
The Mac App Store Still Needs Paid Upgrades - milen
http://dancounsell.com/articles/the-mac-app-store-still-needs-paid-upgrades
======
kybernetyk
I have something to add about the missing incentive for developers to update
their apps in the app store:

The MAS actually penalizes you if you update an app which has a bunch of good
reviews. Because after you publish a new update the average rating that is
shown next to your app in the search results/category lists disappears until
you get at least 5 new reviews for the current version.

Now this was introduced to the app store(s) because iOS developers bemoaned
that they couldn't get rid of bad average ratings when they published a well-
received update.

So Apple changed from displaying an average rating of all version to
displaying just the average rating for the current version. With the
requirement of at least 5 ratings to display any average at all.

On iOS this might work because the volume there is large. But on the Mac App
Store it takes months for an average application (read: one that is not
permanently featured by Apple) to acquire said 5 ratings.

So you think twice about pushing out an update to your app when the current
average rating is 4 or 5 stars. Because once your average stars are gone, your
app doesn't look very different from any other 0 rating app in the search
results and it's pure luck if the user likes your icon enough to click on it.
(Which measurably impacts sales numbers).

I see this with my own software: I currently have an app in the MAS which has
an average rating of 4.5 stars and hasn't been updated since June 2014.
Because I once made the mistake to update a well rated app and sales plummeted
over the next few months until the app could re-acquire 5 ratings to show an
average. So I'm not going to push an update of the app to the MAS anytime
soon. And if a user complains I send them to the direct download version
(which got several big updates during the last year). Yes, I feel bad about it
but in the end I'm not going to shoot myself in the foot if I can help it.

~~~
prawn
It's a problem in the App Store too and it definitely discourages us from
submitting updates when we otherwise would. It amazes me that they don't deal
with a fairly small problem like this.

------
oddevan
I know app bundles were introduced in the iOS App Store and some developers
had started using them as a hack around "paid upgrades." Given that they
didn't get a mention in the original post, I'm assuming they don't exist on
the Mac App Store. Seems like an easy win that could solve half the problems
mentioned...

(For the record: a user that has already purchased an app in a bundle only has
to pay the difference to complete the bundle. So the idea is having version 1
and version 2, each for $30, but sell the bundle for $50. Owners of version 1
can essentially upgrade to version 2 for $20.)

------
king_magic
IMHO, the Mac App Store is good for one thing, and one thing only: Apple's Mac
apps.

Without trial versions / paid upgrades / all of the other things we've been
asking for, it's just not a distribution system I would seriously consider
using.

If I was building an OS X app, I would rather go out of my way to support
auto-update, custom licensing, etc, than deal with the limitations of the Mac
App Store.

~~~
lpsz
And it's not all that bad.

* For updates, use Sparkle framework. [1]

* For licensing, use CocoaFob [2] or write your own.

* For payments, use FastSpring like most other indie shops. [3]

Only other detail is having to write a EULA yourself.

[1] [http://sparkle-project.org/](http://sparkle-project.org/)

[2] [https://github.com/glebd/cocoafob](https://github.com/glebd/cocoafob)

[3] [http://fastspring.com/](http://fastspring.com/)

~~~
kitsunesoba
It may not be “that bad”, but it’s still enough to be daunting if you’ve been
in full-swing development mode and would rather focus on your application’s
key features instead of licensing and distribution.

That said, I have apps on the Mac App Store and though it’s effortless, there
are absolutely points of frustration. Most notably, there’s no way to refund
or interact with unhappy users or users with questions. Additionally, OS X's
sandboxing implementation is still buggy in some areas (mostly involving file
dialogs and persistence of user-selected file URLs) which makes writing and
usage of applications that frequently work with files in arbitrary user-
selected files and folders in the user’s filesystem far more frustrating and
failure-prone than it needs to be.

As such, I’m looking into moving into self-managed licensing, with a setup
like you’ve mentioned (Sparkle/CocoaFob/etc) but rather than using Fastspring,
I’ll probably use a personally maintained branch of Potion Store that supports
Stripe instead. I’ve never been a fan of in-betweens like Fastspring as a
developer or as a user; as a developer, I dislike the lack of control I have
and as a user encounters with Fastspring and the likes feels janky,
unpolished, and unprofessional.

