
Coming changes to Apple's App Store - jontayesp
http://www.theverge.com/2016/6/8/11880730/apple-app-store-subscription-update-phil-schiller-interview
======
AlexandrB
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.

~~~
chasing
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.

~~~
bad_user
There aren't many apps that can save you 1000/year. I keep hearing this, but
that's nonsense. If a "service" is not producing money and isn't saving you
time allowing you to produce money, then it's not worth paying for.

Yes, I have subscriptions for IntelliJ IDEA, for Dropbox, for FastMail and for
a DigitalOcean VPS. All these are producing money for me. But the list ends
here. Because here's the thing: $5/month here, $10/month there and pretty soon
we're talking about serious money. Not only that, but as soon as you stop
paying for whatever reason (eg temporary financial problems) you're out.

Of course, with our oversized salaries, we stop noticing that $5/month for a
passwords app is actually expensive. And that's actually a good example
because a passwords app at least has some utility.

More importantly, subscriptions are immoral because the end result is robbing
users of any sense of ownership. And as a software developer, you no longer
feel compelled to innovate, to improve, in order to convince users to upgrade.
I for one hate renting things, I prefer ownership.

~~~
chasing
I want to address two things, here:

1) You're absolutely right: Pricing matters. If I charge you $10/mo for my app
that sends you a text message every time there's a full moon, that would be
way too expensive and you'd be well within your rights as a consumer to spend
your money on something else. As far as I'm aware, Apple will not force you to
subscribe to any apps.

2) "... subscriptions are immoral..." Bullshit. And you don't "own" software
you buy and pay for once. Operating systems change. Companies and developers
come and go. If you value a piece of software, then you value the developer
and should desire that they maintain and improve the app.

What _is_ moral is creating a system by which software developers can support
themselves by creating products that are useful to the community. I'd say the
App Store is currently broken in that regard (with a few high-profile
exceptions). If popularizing subscription-based pricing will help fix that,
I'm all in favor.

~~~
veidr
Subscriptions _are_ immoral, but not for those reasons. It's an immoral
business model because its success is based on bilking people -- cheating them
into paying for 'service' when they don't want to.

The mechanism is simple: the slight inconvenience of cancellation prevents a
huge number of users from cancelling as soon as they want to.

This is why getting your customers to set up _automated and recurring_
payments is the pot of gold everybody wants (not just in software).

You don't have to intend to bilk people if you do subscriptions; it's inherent
in your business model.

Try putting a confirmation screen in your app that makes the user press
"Renew" each month before the app charges them again. That would move you
toward the moral end of the spectrum, but it would gut your sales.

A $2 per month subscription, even if totally unneeded, is not something most
busy people can find the time to deal with cancelling. Pretty soon a year has
gone by and your "service" has provided zero value to them but you've ripped
them off for $24.

(For clarity: I don't mean _you_ personally, and also I do work in
subscription-based software. I just don't have any illusions about it and it
makes me feel icky.)

~~~
sambe
Quite obviously biased and overstated. Many subscription models have nothing
to do with tricking people or making it hard to cancel and many customers of
those continue to pay knowingly and willingly and appreciate the convenience
of agreeing to this up-front instead of manually renewing multiple services
each month. For example, my water provider. My Netflix subscription. You
cannot just ignore this because it doesn't fit your model. The immorality is
the trickery, not the subscription.

~~~
veidr
> _many customers of those continue to pay knowingly and willingly and
> appreciate the convenience_

Yes, I fully agree.

> _Many subscription models have nothing to do with tricking people_

I don't agree with this, at least for auto-renewing subscriptions; that's my
point. _Every_ piece of software sold on auto-renewing subscription has some
significant number of subscribers (as a percentage of its total number of
them) that don't actually want it.

That is true regardless of what the publisher intends or wants.

Obviously, the exact percentage will vary a great deal, depending on the
product.

Water is an example of something where that percentage would be low —
presumably, almost everybody wants their water to stay on.

Netflix, not so much; I myself once paid for Netflix for months, perhaps
years, without using it once, and without wanting to keep it on "just in
case". I was just too busy to cancel it the few times I thought of it (until I
_finally_ did).

Netflix is not on the sleazier side of the spectrum, though; it's quite easy
to cancel.

There are, however, a lot more disgusting sleazy fuckers out there like the
Wall Street Journal, MyFico.com, and Comcast, than there are Netflixes.

