[kennywinker]

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.

I can't see any way they can get around this problem without adding paid updates.

Until then 3rd party developers are high and dry.

[TetOn]

Nothing in Apple's recent history suggests this is true. Think of the recent kerfuffle over Final Cut; they had no intention of continuing to sell the older version even though the new one was feature incomplete. It is highly likely that, when it appears, Aperture4 will similarly just replace Aperture3 at approximately the same price point. You can choose to buy the new one or not, but there's no discounted upgrade path.

Based on Shipley's numbers, it would seem that developers wanting to make money long-term on the Mac App Store would be wise to get on the same "lower initial price, but all major upgrades are full price" app model as soon as they can.

[kennywinker]

We have yet to see this problem. The switch to FCPX was the first version in the app store. There hasn't been a high priced Apple app that has received a major upgrade via the Mac App Store.

You may be right that they are going to stay at low initial / full price upgrade... I see two issues with that (for Apple).

One, if the upgrade is not major enough to convince people to shell out for it. This fragments their apps ecosystem, and increases the support headache.

Two, how do you carry people forward to the new version. If it's a separate purchase, that means it's a separate bundle, and won't show up as an update when you check for updates in the mac app store. Again causing confusion and fragmentation (you now have FCPX and FCPX.1 on your machine, which one opens that project file?).

Again, I could be wrong, but Apple's current strategy look unsustainable to me.

[tedunangst]

When Aperture was added to the App Store, it cost the same as the standalone upgrade version, lots less than the full version. That could be a signal that upgrade prices are the new full prices, but we're trying to extract a lot of data from only a few tea leaves.

[ghshephard]

If the vast majority of your market is upgrading, and the customers for your new product, are by and large the same as the customers for your previous product, then you can simply offer the upgrade price to everyone, without loss of revenue. Indeed, you make it easier for new customers to come on board - so, best of both worlds.

I'm not sure what's wrong with offering major new versions of your product at the upgrade price to everyone (new and existing users alike). Sounds perfectly sustainable.

[fpgeek]

This may be the "least bad" choice, but it still isn't a good one. Besides the lost revenue from new customers, Wil mentions another important problem: If existing and new customers are charged the same price for an upgrade at least some existing customers are likely to consider it unfair (especially given past practice in the software industry) and to be angry about it.

That may or may not be a rational response. After all, if someone thinks an upgrade is worth $X, why should he or she care whether or not a new customer is getting the same price? On the other hand, a developer demonstrating that they value customer history and loyalty (with a discounted upgrade) is a strong signal that they value the long-term customer relationship. That is something a customer could rationally care about. Either way, the potential for existing customer anger is a problem developers will have to deal with.

Wil's post might also be a pre-emptive strike against potential, future customer anger. After all, if a customer complains that they're not getting a discounted upgrade, he can point them to this post.

[wil_shipley]

Based on my numbers, it’d be great if the Mac App Store changed how it works so small developers can continue to reward their customers.

[seanalltogether]

Which honestly underscores one of my biggest complaints when working inside Apples ecosystem. I always get the feeling that they're building solutions for themselves first, and developers second, they don't take an agnostic approach to creating a platform. A good example of this is when you look at their UIKit and Appkit frameworks, all of the components were designed to the specific behavior that Apples engineers wanted at that time, with no thought on how to easily extend them. Compare this against other frameworks that were intentionally built to be easily skinnable and customizable.

[MatthewPhillips]

I can't think of a better endorsement of a platform than the creators investing real development dollars into using it.

The alternative is Google, who doesn't release any top-tier paid apps on Android or Chrome Web Store. Or host anything important on Apps Engine.

[eloisant]

They don't release paid apps on Android because it's not their business model to charge for apps; they don't even charge for Android itself. But they do release pretty serious apps, see recently Chrome for Android.

Google pretty much do the other way around: they build tools they need for their own developments (Closure Library, v8, Go...) then release it Open Source for others to use.

[keeperofdakeys]

Your first point isn't really valid, they are an ad company, paid apps don't fit their business model. Providing a phone OS, ad service, and free apps that interact with their core services however are.

The second is more interesting though. They actually do use it quite a bit. Its the kind of thing they use internally, and the employees use for personal projects or when they need something technical for an external presentation. Also, app engine is probably built to serve a different purpose to their other services.

[hammersend]

"The alternative is Google, who doesn't release any top-tier paid apps on Android or Chrome Web Store."

Google's business model isn't to release paid apps on their stores. They have many free apps that are downloaded by the 50's of millions and have 4.5-5 stars almost across the board so, yes, they do release top tier apps.

[MatthewPhillips]

> Google's business model isn't to release paid apps

This differs from every OS vendor I'm aware of in the past. Just noting.

> they do release top tier apps.

Could you point out to me some of these apps where the alternatives are sold for top-tier prices?

[frio]

Compare Google Navigation on Android, to TomTom on iOS. Navigation is free, works perfectly, and even goes so far as to include a "Car Mode" for docking your phone in your car.

TomTom costs, at last check, $95NZD. I've not bothered trying it.