~~~
lpsz
I'm with you on the sandboxing issues and lack of means to contact users.

FWIW, Fastspring is fairly customizable! The value over Stripe is that you
don't have to deal with PCI details or worrying about fraud. Also, taxes/VAT
in various jurisdictions. (Disclaimer: current customer)

One minor con is that until your store is "vetted" (something like a few
months of successful transactions), your checkout form will include mailing
address and phone number fields for additional fraud screening.

It's great to have more options of course. I figure I will "graduate" to
Stripe if my operation gets to the point where I want even more control.

~~~
ivm
> One minor con is that until your store is "vetted" (something like a few
> months of successful transactions), your checkout form will include mailing
> address and phone number fields for additional fraud screening.

The seller's phone? Or my customers must enter their phones?

------
lpsz
I think most serious Mac developers simply don't use the MAS (notable
exceptions being Fantastical and 1Password, but they offer the ability to
purchase directly as well).

It also seems like few users browse there. Being in "Top 100 Paid" takes only
20-30 downloads, which underscores how low the traffic is. Source: personal
experience.

~~~
mahouse
Don't forget about Textual!

~~~
fernandotakai
according to the textual dev, he's moving outside the mac app store "mid-to-
late Summer 2015".

------
makecheck
Certainly. This is far from the biggest problem though.

There are entire classes of applications that you can't find in the Mac App
Store even when they're free (like web browsers!) so it's not just money that
is keeping them away. Worse, apps that "add on" to popular products _do_ make
it in, creating this weird situation where you search for $POPULAR_THING and
you don't find $POPULAR_THING but you _do_ find all kinds of "99 cent plug-in
for $POPULAR_THING" products. It really serves to clutter up and lower the
perceived value of the entire store.

Apple should be treating this as _the_ way to find and install Mac software,
and lower every single wall if necessary until the likes of Mozilla, Google,
Microsoft and Adobe are _all_ on board with that.

If price is the issue, remind big developers that there are costs to running
an app store but negotiate with them until they are willing. For the good of
the platform.

If the sandbox is the sticking point (as it is perhaps for Firefox and
Chrome), one option is to add an "Advanced Install" button so that all
software can still be _available_ on the App Store even if there is an extra
hurdle. Apple could still set strict sandbox requirements for default
installs. [The sandbox is one reason I didn't submit my terminal app because I
cannot find any reasonable default sandbox that wouldn't utterly cripple
shells and other common sub-processes.]

Licensing should _certainly_ not be an issue. The fact is, there is a ton of
really important free software on the Mac and some of it is GPL. Apple may not
like this but they cannot deny that the value of their entire platform _has
grown_ because of such software. They should add an option to bundle or link
source code with App Store entries. And if they really can't bring themselves
to do that, the very least they should allow is an official _entry_ for every
piece of software, even if that entry is only allowed to link to an external
web site for licensing reasons.

------
orionblastar
This sort of broke the software app business model. One low price for an app
for life. Then doing the upgrades to each new version of OSX costs a lot of
money. No wonder many companies go out of business or try to avoid developing
for the Mac?

Adobe gets around this by offering Cloud subscriptions, paying a monthly or
yearly fee to access the software.

------
zulfishah
I have apps in the iOS and Mac App store, so this is a big sticking point form
me. But there is one thing missing from the article, which is a discussion on
why Apple wouldn't want to add a paid upgrade model to the App Store (iOS or
Mac).

Some potential reasons:

    
    
       - confusing to casual users who aren't used to this model, and might not expect it
       - more expensive (users at this point feel entitled to free or very cheap software)
       - potential for abuse (random apps will start charging for every minor update)
    

One way they can prevent abuse is to limit developers, and allow paid upgrades
only once a year per app. That sounds like a reasonable compromise to me. I
don't want the majority of iOS/Mac users to be scared off from buying apps
because they think every app is going to nickel-and-dime them at every bug-fix
update or minor features. Once-a-year upgrade (with an option to ignore the
update if user wants to and continue using the app as-is) could solve both
problems.