P.S. As a bonus, here's my Second Law of Subscriptiodynamics:

 _The total difficulty in cancelling an isolated auto-renewing subscription
always increases over time._

~~~
Xylakant
> I don't agree with this, at least for auto-renewing subscriptions; that's my
> point. Every piece of software sold on auto-renewing subscription has some
> significant number of subscribers (as a percentage of its total number of
> them) that don't actually want it.

Some SaaS providers make unused subscriptions free of charge (Slack AFAIR),
others auto-cancel them after a period of inactivity. This obviously only
works if the provider has knowledge of whether a subscription is used, but it
shows that the flaw is not inherent with subscriptions.

Other than that: I have quite a couple of pieces of software that I bought at
pretty much full price and never really used. Is that immoral as well?

~~~
veidr
Detecting non-use and waiving all charges in that case? That not only
nullifies all moral/ethical/assholiness problems with the subscription model,
it is practically _heroic_.

But, I don't think that's very common.

------
localhost3000
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.

~~~
djrogers
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...

~~~
kybernetyk
In a high volume market like the iOS app store this behavior might be OK. It
shouldn't take too long to get back a few reviews to display a N stars rating.
(Just guessing, have no iOS apps in the store).

But in a low volume market like the Mac App Store it takes anywhere from a few
weeks to months to get 5 reviews after an update. (Or even years in non US
stores).

I made the experience that updating a well reviewed Mac app leads to a drop in
sales until you get back to at least 5 ratings. (You need at least 5 ratings
to display the average rating in search results and category lists in the Mac
App Store).

This is a big incentive to keep updates back until it is really necessary to
release them.

~~~
chillacy
Yup. For that reason I've stopped releasing often and now have a beta program
independent of the app store that people can opt into from the app itself.

------
adrianhon
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.

~~~
coroutines
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.

~~~
adrianhon
Yep, it works a lot better for some apps than others. To be fair, a calculator
app doesn't need (as much) long term development or maintenance so I think a
single payment is fine for both dev and customer there.

In light of this news, I wrote up a short post about how we made Zombies, Run!
a subscriptions success:

[https://medium.com/@adrianhon/how-we-made-an-app-store-
subsc...](https://medium.com/@adrianhon/how-we-made-an-app-store-subscription-
success-25f4ea75500f#.mw4x9qghe)

------
surds
Subscription model for all apps...

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.

~~~
joezydeco
What do app developers do now when everyone has 1.0 and you want to release a
2.0 version with more features and not just bugfixes?

Do users still expect the upgrade for free?

~~~
bitL
That's a flaw in all app stores (perhaps by design to force everyone to a
subscription model someday?). For example, ImageLine's FL Studio was warning
everyone that their new app will be completely different than their old app,
but they weren't able to change version for their customers by the store
policies, so they were asking users to be careful about upgrade.

So currently your only option is to release app2, app3 etc. without the
possibility to address your customer base (offering upgrades etc.)

Subscriptions are basically renting apps for regular time periods. If forced,
this would kill all indies for sure as most people would spend budget to the
few main apps they need. I can also barely envision how the platform would
attract creative people as it would feel like oligopoly. Frankly, with
computers we have a chance to break natural constraints on availability but
companies seem to be hell bent on reintroducing the same stinky approaches
from the past. Why?

~~~
st3v3r
"Frankly, with computers we have a chance to break natural constraints on
availability but companies seem to be hell bent on reintroducing the same
stinky approaches from the past. Why?"

Because I want to buy food and pay rent.

~~~
bitL
How does it help you if your potential customers avoid your software like a
plague? Subscriptions border on restricting somebody's financial freedom.
Imagine your plumber was forcing you to pay yearly for once/here and there
using their services?

~~~
st3v3r
"How does it help you if your potential customers avoid your software like a
plague?"

You're gonna have to show that would be the result. You'd also have to show
that whatever your alternative idea is. You said you want to "break natural
constraints on availability." How are you going to do that without charging
per copy, or charing a subscription model? And how does your idea make more
money that previous, or at least a similar amount?

"Subscriptions border on restricting somebody's financial freedom."

