The Mac App Store Needs Paid Upgrades

The consensus among all the devs I've talked to is that this feature will magically appear the next time Apple does a significant update to one of it's bigger ticket apps... Final Cut, Aperture, Logic, etc.<p>I can't see any way they can get around this problem without adding paid updates.<p>Until then 3rd party developers are high and dry.

It's not a 1-to-1 replacement or panacea, but in app purchases can mitigate the problem—i.e. free update with new features disabled until purchased.

As a developer with Apps in the MAS, I can see where this makes sense from the developer's perspective. But I think it is a mater of laziness on the dev's part.<p>Let me explain:<p>From a users perspective, this would suck. It is an antiquated system. "I have to pay for an upgrade just so it works on the new OS?" Think of how many times you've had to do this in the past, and how you felt.<p>Apple will act in the best interest of Joe User, not Joe Developer.<p>Instead of paid upgrades, dev's should be providing In-App purchases for new features. Maintenance of the App should be provided for free. Win-win for all.<p>Now stop bitching about what the MAS should have, and start using the solution Apple has given you! :)

The Mac software scene has always had lots of indie developers. Let's look at that scene for some facts... The indies generally charge an upgrade fee for "major" versions, and give free upgrades for "minor" updates.<p>Most, like Wil, do the right thing. Delicious Library hasn't had a major release in years, but it is maintained.<p>Others (for example, in my experience "DVD Remaster Pro" and Parallels Desktop), clearly abuse the major update system as a revenue source. They release fake major releases with lots of new skin but few features every six months or a year to rake in the dough.<p>Honestly, it's a mess. But the solution to me is obvious: Angry Birds from Rovio. Rovio didn't just release the thing and stop. They keep adding significant features (the game is probably 10X as large as when I bought it for the iPad). Customers feed back with great reviews. Rovio is rewarded with continuing sales and stays in the top seller lists. Meanwhile, apps like "Plants v. Zombies" are static and drop off the top lists quickly after a quick burst of popularity.

Perhaps the incentive is the wrong one. If the goal is to get users to upgrade, offer a launch sale that entices existing and new users to upgrade.<p>I don't think it's so terrible that there is multiple versions out there. Reduce the price of the older version and setup the page to let people know there's a new one out there before buying.

I feel like the solution isn't paid upgrades but instead monthly/yearly subscription for access in the Mac App Store. The 'appification' of the web is eliminating the idea of major release "versions" of software...it's just an app in consumers' minds and it will always be the same product (with gradual improvement of course). As a result, just charge users for ongoing access to your app and keep them paying by providing regular updates.

I really like how most applications in the iOS store have been about upgrades. When a new version comes out I get it automatically without paying. Camera+ is a great example.<p>Because the user base for the platform has been growing the potential install base for your application grows with it. The graph in Wil's post shows that the same application had a huge sales surge just because more people were exposed to it.<p>If a new version of Delicious Library comes out his existing customers will be very happy with the new features and bring more customers in with them. I bet Apple would even promote the new app and a huge sales spike would happen again.<p>In my mind the new model isn't how to get the most money from your customers, it's getting the most customers.

I think this is mostly a mismatch in expectations. <i>"pay full price, suckers"</i> only rings true if it's not actually a major release - small features, security/compatibility updates should be free. A new version should offer enough benefits to be worth the price.

"I've looked at clouds from both sides now..." I've been an app developer and an app buyer. As a developer, of course I want to get more money from my installed base. They're easy to find; marketing costs are essentially zero. As a buyer, I've always looked at "upgrades" as a scam to suck more money out of my pocket for a product I've already paid for. I hate it more when I'm paying to get bugs fixed - bugs as a money-making opportunity! - and even more if I'm blackmailed into upgrading by the threat of dropping support for my existing product, which, of course, will stop working about 10 seconds later. I have some software that seems to be "upgraded" for a "discounted price" every two or three months!<p>How about you stop treating software like fresh fruit delivered with a worm in it and start treating it like, say, new cars? Sell it with a warranty. Allow me to extend the warranty, up to a point, for a reasonable price that covers maintenance only. If I have a reason to buy a shiny, new 2013 BozoWare, and the reason isn't that the 2012 model is already broken, I just may. Some people buy new cars every year; everybody buys a new one sometime.

