
for that time.

~~~
cynix
I build a house for you for $X. You find out that the lights don't work and
ask me to fix it. Would you be happy if I told you "Oh, sorry I messed up the
electrical connections. It'll cost you $Y though, because I have to spend time
fixing them and I need to get paid for that time."?

~~~
jacalata
You build a house for me for $X. Two years later, I notice that if you hang
three towels on the bathroom door on a humid day while the living room light
was on, the door didn't close properly. Would you be happy if I came to you
and demanded that you debug and fix this problem for free? Didn't I pay for a
working house the first time?

I very much do not believe that you paid me enough for me to guarantee that my
product would work in all circumstances forever. If you did, then by golly I'm
yours for life buddy!

~~~
cynix
If the problem is due to my poor worksmanship and it has always been there
since the very beginning (even though you may not have noticed it for 2
years), I'd gladly fix it for free. Of course, with a bathroom door you'd have
to prove it's not due to wear and tear, but this doesn't apply to software -
the bits in your binary don't change with time.

------
gurkendoktor
Can't we just hop over to a subscription model altogether, now that we pretty
much have the infrastructure?

It would lower up-front costs. I bet piracy would go down too. It would give
developers an incentive to keep even small apps bug-free. It would make more
sense for apps like Instapaper where the server needs to keep running.
Everyone would get exactly what they pay for, and nobody would have to keep
using an older version for artificial (financial) reasons.

The only downside I can see is that people cannot decide to stick with an
older version because they actually _like it better_. But that's something
that Apple customers are probably used to (e.g. surprise 10.6 users, no OTA
contacts & calender sync for you anymore!). And for Apple, it may decrease
vendor lock-in because people have no sunk costs anymore.

------
abruzzi
Something similar that the Mac App store is killing is the competitive
crossgrade. It used to be a boon to buy Logic at full price, then be able to
buy its competitors like Digital Performer or Cubase for half price. Currently
the App Store can't support that.

------
megakwood
You could use in-app purchases to unlock new features.

------
freiervogel
Considered charging less for the full product (say $10), and simply having
multiple versions available as you post major new releases?

That way, users always have a way to downgrade to previous versions as needed,
you probably get more customers due to the entry price, and everyone just
understands that the latest version is available for $10 more.

That seems to be the whole app store model: lower prices, more sales -- no
"upgrades" in the classic sense. And, with a low enough entry price, I think
users would be accepting.

If they don't buy the latest, as a developer you're no worse off than you are
today (where they get the latest for free).

------
phillmv
I want to say something about sharecropping, but I have a hard time thinking
of the appropriate analogy.

It's making me think about the service model as being a superior revenue
stream, for-better-or-for-worse. From a user's perspective, the MAS already
acts as a service; the subsidy is just being paid for at the developer's end
of the scale.

I love the iTunes/MA stores as a marketing and distribution channel, but I
hate how heavy handedly Apple behaves with enforcing business models. I think
there's an argument to be made that we can avoid the Android marketplace
crapware without forcing everyone to become serfs.

~~~
benihana
> _without forcing everyone to become serfs._

Calling people who _willingly_ cede less than a third of their profits for
access to the giant infrastructure and advertising Apple has at their disposal
is a bit of hyperbole. It's a mutually beneficial arrangement for both
parties, which both parties are free to sever at any time. Doesn't seem like
serfdom to me.

~~~
kennywinker
Obvious hyperbole is obvious. IMO, the analogy stands. I'm not the only one
who thinks so [http://www.codinghorror.com/blog/2011/10/serving-at-the-
plea...](http://www.codinghorror.com/blog/2011/10/serving-at-the-pleasure-of-
the-king.html)

~~~
tptacek
Wil Shipley makes a living selling a popular Mac application both on and off
the Mac App Store.

Jeff Atwood has from what I can tell never shipped shrink-wrap software as an
ISV on any platform (I don't mean that derisively).

~~~
kennywinker
I don't see them disagreeing. They're both saying "here are some issues I see
with the Apple/Developer relationship".

~~~
tptacek
Non sequitor. The comment thread you're on argues that developers on Apple's
Mac platform are sharecroppers. Atwood may well think that (it's not totally
clear to me), but Shipley clearly does not: he is making more money after
adopting the App Store than he was before it, and is content with the
control/promotion tradeoff. He says so explicitly in the article we're
commenting on.

~~~
statictype
Maybe the use of the word sharecropper has changed recently with respect to
Apple, but as far as I know, it doesn't have anything to do with whether or
not you're successful and content with the Land Owner's restrictions. It's
meant to signify that you don't have full control over the ecosystem you're
living in and that you owe part of the profits you reap from your hard work to
the land owner.

In that sense, App Store developers are very much sharecroppers whether they
enjoy and accept it or not.

------
Terretta
_Apple’s not keeping iWork up-to-date despite sitting on one hundred billion
dollars._

And here I was blissfully unaware that Pages and Keynote had rotted into
uselessness simply because of the calendar year.

~~~
wil_shipley
Have you used Pages recently? It’s got a button in the default toolbar to
“Publish on iWork” which has never been out of beta and is now cancelled. It
doesn’t work in HiDPI modes of Lion. It doesn’t support Lion’s keyboard
macros. I wrote one letter in it last week and ended up filing three different
bugs.

So, yes, software does “rot,” if it’s not kept up-to-date with the latest
operating systems and, to an extent, the latest user interface metaphors.

------
msg
I'm sorry I didn't read the whole thread and I know this is late.

Why not provide two versions of Delicious Library Inf? One costs $20. It only
works/installs correctly if you have the original app. The other one costs
$40. It is a standalone app. Make a minor bugfix update that says "hey" to the
users of Delicious Library 2, and link to the expansion. Sell both.

------
stretchwithme
I was just thinking about this last week.

Eventually, nearly all your users have already paid, leaving you unable to
charge them for enhancing the app. You may have a huge installed base and
eventually have no incentive to improve the product.

------
jobu
The App Store also also needs automatic/forced free updates. It sucks
releasing something with a bug, creating an update that fixes it within a
month, and still having users complaining about the bug several months later.

~~~
stevejabs
You could add a nag screen to your app that would show if you have a heartbeat
API call that returns that the user is using an outdated version.

~~~
deedubaya
I do this. 90% of my users upgrade within 5 days of an update being released
as a result.

"Hey! You're using an outdated version of [APPX]. Click okay to upgrade via
the App Store, or Cancel to continue"

------
adavies42
delicious 1, delicious 2, delicious ∞--is wil a marathon fan?

------
phil
Who's got the open radar for this one?

------
archildress
On a similar note, the Mac App Store really needs an option for free trials if
it wants to become the premiere marketplace for apps.

~~~
MarkMc
Yes! Especially with more expensive software. My software costs £150: No-one
wants to fork out this kind of cash without a free trial so I get very few
sales through the Mac App Store.

------
cdog46
no

------
hack_edu
_The Mac App Store has been a huge boon to Mac software developers_

It has? Whenever I look, I tend to see trivial little apps of the same depth
and quality as your typical iOS App Store app. Feels like a ghetto to me.

~~~
RandallBrown
are you a Mac software developer? It has boosted sales of lots of already
exisiting apps and gave a platform for many other apps to be shown off.