No, they don't.

~~~
bitL
I am fine buying software but only if I can keep ownership of whatever version
I bought. I shelved money for complete CS6 but stay light years away from CC.
I bought Ableton Live Suite, but stay away from ProTools. Imagine I had to pay
Nikon or Access a yearly fee for camera/synth in my studio?

I have a plenty of money I want to spend on software but only if it empowers
me and not if it treats me as an ATM. For example, the old JetBrains model of
buying a new major release (and keeping it forever) and then getting free
updates for a year was simply perfect, both for allowing developers to love
the company that treats them properly and financing ongoing development; not
sure why they regressed.

------
matt2000
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.

~~~
soylentcola
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.

------
uptown
"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."

That's a big change.

~~~
jontayesp
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."

~~~
shostack
I'm frankly shocked it took them this long. They have the #1 digital real
estate for such advertising, and the amount of money being spent on
advertising apps (particularly on FB) is staggering.

Unfortunately, from a user standpoint, this seems to be a disincentive to
improve their horribly lacking search functionality.

------
jaxondu
Apple has put up a "What’s New in Subscriptions" site with a "Coming Soon"
label: [https://developer.apple.com/app-store/subscriptions/whats-
ne...](https://developer.apple.com/app-store/subscriptions/whats-new/)

Also for Search Ads (Coming this fall): [https://developer.apple.com/app-
store/search-ads/](https://developer.apple.com/app-store/search-ads/)

------
AndrewKemendo
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.

~~~
Jerry2
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.

~~~
Longhanks
I don't think that everything he touches "is shit or turns to shit quickly".
The Apple Online Store, iTunes Music Store, iCloud services, Apple Pay are all
great products/servives. He took command over Maps when it was at a terrible
stake, and it has improved a lot since.

However, I think iTunes, Apple Music and Siri all have weaknesses. But we can
only guess who's fault that is - certainly not Cue's alone.

Also, he is employed by Apple since 1989. He must be doing something right.

~~~
Jerry2
Problem is that Apple's services are lagging behind their competition. Issue
is that each team at Apple has their own stack. Imagine the amount of overlap
that they have! They have hundreds of people who are doing the same work but
for different teams. That also explains why Apple's so addicted to
AWS/Azure/Google's cloud services.

And Siri's fallen further behind their competition. Don't forget, Siri was the
first (major) assistant on the market and Apple had a year or two of head
start on their competition. But that advantage quickly evaporated because of
Apple's neglect. Siri's creators left and formed Viv because Apple lowered
their ambitions and didn't give them the budget they wanted.

That's all Eddy Cue's fault since he's the one who's in charge of these teams.
It's as simple as that. And just because he's been at Apple so long doesn't
mean he's great at his job. It could as well mean that he's accumulated so
much power that he's untouchable.

------
archagon
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.

~~~
djrogers
How about the 'privilege' of getting new features? Major app updates? Ongoing
tech support and bug fixes?

One could argue that those should be included in the purchase price, but
today's app store economy often doesn't allow that.

~~~
archagon
You're right — users shouldn't expect their apps to get major updates for
free. But this is a PR problem, solvable by other means. As a user, I'm OK
with it. I've been using Adobe CS 5 for the past 3 years and it's still
working great. Were there an upgrade path where I could pay some cash and get
the latest version, I would probably do so. Unfortunately, Adobe has decided
that they're not the company for me, and so I've been happily moving on to
alternatives like Pixelmator and Affinity Designer. From what I've seen in the
response to Text Expander's subscription pricing and other similar business
model changes, I think many others feel the same as I do: that above all else,
the software running on their local machine must continue to work without
having to pay a bloody tax.

A text expander is not a "service", nor is a password manager, nor is an audio
looper or a to-do lister. To suggest otherwise would be disingenuous. Of
course, we don't know what's going to happen in response to this change yet,
but statements like Gruber's "win-win-win"[1] and Brent Simmons' request for
clarification[2] indicate to me that indie developers will be more than happy
to adopt this model with their decidedly non-service software.

[1]:
[http://daringfireball.net/2016/06/the_new_app_store](http://daringfireball.net/2016/06/the_new_app_store)

[2]:
[http://inessential.com/2016/06/08/seeking_clarification](http://inessential.com/2016/06/08/seeking_clarification)

------
palakchokshi
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

4\. Try it before you buy it option

5\. Better UX

~~~
pault
Why would they fix product search when they can charge you to advertise your
app in the search results instead?

~~~
palakchokshi
same reason Google does it?

------
chj
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.

------
abalone
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.

[1] [https://usa.visa.com/dam/VCOM/download/merchants/Visa-USA-
In...](https://usa.visa.com/dam/VCOM/download/merchants/Visa-USA-Interchange-
Reimbursement-Fees-2015-April-18.pdf)

~~~
adamselby
Doesn't Apple bundle multiple purchases? Assuming someone has more than $0.99
in purchases via any of Apple's stores they can save on card fees.

~~~
abalone
For individual purchases it's only over a period of a couple days or so. Not
sure about subscriptions.

------
jaxondu
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.

