[interpol_p]

Why throw away the user trust they have earned in the App Store for the short-term profit of subscription scams?

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

[gfxgirl]

I suspect the user will not blame Apple, they'll blame the app. So Apple gets its 30% with no repercussions.

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)

[interpol_p]

In my experience with these subscription scams, non-technical users who get scammed by them do not "blame Apple" but they tend to become incredibly hesitant to purchasing apps, and no longer purchase subscriptions

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

[tatersolid]

Sketch is simply using the legacy “license plus upgrades/maintenance” model. Nothing innovative about that; in fact it’s what built Microsoft, Adobe, and Oracle into the giants they still are. Businesses have been buying software this way for 50 years.

[interpol_p]

It's not the same model, as you're not paying for version 1.0, 2.0, etc.

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

[tatersolid]

The popular, 40+ year-old license scheme for business software is not based on version numbers (which can be manipulated by the vendor), it is based on time. So long as you pay maintenance you get rights to use whatever released version you choose, and you have perpetual rights to the last version released while you paid maintenance.

So exactly the same as Sketch.

[interpol_p]

That's not my experience at all. I used to purchase 3D modelling and animation software (Lightwave 3D). Version upgrade pricing was entirely based on version numbers — as was all the big name software at the time (3D Studio, 3DS Max, Softimage, etc)

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

[leppr]

Do you really have enough trust in the Apple App Store curation to just pay for random apps?

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.

[interpol_p]

That's not what I said?

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