Developers Complain as App Store Feature Promotes Rip-Off Apps(forums.macrumors.com) |
Developers Complain as App Store Feature Promotes Rip-Off Apps(forums.macrumors.com) |
The developers of these types of apps are just pushing the envelope of what's allowed until they're called out and formal complaints are made to the app store gatekeepers.
The malicious & overly expensive apps should get taken down swiftly, but are allowed to linger for months on end, generating large profits.
Whilst app stores are policed, there exists a lot of room for exploitative apps. I imagine these app store gatekeepers are trying to keep a balance, but app stores seem heavily swayed in favor of scams, and malicious or overly expensive apps.
Platforms should be required to allow users to set an alternative default app store, much like browser etc..
Also, more generally, even if this was conscious behaviour by Apple, I don’t think this really linked to “unregulated capitalism”. In any economic/political system you will find that some people serve their own interests while harming others or the public interest. Whether those “own interests” are amassing money, assets, power, access to goods/services or anything else deemed “valuable” in that system does not chance the dynamics of that basic conflict of interests which will cause trouble in any system. I’m afraid that’s human nature and there’s no system that can fully align those interests or avoid the negative effects of conflicts of interest.
I recalled a news last year that a dev is SOL because someone in China registered the trademark of dev's work and use that trademark to force Google to suspend/ban the original dev without any recourse.
Fraudulent Trademark and patent trolls uses this method every chance they get and there is usually nothing that the original devs can do.
My main complaint is that the App Store allows developers to sell subscriptions which feature free trials that automatically convert into paid subscriptions
This system of automatically rolling-over a trial into a subscription provides zero benefit to the user. This only benefits developers who want to see extra revenue from people who forget to cancel their subscriptions prior to the trial ending
I have no idea why Apple does not prompt the user to purchase the subscription when they attempt to launch the app after the trial period. It would help a ton of people, it would prevent scam apps like this, it would drive trust in subscriptions as a business model for apps, it would help legitimate developers, and it would be good business for the App Store in the long term
There is no business sense to enabling the current trial mechanism, nor is there any benefit to users
Apple doesn't take their 30% cut on subscriptions?
There's no business sense there
The trust they have in their brand is worth far more. And they are allowing it to erode by featuring scam apps and by providing a subscription mechanism which is easy to abuse
Thankfully there actually is a Lisp REPL. But you have to scroll like mad to find it.
A different problem, I'm sad about all the subscription for apps that shouldn't have one. I get Netflix having a subscription, I'm paying for new movies and bandwidth. But, I wanted a DB meter app. Every one the app store promoted was ~$6 a month or $20 a year. Nothing will change on the app, there's zero reason those apps should be a subscription. AFAIK, the ratings system is gamed as I find it hard to believe 1000s of people would rate a DB meter app, nor give it 5 stars for such a ridiculous subscription. This is also Apple's problem AFAICT, allowing fake reviews (same problem Amazon has)
If Apple (and developers) want subscription apps to become a more popular business model, they should eliminate the automatic free trial -> subscription rollover. As it stands, it's just hurting the App Store's profitability in the long term
I agree on your second point. Subscription apps are mostly unnecessary. However, I like paying for app updates and am absolutely willing to pay for something similar to a subscription: the Sketch app model
In this model, you pay for the app and get it, as well as one year of updates. After the year is up you get to keep what you bought, but if you want another year of updates you simply pay for another year. That's a subscription-like model that I totally support
Last time I tried doing that, the app was bugged and Apple refused to refund.
My personal impression is that it's already overflowing with "soft scams", which has the same end result for users (wasting their money and/or time), whether the apps technically abide by the store rules or not.
Apple is hurting the App Store more by allowing an automatic free trial to subscription roll over. And in this case, it's a clear cut zero benefit for users
I'm not suggesting the App Store is perfect, but this seems like an obvious fix for a whole class of issues without harming the user one bit. It even helps Apple by making the App Store more profitable in the long term
With Sketch, for the year since your purchase, you receive all updates. Whether they are major or minor.
I get that it sounds similar to legacy licensing models, but it is not the same. I think it's a good blend of patronage/subscription and keeping-what-you-paid-for
With the old 1.0/2.0 paid upgrade model, you could go years before the next major version. You also got different tiers of upgrade pricing: upgrading to 3.0 from 1.0? Or from 2.0? Or are you buying 3.0 outright?
With something like Sketch, any time you pay $100, you get the latest and greatest for one year. If you want to take a break you're not financially punished for skipping updates
So I would say the Sketch model is quite a bit different
So exactly the same as Sketch.
I purchased Lightwave 4.0, and paid for the upgrade to 5.0 (I think it was about $1000 for the upgrade). I believe I skipped version 6.0, so the price to go from 5.0 to 7.0 cost me more than the price from 6.0 to 7.0 (for users who had purchased 6.0). There were multiple tiers of upgrade pricing, and new users had to pay significantly more than users who were upgrading
Under the Sketch model, taking a break from upgrading does not financially penalise you relative to other users — sure you don't get updates during that time period — but when you go to pick up the software again you pay exactly the same price as anyone else renewing at that time and receive all the latest features
Even someone who has never used the app before will pay $100 and get exactly the same feature set as me, a user who has paid regularly for years