[FussyZeus]

Am I the only person who thinks Google specifically and the mobile app market in general combined with previously subsidized by carriers phones have completely destroyed the consumers perception of the value of software? It’s getting near impossible to find quality apps (even on iOS, but less so) available for a premium price, I have to constantly settle for IAPs to disable ads, or just free apps that are littered with ads, tracking, and god knows what else when if much rather just pay like $49 for a properly made application with a permanent license.

[addicted]

One of the consequences of iOS was the drop in quality Mac apps (this may possibly be my perception. I wonder if others feel the same). It seems to me what started happening was indie Mac shops who would sell their apps for $20-80 had to now support an iOS app as well and could not charge much, if anything, for it. So it was just an additional cost to be supported by their Mac app.

Further, Apple released the Mac App Store and dropped the price of iWorks apps to $19.99 (or 9.99?) thereby reducing the perceived value of Mac apps as well. Pre MAS, when Apple included iWork and iLife for free with your Mac you looked at it as Apple throwing in several hundred dollars worth of software for free with the Mac. By changing the structure where you now downloaded those apps, they assigned a value to them that was really low affecting the entire eco system.

Considering the massive growth of the Mac eco system, that the state of Mac software is at best as good as it was 10 years ago with a much smaller market is disappointing.

[selectodude]

I think the drop of Mac OS X going from $129 to zero probably had as much, if not more, to do with that.

[greenhouse_gas]

It's not that there's too many free apps, it's that upgrades _have to_ be free.

Back in the day, when you bought MyProgramSuite v2, you got v2. You want v3, you pay for it, creating an incentive to develop a better v3, v4, etc.

Now, imagine if anyone who bought Word 1.0, 2.0 automatically got all future upgrades for free. What happens when the market saturates?

[Apocryphon]

It's not just mobile apps. Probably web apps, especially those with a freemium ad-supported model, and the mobile + web app rise at the expense of traditional desktop software, led to this.

Not to mention the ease of software piracy.

[nathanaldensr]

You are not the only person; I've thought this for quite some time. Way back in 2007/2008, I remember telling my co-worker, who was at the time building what later became a very popular time-tracking app for iOS, that app prices would trend to zero over time. People simply want free and appear nearly completely incapable of asking the basic question "What am I paying with other than currency?" They think $0 equals free.

[foolrush]

> Am I the only person who thinks Google specifically and the mobile app market in general combined with previously subsidized by carriers phones have completely destroyed the consumers perception of the value of software?

Not entirely fair to Google here.

No one would have purchased the original iPhone were it not heavily subsidized by AT&T. No one. One could argue that the same forces apply today regarding most phone purchasers.

> and god knows what else when if much rather just pay like $49 for a properly made application with a permanent license.

Except the numbers of downloads show that this approach isn't gaining traction. In fact, look at how many applications switched to a subscription model the moment Apple permitted it?

On the side of development, subscriptions make sense. Software development isn't a one-off fee to make software these days, as 99.995% of the people here realize.

Isn't subscription the only sustainable model?

[s73ver_]

"No one would have purchased the original iPhone were it not heavily subsidized by AT&T. No one."

The original iPhone was not subsidized by AT&T at all. It cost about $500, had lines of people waiting to buy it, and went on to sell about 6 million units, making it one of the best selling phones of it's time.

[foolrush]

I should have been clearer: it required a contract that AT&T offered lower data rates on the actual phone. This recovered the money they were paying to Apple IIRC. Still subsidized, but perhaps not explicitly on the phone itself.

[vilmosi]

I'm not agreeing with the grandparent either but I do have to admit that once carriers subsidised the iPhone, the sales skyrocketed. It can't be a coincidence.

[s73ver_]

While I don't disagree with you, I'm not sure what the problem with "I have to constantly settle for IAPs to disable ads" is? It's basically a form of shareware at that point?

[kevin_thibedeau]

It's too much of a hassle to create two versions of an app when only a small minority of users will pay for ad free.

[s73ver_]

I thought they were talking from a consumer point of view, not a developer one.

I also don't believe you need to actually create multiple versions, rather maintain some feature flags.

[Feniks]

Nobody pays for software anymore, myself included. There are a lot of good apps on alternative stores like F-droid that snd blocking in app ads isn't very hard.

[Gigablah]

20 years of warez and piracy will do that, no need for a mobile app store at all.