~~~
rffn
About "confusing to casual users who aren't used to this model, and might not
expect it": If we tailor everything to the person with the lowest possible
knowledge* , we get two things. 1\. Everything around us will be a stupid as
we can make it. 2\. Eventually a person with even less knowledge will be
found.

* I had a much stronger word there before...

------
justinmolineaux
I don't work for Apple, but I think they would point a developer to in-app
purchases (IAP) as 'the way' to do paid upgrades.

Still, auto-renewing IAP subscriptions are limited to a narrow class of
applications (see AppStore review guidelines #11.15), forcing most to use
churn-prone manually-renewing subscriptions. Outside payment systems are
largely prohibited for digital goods under #11.13. The combination of these
rules forces multi-platform subscription based apps (i.e. Autodesk's 123d-line
of apps) to juggle multiple payment systems. Integration between those payment
systems is often weak due to lack of a published web service or hook-system
for IAP.

AppStore review guidelines can be found here:
[https://developer.apple.com/app-
store/review/guidelines/#pur...](https://developer.apple.com/app-
store/review/guidelines/#purchasing-currencies)

The state of in-app purchases leaves much to be desired.

~~~
clarky07
I think they are quietly loosening 11.15. It started as just magazines, now it
has:

Apps may only use auto-renewing subscriptions for periodicals (newspapers,
magazines), business Apps (enterprise, productivity, professional creative,
cloud storage), and media Apps (video, audio, voice), or the App will be
rejected

On top of that, I know of at least 2 very high profile sports and health and
fitness apps that are currently using auto-renewing subscriptions. Now, it's
possible they get to do it BECAUSE they are high profile, but the precedent
exists. They don't fit in any of the above categories.

------
zkhalique
We released Calendar for MacOS
([http://qbix.com/calendar](http://qbix.com/calendar)) three years ago and now
we are going to add a trial / upgrade mechanism, while distributing through
the app store. It's totally done via non-renewing subscriptions for additional
features.

------
clarky07
As someone who has never done a paid upgrade because I started my life as an
indie on iOS, could someone explain to me why it's better than a subscription?
Are users just significantly more likely to buy an upgrade than to just
subscribe?

I'm currently experimenting with subscriptions on iPhone and I think it at
least has potential. To be fair, my conversions aren't where I'd like them to
be yet, but I do think there is potential. Many of my competitors are also
using subscriptions, and they seem to be doing pretty well.

EDIT: It also allows you to do trials, as long the free version is useful
enough on it's own you can happily give out trials of all the premium
features.

~~~
timeuser
I've had the understanding that subscription isn't an option for most types of
apps. Auto-renewing subscriptions are only allowed for content or services.
And non-renewing subscriptions are pretty narrow in scope as well. What type
of subscriptions are you selling and for what type of features?

Here is Apple's guidance document: [https://developer.apple.com/in-app-
purchase/In-App-Purchase-...](https://developer.apple.com/in-app-purchase/In-
App-Purchase-Guidelines.pdf)

~~~
clarky07
I'm using the non-renewing subscription, which I don't think is really as
narrow as some of that guidance seems to suggest. I've seen them used in lots
of different apps, in addition to the auto-renewing subscriptions I mention
above.

Perhaps if Apple just actually changed those guidelines and made it explicit
that this is ok more it would be a path to sustainability for more apps.

I feel like if more apps adopted this users might also become more comfortable
with it.

------
daenney
So far I've seen developers do this, they just release it as a new app on the
App Store and then you get to buy it all over again. If you don't feel like
you need it you can stick to the old version you bought before until you have
incentive enough to upgrade. They usually start out at a slightly lower
"upgrade" price for the first month or two and then crank it up to the full
price.

I realise it's really not the ideal situation but if you really need it for
revenue it is possible. You can easily add a mechanism to the old version that
nudges people about the upgrade.

------
antaviana
How about forgetting about the upgrade circus and make your app available only
as a subscription at an annual subscription cost of 1/3 your intended full
price? Then upgrades just happen.