~~~
wlesieutre
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.

[https://blog.sketchapp.com/versioning-licensing-and-
sketch-4...](https://blog.sketchapp.com/versioning-licensing-and-
sketch-4-0-8ad98783e9ba)

~~~
protomyth
> Sketch is _NOT_ switching to a subscription model.

It looks quite a bit like a subscription model to the average person. $99/year
is a pretty big jump in price, but I guess they've gotten a chunk of pro
market people. The whole bit about being unfair to late adopters is a bit of
bunk.

~~~
wlesieutre
> It looks quite a bit like a subscription model to the average person

Not really? My problem with subscription software is that you lose access to
it if you stop paying. I used Photoshop 7 for a looooong time because we
didn't need any of the new features. You can't do that with Photoshop CC.
Because it's a subscription.

If anything, maybe you could call it an "update subscription," but if the
software works without an active subscription, then it's not a subscription.
That would be like Comcast saying "If you cancel your cable subscription, you
can still turn on your TV and watch reruns of whatever aired when you were a
customer."

> $99/year is a pretty big jump in price

For that much money, you could use Adobe Illustrator every January, May, and
September!

~~~
protomyth
Its still a subscription, it just allows an indefinite unpaid period until
something breaks. There is no upgrade discount.

> For that much money, you could use Adobe Illustrator every January, May, and
> September!

Illustrator is $19.99 per month paid monthly, so a little easier to handle but
2.4x more expensive. Illustrator has a lot more support but the difference in
price just got reduced ($99 for about 2+ years versus per year).

Its about a 2x jump in price for Sketch.

I'm most saddened that neither company cares about customer loyalty in a money
way.

------
have_faith
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.

------
sagivo
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.

------
lips
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.

------
canistr
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.

------
galistoca
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.

------
rodeoclown
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.

------
overcast
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.

~~~
sotojuan
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.

~~~
overcast
Serious question, why do we need apps that work offline? Finding it hard to
imagine what you can do on a computer theses days without an internet
connection, besides maybe an old single player game devoid of any patches.

~~~
sotojuan
It's not so much that you can _use_ it offline (though that's one benefit) but
rather that it caches your assets so if there's very, very slow connection you
can still use and read content. If it's something that requires the Internet
to work, it can show a "no connection available" message but it still load,
similar to a native app.

The goal is to avoid the "white screen of death" you get when a web app won't
load.

Here's the canonical example:
[http://www.pocketjavascript.com/blog/2015/11/23/introducing-...](http://www.pocketjavascript.com/blog/2015/11/23/introducing-
pokedex-org)

------
zkirill
Our business management app is free to use on iOS but we charge a monthly
subscription to use the web client and that has been working pretty well. With
these coming changes I wonder if it would make sense to start charging monthly
subscription for Pro features on iOS and how users will react to that.

------
dcw303
Apple's revisions to the App Store reinforce that they consider it a rival to
the World Wide Web.

Google cornered Web search. Reaction: As they own the walled garden, Apple
completely control search within the App Store. Adwords owns Web Advertisitng.
Reaction: Apple will launch paid search in the App Store. Companies like
Netflix, Blizzard, and Salesforce have direct lines to their customer's
wallets through subscriptions. Reaction: Apple will launch subscriptions in
App Store and take a cut from their developers.

