[coldcode]

This cries out for Apple to support update pricing. However the likelihood of that every happening is less than giving the NSA a backdoor. Update pricing would make Apple money (not that it needs it) and change very little but the desire is zippo to bupkis to do it. This would allow smaller companies to survive. Oh well, doubtful it rises to the level of anyone caring.

[nicky0]

Paid updates would be a disaster. Can you imagine giving every two-bit developer the power to say "this update costs $0.99" and all they did is change the font. Your phone would be a sea of shitty paid updates. Many customers would not update their apps, and the user base would become fragmented. Customers would become wary of buying apps for fear of being ripped off by endless updates.

You may say "ah but the good developers wouldn't do that" but unfortunately someone's always gonna piss in the pool.

The current buy-once model is better. Subscription/IAP model is better for something like this.

[kalleboo]

> Can you imagine giving every two-bit developer the power to say "this update costs $0.99" and all they did is change the font

That's... how it's ALWAYS been. They can even do that now by just launching the new version as a separate app and removing the old one.

[geofft]

and the user base would become fragmented.

Is that a problem for anyone other than the app developer? It doesn't seem to be any loss to either the end user or to Apple for them to keep running Fart Simulator 2014 forever. If the app developers actually need all their users on the latest version, then they're incentivized not to charge for updates (or to do so in a reasonable fashion).

[imaginenore]

So just add one setting. Turn off paid updates.

[Animats]

Can you sell App2016, App2017, etc. and force users to buy a new one each year? Or does Apple prohibit that?

[nicky0]

Yeah you can. Usually it's "App v2.0" or whatever. Several well known apps have done it. TweetBot comes to mind.