[wilshipley]

Customers hate subscriptions, and small developers don’t like them much, either, because they create the expectation that the app will be upgraded very regularly.

This expectation is fine for companies like Adobe, who are going to be cranking out a new version on a regular basis. But it’s onerous to a smaller developer.

My understanding is Apple is now discouraging developers from using the subscription model unless their app has periodic new content / updates, but I haven’t confirmed this yet.

-Wil Shipley

[tonyedgecombe]

Charging for upgrades creates perverse incentives as well, Adobe before they switched to subscriptions was a good example of that. Every new release had a ton of features to encourage people to pay for the upgrade. Few of these features were of much value.

At least with a subscription you are incentivised to keep existing users happy.

[xnyan]

I think the key takeaway that is that the process of selling applications lacks flexibility. Subscriptions, paid upgrades, one time fees and ads all make sense in some situations. It depends on the type of application, the developer, the business, and the needs of the customer. I would prefer if Apple just got out of the way completely but since that can’t happen, they could at least offer more options for developers to choose what method is best for them and their customers.

[Wowfunhappy]

> Few of these features were of much value.

Then why were users upgrading?

[tonyedgecombe]

The same reason people started buying cars with fins in the fifties. Clever marketing made people think they need to upgrade to the latest and greatest.

[Wowfunhappy]

I don't quite believe that this was the case for Adobe, though. Cars are status symbols—people want ones that look cool so they can show off too their peers. No one (well, very few) is showing off their copy of Photoshop.