Update – We’re unable to offer upgrade pricing for Mac App Store purchases
omnigroup.com
omnigroup.com
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?
Either way, I've alerted the committee of the Nobel Prize of Economics about your discovery.
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.
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)
I did use xrandr to setup the virtual screen so that I could define the exact position of one screen relative to the other, which enabled objects to continue in an horizontal line across monitors.
I ran Gentoo for years, and my experience was similar to yours. I could get things to work but it took a lot of frustrating trial and error, and then periodically a version upgrade would break everything and I'd get to start over. About a year and a half ago I finally got sick of it and installed Kubuntu.
Kubuntu 12.04 + 2 monitors + AMD proprietary drivers = you get to choose between accelerated OpenGL and multiple monitor support. You can't have both at the same time. (At least I couldn't, with the video card and driver versions I had 6 months ago. I spent many hours trying, then remembered I have more money than time and bought a $90 Nvidia card.)
Kubuntu 12.04 + 2 monitors + Nvidia proprietary drivers = easy. The GUI worked, first try, no problems. The only goofy thing was that my left monitor showed up on the right side, giving me a choice between physically moving the monitors or changing the default positions in the GUI. I changed the defaults in the GUI.
Also, on my former work machine, Kubuntu 11.04 and 12.04 + 2 Nvidia cards + 3 monitors = easy. (Some cow-orkers had 2 Nvidia cards and 4 monitors, also easy.)
I haven't tried newer versions of Kubuntu on a multi-monitor box, so it's possible (but not likely) they've gone backwards.
You could have switched the cables. Just saying :)
So this is the only thing in my experience, that really sucks. The rest (compared to WIN) is really, really great.
I remember 5 years ago getting speakers to mute on my laptop when I plugged headphones in was impossible but I haven't seen a similar problem in my last few laptops.
The problem I run into with Linux is that sleep, suspend, and hibernate do not seem to work or work reliably. This is what is holding me back from jumping to Linux for the most part.
Edit: other than iTunes
The App Store may offer things like the iCloud SDK but will restrict apps from using features that compete with Apples own apps, as well as any cool hacks which apps outside the App Store are free to make use of.
My take is that Apple is herding developers into the App Store, enticing them with SDK features and the promise of riches, and at some point they will change the default gatekeeper setting so that users see great big warning signs and are too scared of running non App Store software.
We're probably still a few years away from this happening, but the writing is on the wall.
It's quite a pathetic situation when Mac developers have to resort to filing bug reports, yes bug reports, to try and address the issue of upgrade pricing.
You know what Valve charges to put you on the Steam store? 30% or more. You know why some people do it? Because they make more money doing it. You know why some people don't? Because they make more money not doing it.
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.
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.
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.
That said, developing for Apple limits the scope of your freedom as a developer, just as leasing an apartment limits the scope of what you can do in your home.
In other words, your becoming more like a tenant in the Apple ecosystem vs. owning some piece of it. The problem with being a tenant is that you can only trust your landlord to the extent that your contact allows. No less, no more.
http://www.omnigroup.com/blog/entry/mac_app_store_or_omnis_o...
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."
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?
> 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?
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.
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".
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.
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.
Given that they would make 30% of the upgrade price, I'm surprised they're not actively encouraging this.
(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.
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.)
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.
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.
EDIT: The in-between choice would be moving to SaaS (see Adobe), but that's another discussion entirely
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.