Hacker News Reader

Comment by threeseed | Hacker News Reader

This is entirely by design.

Apple doesn't want you to build an app 20 years ago, make no updates to it and continue to sell it as though nothing has changed in the time since.

Their website is compromised of mostly broken links, the design is dated and it is showing reviews and awards from 10 years ago.

Clear to me that they couldn't be bothered to put any effort in at any point in the buyer's journey so I say good riddance to them.

View on HN

Is this the reason that everything on iOS app store is transitioning to subscriptions where before an app cost $3 and now it costs $3 a month, because developers worked out that the cost of keeping up with Apples constant platform changes is too much?

I think that’s more that developers want to make a decent living. The vast majority of subscription apps have a server side maintenance cost. As the platform matured and developers realized those users were going to stick to their apps for years without paying another penny, then it becomes untenable.

That's simply not true, many offline apps are transitioning to subscriptions and maybe add some lame cloud sync as an excuse/afterthought.

Happened to me recently with an app which is the interactive version of a book. From one day to the other they switched from buying chapters/the book to some stupid subscription.

If they can't make a living they need to charge more and if they can't charge more they need to find a real job/business.

The problem is that so many companies burning VC cash and/or ad dollars have trained customers to think software costs less than a cup of coffee. If you charge what you need for a sustainable business up front, your sales will be enormously less and you’re going to get tons of negative reviews from people who think a $20 app would need to cure cancer to justify that price. (And, of course, even $3 deserves lifetime free updates and new features)

It’s especially bizarre that you’re ranting about them needing to find a real business when that is exactly what they’re doing by finding a billing model which is viable long-term.

Very few developers have proven that they're capable of building a sustainable business (like e.g. OmniGroup).

It's impossible to say if a particular app will in a week:

a) still be available

b) if it will have switched to subscriptions or free + IAP or free with ads and IAP

c) what the IAPs will be and if your old (if any) IAPs will still work.

d) if they'll decide to sell your info to the next available bidder

This is why almost all apps are worthless and why I've essentially stopped purchasing or downloading apps. It's simply not worth the trouble to invest time to learn to use an app and investigate whether you can trust the developer.

> If they can't make a living they need to charge more and if they can't charge more they need to find a real job/business.

That’s exactly what they’re doing: charging more.

They're also changing the nature of the commercial relationship from buying to renting. Stopping the subscription stops access to many essential features, no matter how much one has already paid.

The only kind of reasonable subscription is what's used for IntelliJ & co: if you stop paying after a minimum of X months, you get to keep what you paid for.

Users are trained that app costs few bucks. Charging fair price, e.g. $200 just won't work. So they're trying to charge that price over years.

What app is $200 really a fair price for though? Most apps do not provide nearly that much value to users, regardless of their development costs

I don't know would I calculate value for non-trivial apps. What's value for FaceApp app? Navigator app?

That's an interesting question.

$200 is about 10 to 20-ish decent meals in most US cities (not high class, but not bottom barrel fast food either).

Do _most_ apps really not provide as much utility over a lifetime of use as ten meals?

A business is about covering development costs.

If the users see no value in paying for it, then there are better business opportunities to spend development efforts on.

From iOS version to version the API typically does not change that much. The big changes are often new APIs, and those are also the ones most often in flux. Adding support for the Apple Watch or Shortcuts for example.

I never found iOS API changes any more extreme than Android or the web.

Essentially yes. Apple apps require constant maintenance between SW versions as proven by the quantity of compatibility updates on every new iOS version ever.

A particularly funny case was one otherwise rock-solid app which started SIGBUS'ing on iOS 13.

If that is the case, it doesn’t seem like a good value proposition for the user considering that’s a 4800% price increase assuming you use the app for 4 years. The improvements in iOS are nice, but not that nice...

Regular security updates is worth it. Device feature support is a bonus.

Not disagreeing but it’s worth considering that the app on a subscription is more likely to be maintained.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com