I assumed that Apple would add upgrades way back when but I now think the in app purchase model is better. Consider the reason for upgrades: new features? Sell them. Compatibility or big fixes? Why aren't these free for all customers?<p>The one missing thing I think Apple needs is a neat mechanism for allowing existing apps to be upgrades into app store apps.

Can't we just hop over to a subscription model altogether, now that we pretty much have the infrastructure?<p>It would lower up-front costs. I bet piracy would go down too. It would give developers an incentive to keep even small apps bug-free. It would make more sense for apps like Instapaper where the server needs to keep running. Everyone would get exactly what they pay for, and nobody would have to keep using an older version for artificial (financial) reasons.<p>The only downside I can see is that people cannot decide to stick with an older version because they actually <i>like it better</i>. But that's something that Apple customers are probably used to (e.g. surprise 10.6 users, no OTA contacts &#38; calender sync for you anymore!). And for Apple, it may decrease vendor lock-in because people have no sunk costs anymore.

Something similar that the Mac App store is killing is the competitive crossgrade. It used to be a boon to buy Logic at full price, then be able to buy its competitors like Digital Performer or Cubase for half price. Currently the App Store can't support that.

You could use in-app purchases to unlock new features.

Considered charging less for the full product (say $10), and simply having multiple versions available as you post major new releases?<p>That way, users always have a way to downgrade to previous versions as needed, you probably get more customers due to the entry price, and everyone just understands that the latest version is available for $10 more.<p>That seems to be the whole app store model: lower prices, more sales -- no "upgrades" in the classic sense. And, with a low enough entry price, I think users would be accepting.<p>If they don't buy the latest, as a developer you're no worse off than you are today (where they get the latest for free).

I want to say something about sharecropping, but I have a hard time thinking of the appropriate analogy.<p>It's making me think about the service model as being a superior revenue stream, for-better-or-for-worse. From a user's perspective, the MAS already acts as a service; the subsidy is just being paid for at the developer's end of the scale.<p>I love the iTunes/MA stores as a marketing and distribution channel, but I hate how heavy handedly Apple behaves with enforcing business models. I think there's an argument to be made that we can avoid the Android marketplace crapware without forcing everyone to become serfs.

<i>Apple’s not keeping iWork up-to-date despite sitting on one hundred billion dollars.</i><p>And here I was blissfully unaware that Pages and Keynote had rotted into uselessness simply because of the calendar year.

I'm sorry I didn't read the whole thread and I know this is late.<p>Why not provide two versions of Delicious Library Inf? One costs $20. It only works/installs correctly if you have the original app. The other one costs $40. It is a standalone app. Make a minor bugfix update that says "hey" to the users of Delicious Library 2, and link to the expansion. Sell both.

I was just thinking about this last week.<p>Eventually, nearly all your users have already paid, leaving you unable to charge them for enhancing the app. You may have a huge installed base and eventually have no incentive to improve the product.

The App Store also also needs automatic/forced free updates. It sucks releasing something with a bug, creating an update that fixes it within a month, and still having users complaining about the bug several months later.

delicious 1, delicious 2, delicious ∞--is wil a marathon fan?

Who's got the open radar for this one?

On a similar note, the Mac App Store really needs an option for free trials if it wants to become the premiere marketplace for apps.

no

<i>The Mac App Store has been a huge boon to Mac software developers</i><p>It has? Whenever I look, I tend to see trivial little apps of the same depth and quality as your typical iOS App Store app. Feels like a ghetto to me.