I don't see any of this as a surprise. In fact, I see it as Apple playing to
their own strengths. The web is too open a platform for Apple, and history has
shown they don't succeed when they don't have control.

~~~
NEDM64
Yes, the company that succeeds in the WWW is the company that has a monopoly
in it.

------
nfriedly
I won't say that I really _like_ the idea of search ads, but I think it will
be better than the current situation because it should at least reduce the
amount of money that's currently spent on illegitimately gaming the search
results.

------
JustSomeNobody
Wait until most apps have switched to subscription, sell yours for a one time
price, profit from those users who hate subscriptions.

Maybe not sustainable, but hopefully keep you in the black until the next
project.

------
intrasight
Reading this discussion, I've seen several comment on the "hassle of managing
all those subscriptions". But wouldn't it be the case that the app store is
going to do that for you, and give you both a single notification channel and
a single point of management? Isn't that the whole purpose of managing the
subscriptions through the app store instead of having customers visit your web
site directly? Isn't that what Apple is getting %15 to perform?

------
cpeterso
If a user doesn't renew their subscription in year 2, can they continue to use
the "year 1 app" without receiving year 2 updates? Or does the year 1 app just
go dark?

------
kybernetyk
> All he will say about free trials and paid updates is that Apple "looks at
> everything. We evaluate what will be a better experience for the user, and
> we make choices based on that."

How are free trials not a "better experience for the user"? I just don't
understand Apple's paranoia when it comes to free trial versions.

------
post_break
Death by a thousand cuts. All those apps that charge to turn off the ads?
Suddenly you pay yearly for that. iAP to unlock those extra
levels/features/etc, better pay the tax man because those will now be yearly.
Apps will no longer be "upgraded" from 1.0 to 2.0 where you have to pay for
the new version. No, you pay that yearly fee whether you like it or not. Sorry
this isn't going to turn out well and I might just have to switch back to
android where there are things like 2 hour to 48 hour return policies.

~~~
NEDM64
Ignorant comment, I bet you already use Android. Apple gives 14 DAYS of refund
policy, and Google just copied Apple model.

Have fun with your LG.

~~~
post_break
I have an iPhone 6s. Can you show me where Apple says out right that they will
refund an application before 14 days? I'm not being snarky, I just haven't
seen that written before.

------
pkamb
Are these changes coming to the Mac App Store?

~~~
grayprog
Yes. Gruber confirmed and there is a place on the site where OS X is
mentioned.

------
bitL
How to kill your platform 101: Subscriptions

------
johansch
I guess these are the kind of innovations we can look forward to while Cook is
running Apple. :/

~~~
rimantas
You can always switch to Android or Windows Phone if you like their
innovations better.

------
tdaltonc
This is a very un-apple way to announce major changes.

------
DavideNL
I wonder if the ad-blocker works on those ads... :)

------
1_2__3
Apple wants a subscription service because then they can hobble the developers
AND the users to prevent them from ever leaving.

~~~
djrogers
App subscriptions would likely lead to _more_ cross platform portability - if
I'm paying $1/mo for your app, I won't care if it's on iOS this month and
Windows Mobile next month, but if I paid $10 for your app, I don't want to
repurchase it on a new platform.

------
cloudjacker
They need to make cancelling subscriptions easier

~~~
djrogers
it's like 3 clicks to find your entire list of subscriptions and once you're
there it's 2 clicks to turn off automatic renewal. Plus TFA said they're
making it even easier, so what exactly is your complaint?

~~~
cloudjacker
on your phone? how? last I tried it involved going to iTunes on a desktop

~~~
djrogers
In settings go to App Store, tap your account, then tap subscriptions.

------
codecamper
Why not just A/B test trials & see how they do? Apple could be missing out on
a sizable amount of revenue.

------
embiggen
What a terribly written article.

Just give me the TL;DR already please!

~~~
ssharp
The giant graph showing the old revenue scheme vs. the new one was
particularly unnecessary.

------
Emma11
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. "We’ve thought about how to carefully do it in a way that, first and
foremost, customers will be happy with," Schiller says, adding that he
believes the ad auction system in App Store search will be "fair to
developers, and fair for indie developers, too."

Brace for the shitstorm

My comment on
reddit:[https://www.reddit.com/r/apple/comments/4n62ny/app_store_20/](https://www.reddit.com/r/apple/comments/4n62ny/app_store_20/)

------
rosalinekarr
> 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).

This is the exact opposite of what Apple should do. App startups in their
first year need all the revenue they can get. After the first year, most of
those companies have either reached profitability or gone out of business.

This policy is going to mean more revenue for the large, established app
companies, like Instagram or Snapchat, and less revenue for any potential
usurpers. They're effectively suppressing innovation and locking in any
monopolies they've helped to build.

~~~
oddevan
I think Apple is attempting to reward services and startups that are focused
on long-term value for their users. If I create a subscription app, I want to
get to that 85/15 split. So that means I need to build my business such that
I'm around in a year to collect on that split and I'm providing a good enough
service after a year that people stay subscribed.

In other words, I think Apple is intentionally discouraging companies that are
so focused on the short game they may not be around in a year.

