
Update – We’re unable to offer upgrade pricing for Mac App Store purchases - nickmain
http://www.omnigroup.com/blog/entry/update-no-upgrade-pricing-for-mac-app-store-purchases
======
yapcguy
_" We are not allowed to distribute updates through other channels to apps
which were purchased from the App Store."_

The solution is simple.

All Mac developers should stop selling through the App Store, regain control
of the distribution channel, and leave the Mac App Store barren of quality
applications.

Until Mac developers have leverage, Apple will continue taking their 30% cut
and enforcing rules which suit them and not the developers.

EDIT:

Just wanted to add...

What are developers going to do when Apple says every single new API in
Mavericks can only be used if the app is sold through the Mac App Store? This
has already happened with the iCloud SDK, so it's likely they will continue on
this path.

What if one day Apple says you can only have a developer certificate if your
apps are sold exclusively through the Mac App Store?

~~~
routelastresort
... or switch back to Linux, and just download everything you need, without
encumbrances like this. I recently switched back on all of my OSX and Windows
machine, and it feels great. Only through years of contributions to open
source projects, and hanging my head in shame can I ever be redeemed. Oh, and
_Steam_ is only going to get better!

~~~
__--__
I still haven't found a linux distro that doesn't eventually resort to me
fudging with xrandr for a week trying to get multiple monitors working
correctly. Granted, this was 3 years ago. Have any linux distros solved the
problem of configuring multiple monitors using a gui yet?

~~~
eropple
_> Have any linux distros solved the problem of configuring multiple monitors
using a gui yet?_

For two monitors on one video card, things are pretty okay on Ubuntu and
derivatives. More than that, especially 3+ with non-uniform geometries, and
you will have fun. If you have multiple video cards, you will have even more
fun.

~~~
rurounijones
I have two nVidia cards in SLI powering 3 monitors.

Setup was pretty simple using the binary nVidia drivers on Kubuntu, 0 config
file wrangling.

Now, having those three monitors in non-uniform geometries is something I
wouldn't even consider tackling

[EDIT]

Kubuntu 12.04

All monitors in a single X Session and automatic application window sizing
works as you would expect in KDE

(i.e. Maximising a window maximises to the current monitor only and being able
to drag to right side of one monitor causes the window to use up half of the
current monitor)

~~~
eropple
Can you get them all in the same X session? I've never tried SLI, I generally
just upgrade to a beefier main card and use a second card to drive extra
monitors. I have an HD6970 and an HD6450 on 4 monitors that work _great_ under
OS X (Hackintosh'd) and Windows and things go extremely sideways under Ubuntu.

~~~
dripton
I had 3 monitors / 2 Nvidia cards working fine in Kubuntu 11.04 and 12.04. All
one X session. It was easy. But that was with uniform geometry. (I had 3
identical monitors.) Haven't tried non-uniform.

------
Spooky23
Boo hoo. The people paying $80 for todo list management don't need upgrade
pricing. If they do, maybe charging a less insane price would make the App
Store issue moot.

Building stuff for Apple products is like dating and being madly in love with
someone who doesn't love you. Everything is great until they don't need you
anymore.

Remember the independent resellers of Apple products, who operated actual
physical stores selling Macs before they were cool again? You may not, because
Apple basically shot them in the head when try opened Apple Retail stores.
Remember the Mac OEMs?

Apple is building two sales channels, one that makes them 30%, one that makes
them 0%. They've told you that they make many more dollars with walled garden
products built on iOS, and are porting key iOS features to Mac OS -- features
that also require that sales channel that makes them richer.

So if you develop software for Mac, you shouldn't be surprised when Apple
abuses you -- Apple doesn't need you.

~~~
pornel
> The people paying $80 for todo list management don't need upgrade pricing.

Omni makes good products that are (IMHO) worth $80, and paying full price for
an upgrade is unfair whether that's an $80 app or a $3.99 app.

The problem isn't that software costs $80, it's that giving up freedom to use
AppStore ends up hurting users and developers.

~~~
bradleyland
I'm not sure this is the kind of thing that can be categorized as fair or
unfair. The upgrade-pricing model follows the rationale that users pay a
higher up-front cost for software, then each upgrade is a maintenance fee to
support continued improvement of the software. The flat-cost model spreads the
cost of continued software development equally over all users.

The feeling of whether or not this is "fair" depends upon whether you're a new
user or an existing user. With the upgrade-pricing model, new users are
confronted with a much lower price point, which is unavailable to them. This
can be a significant psychological barrier to purchase execution. However,
existing users are more likely to feel appreciated and stick with the product
because they receive favorable pricing.

With the flat-cost model, you have the inverse. New users no longer feel
marginalized, but existing users may consider alternatives at each time-of-
purchase for upgrades.

Apple's vision of flat-cost pricing dictates that the price point should be
held as low as possible, increasing accessibility from a broader market. With
software, there are no incremental costs, so your price point is a matter of
supply/demand tuning. There are countless blog articles on this subject.

While there isn't consensus on which model (flat-cost vs upgrade-pricing) is
the most successful, each has its pros and cons for consumers. I don't think
either could be characterized as fair or unfair.

~~~
Spooky23
It's a model optimized for the platform owner -- who only gives a shit about
aggregate demand. That app you worked on is no different than an a music track
to them.

------
kcase
Not being able to offer the same discounted upgrade pricing to all our
customers no matter where they purchased is obviously disappointing for us.
But it just means we're back to the same state of affairs as I outlined in my
original blog post from the launch of the Mac App Store:

[http://www.omnigroup.com/blog/entry/mac_app_store_or_omnis_o...](http://www.omnigroup.com/blog/entry/mac_app_store_or_omnis_online_store_your_choice/)

As I said in that original post:

"The Mac App Store is the most convenient way to buy our software, letting you
purchase, download, and install our apps with just one step, and easily update
our apps at the same time as you update other apps you've purchased from the
the store.

"But to be clear, the Mac App Store is not the only way to buy our software:
we'll continue to offer direct sales and updates through our own website as
well. Through our website, we can offer much more flexible terms and options:
trial and beta downloads, upgrade pricing, and discounts for volume, bundle,
and educational purchases.

"No matter which way you buy our software, you'll be getting the same product:
all of our Mac App Store apps are exactly the same as the apps we sell through
our website (except for a few minor changes made to work with the store).
We'll also keep future updates to our apps in sync—apps you've purchased
directly through us will continue to update themselves as they always have,
while App Store updates will appear on the App Store (after a slight delay due
to the App Store's review process). And either way, you'll have the same great
support from our team here at Omni."

~~~
timeuser
Can you offer any more detail on what you were specifically forbidden from
doing? Is it that you aren't allowed to offer updates outside of the App Store
to App Store purchased apps? Or is it the method you were using with
OmniKeyMaster that was disallowed?

Do you think Apple would allow other ways of supporting upgrade pricing
between two versions of an App Store app possibly through in app purchase or
similar?

------
kybernetyk
> We are not allowed to distribute updates through other channels to apps
> which were purchased from the App Store.

> Update: Unfortunately, we’ve had to remove OmniKeyMaster from our website
> and can no longer offer upgrade pricing to App Store customers.

So, what happened here? Did Apple threaten to close Omni's app store account?
Because:

The Omni Key Master is an app that is not distributed through the app store.
Also when a user buys an upgrage he will only receive updates through Omni's
website and not the app store. So the upgraded apps should be out of Apple's
reach.

So what happened here? Did Apple legal write a strongly worded email to Omni?

------
stevoski
The Mac App Store does provide something of value: app hosting, oh-so-easy
purchasing (just enter a password, as Apple has your credit card details on
file), app delivery, license management.

But the downsides. Boy, the downsides. And they take a 30% cut of the gross
price.

It would be really nice if there was an alternative App store, which offered
the similar benefits, was cheaper for developers, was curated, but was more
developer-friendly.

~~~
jeena
There is [http://appbodega.com/](http://appbodega.com/) but, yeah, nobody buys
there anything.

~~~
bradleyland
Which underscores the single greatest value of the App Store: the market.

Apple has built a population of dedicated users who are willing to spend
money. They did this by building a product that asks consumers to spend a
little more to get a little more. Now they've created a channel through which
developers can access those consumers directly through the host operating
system, and they charge a fee for that.

When you look at alternative marketplaces, it becomes clear that the value of
the App Store is more than just "app hosting, oh-so-easy purchasing (just
enter a password, as Apple has your credit card details on file), app
delivery, license management".

------
josephlord
It is additional work but I believe something should be possible on iOS7 and
Mavericks. If I remember correctly you will now be able to get the original
purchase receipt including the date of the purchase not just the receipts for
the in-app purchases. If you can separate out some or all of the feature
upgrades and disable them when the original purchase was before date of
upgrade release unless an in-app purchase is made for the upgrade price.

Won't this work? I realise that it doesn't come without effort to set it up
and to test the software in two modes but at least bug fixes can go to
everyone without two releases.

Up to now I don't think there has been a way to identify when the initial app
purchase happened.

------
protomyth
The problem is Apple doesn't currently care about paid upgrades. They don't
sell software that way (witness the new Logic).

Developers need to do things to ensure the loyalty of old customers while
pricing their software so they can make a living. So the starting price +
upgrade pricing model works great. Customer feel like they got a bargain for
being loyal and the developer gets to eat.

Apple doesn't need to do that. So they won't build it for developers. Given
the iCloud API thing, I would imagine this is going to continue to get more
restrictive.

~~~
peterkelly
> The problem is Apple doesn't currently care about paid upgrades

Given that they would make 30% of the upgrade price, I'm surprised they're not
actively _encouraging_ this.

~~~
Alphasite_
You seem to be under the mistaken impression that apple cares about the money,
at the scale the MAS operates at, its nothing to write home about. So i doubt
very much that they plan on changing anything at the current time.

------
gojomo
It'd be ugly and put other burdens on the pricing strategy and support
permutations, but perhaps app-makers so trapped could approximate their
desired result via:

(1) offer a reduced-functionality "version N" to everyone, but for the desired
'upgrade' price. (Essentially, this might only have the features of the prior
N-1 version.)

(2) offer an in-app purchase unlocking full/pro features, priced at the delta
between their desired "full Version N price" and what was already paid

(3) give owners of the previous "N-1 Version" a code that gives them the in-
app purchase benefits for free

Maybe Apple would still object... but since the entire process happens inside
Apple's system, paying Apple's commissions, advancing the use of Apple's in-
app purchase mechanisms, maybe they'd be OK with it.

~~~
timeuser
How do you propose accomplishing (3) that isn't a difficult confusing mess for
users and verifies they are indeed an owner of the n-1 version?

~~~
gojomo
The prior version creates a unique proof-of-ownership code (perhaps on
request, after consulting the vendor's server).

That code is either cut & pasted, or custom-URL-handler'ed, over to the new
install, unlocking the same features as an in-app-purchase. (Or maybe there's
a bounce through Safari, somehow leveraging its offer-to-launch-or-install
functionality to minimize the steps, or through the vendor's own servers keyed
by opt-in email address. Lots of possibilities, really.)

~~~
timeuser
As I said in my other response it seems likely Apple won't allow these upgrade
schemes any more than they are allowing Omni to do upgrades around the App
Store. Why would they block what Omni was doing entirely outside of the App
Store and allow apps distributed through the App Store to accomplish something
similar?

~~~
gojomo
Because outside the App Store, Apple doesn't get their cut, and external
payments or software-deliveries don't bind people to the habit of App Store
purchases and in-app purchases.

With this pseudo-upgrade process, even as convoluted as it is, it all remains
inside Apple's system.

I suppose the key question is: does Apple allow promotions that give some
people the same effect as in-app purchases, while others still have to make
the paid purchase? (I think they do.) I could see Apple objecting _if_ the
feature-turn-on is in any way a reward for outside-of-App-Store valuable
behavior - that's circumventing Apple's role.

But if it's an extra bonus for an earlier in-App-Store action – the N-1
version purchase – Apple's role hasn't been circumvented. In a way, it's been
reinforced. So the same logic driving the prior veto wouldn't apply.

~~~
timeuser
Perhaps. It's an interesting theory. I've seen it claimed in the past that
Apple has given explicit permission to activate in app purchasable features
through other means such as contacting a developer's server with an unlock
code. I'm still leery of going through the effort to build and support a
kludgy solution like that and still have the risk of Apple not approving of
it.

------
yaddayadda
Seems like this is a case study for "Android is for startups"
[http://blog.audobox.com/android-is-for-
startups/](http://blog.audobox.com/android-is-for-startups/)

~~~
radley
Hardly - we have the same problem with the Play Store

------
jeena
It was so obvious when I read about it here
[http://brooksreview.net/2013/08/omnikeymaster-upgrade-
pricin...](http://brooksreview.net/2013/08/omnikeymaster-upgrade-pricing-for-
mac-app-store-customers/) just the other day.

Why would Apple build a distribution channel and then let people upgrade apps
outside of it without getting their cut? I think this was obvious for the Omni
guys too, they just wanted this problem to get some publicity.

~~~
stinky613
They kind of have to because the App Store doesn't allow paid upgrades.
There's no way to offer two prices (upgrade price and full retail price) for
an app.

EDIT: The in-between choice would be moving to SaaS (see Adobe), but that's
another discussion entirely

~~~
pudquick
As a counterpoint, the App Store also implicitly encourages an "infinite major
versions updates" pricing model vs. minor point release updates = free, major
= paid upgrade.

In order to do something like that in the App Store, you have to make your
next major version listed as a completely separate app ID. Almost no one does
this because everyone in the App Store ecosystem expects new version = hit
Update All - and the few times I've seen this done, it resulted in nothing but
negative App Store reviews.

By not providing anything other than a single purchase price, Apple has not
just discouraged the upgrade price model - they've discouraged everything but
a one-time flat price or admitting to the customers that they're truly a SaaS
model (by forcing the developer to do it as an in-app subscription purchase).

I prefer this simplicity.

------
hayksaakian
Why not offer rebates to users of the old version instead?

~~~
wmf
It's likely that Apple would veto that as well.

~~~
hayksaakian
How much control do they really have over your business? If amazon can
redirect its customers to its site to work around this level of control, why
can't they do the same and give licensed users apple gift cards to cover the
upgrade vs full price difference?

------
ryan-allen
Maybe they could do rebates? Like you purchase an app via the app-store and if
they have a record of you owning it they can refund some of the money?

------
jchimney
Yup, Apple needs to fix this. Doesn't seem like a difficult engineering
problem on the surface. Just fix it.