[nico_h]

I do believe TomTom has data for offline use, unlike Google Navigation.

(I have iOS tomtom for western Europe) Also, it has voices in many languages. So it will still work when you're out of coverage/country.

Remember, 99% of the land surface has crap/non-existant 2G/3G/4G coverage.

[barkmadley]

I think the difference would be that TomTom supplies it's own maps in the App, whereas Google Navigation probably downloads the tiles/street view as you go.

This can make a world of difference when travelling abroad when you can't be bothered getting a local data plan.

I definitely use GPS navigation more often when travelling than when in my home country.

[canthonytucci]

Google Maps for Android comes to mind. I guess "top tier" on a mobile phone is still in the tens of dollars right now, but I haven't seen an alternative (free or paid) that comes close.

Mail and calendars are also better than anything I've found in the market...but that's maybe just my preference.

[deong]

That's a bit disingenuous. The fact that Google's offerings are both good and free significantly reduces the likelihood of their being expensive alternatives. It's a self-fulfilling prophecy.

There are companies that sell software that competes with things like Google Docs, Navigation, and other services. And yes, you can always point to things they do differently, but that's guaranteed. No one is going to pay $50 for something that exactly duplicates a free service that has more name recognition, so you by definition have to do something to differentiate yourself.

[ricardobeat]

Neither is Apple's. App sales don't even show up in their revenue reports.

[markkanof]

That's a fair criticism, but the flip side of it is at least there is one real user of the frameworks they are building, which proves that in at least one situation the provided functionality is useful. Sometimes it seems like frameworks coming out of other big software companies provide what they imagine their customers will want, not what is actually useful when building real applications.

[r00fus]

There is one very important stakeholder you are ignoring in your analysis - the end user. Apple creates stuff not for devs or themselves, but for the real customers - who are the users of their devices and comptuers.

In the case of paid upgrades, if it pains customers and leads to lower device sales, then Apple will come up with a solution to it. Developers (and Apple's internal team as well) come in at a distant second place.

[seanalltogether]

The product teams absolutely should be focusing on the end user. However, the platform and framework teams should be supporting the features/tools for all devs. My criticism of the platforms that Apple pushes is that they seem to focus more on the specific needs of their internal teams than the broader needs of all the other devs that will be helping to grow the platform.

The line I occasionally hear in the apple dev community is "you can't change x/y/z on that component, you need to rebuild it from scratch", which time and again shows a very narrow focus in their tooling.

[JohnQPasserby]

I have run into those kinds of problems, and it doesn't seem to be a huge burden to make a new component. My complaint is that Xcode is a POS but I have to use it.

[duxup]

Thus the downside of eat your own dog food.

[deong]

It's not a downside of using your own tools. It's a downside of the Apple way where you use your own tools without a fleeting thought to how anyone else might need to use them.

Apple's development system appears to be optimized for the scenario that if you need some new method added, you can walk down the hall in your building at Apple and get someone to add it. But then they sell that API to paying customers who don't have that option.

[bwooce]

It is already there, lurking, in iOS 5(back to 2, friends say)

See http://t.co/EkqWISbS for an example, appears as a bug when you try and upgrade an app you've deleted -- but it shows the capability does exist.

I agree they won't enable it until they have a reason, the current situation is simple to manage from all angles.

[twiceaday]

Shucks. They will just have to sell another version of the App (Angry Birds, Angry Birds Seasons, Angry Birds Rio) for full price.

[kennywinker]

Did you miss the headline? _Mac_ App Store.

Full price upgrades works for Angry Birds, but anything less episodic or standalone and you have problems. See Tweetie 2, for an example.

This issue is going to be rampant in the Mac App Store very very soon. It's been out for what, a year now? Time for a round of big updates... now you have two copies of all your apps.

[msbarnett]

> See Tweetie 2, for an example

What's the example, exactly? Genuinely curious. I upgraded to Tweetie 2 as soon as it came out. My impression was that it was very successful right up until Twitter bought Atebits.

[kennywinker]

It's hard to say how much of that was noise, and what effect it had on sales / success, but there was a lot of hype about the paid upgrade leaving people unhappy.

Example headlines (Google "tweetie 2 paid update" for more):

"Tweetie 2 Pricing Controversy: An Interview with Tweetie's Creator ..."

"Tweetie 2: 'New App' – Will Spit On Existing 'Old App' Users | iSource"

"Still won't pay for Tweetie 2 upgrade? Try these Twitter apps ..."

"Tweetie pricing fuss highlights App Store flaw | Macworld"

[atebits]

The publicity only seemed to help. Tweetie 2 hit #1 Top Grossing on the App Store 24 hours after launch.

[msbarnett]

Fair enough. I'm not sure a mechanism for having paid upgrades under the same name as the original app would have avoided any of those headlines, though.

[fpgeek]

You don't? If people had complained about being charged a reasonable, discounted upgrade price for Tweetie 2, they'd have been laughed at. That has been a common model for software upgrades for as long as I remember (and quite probably longer than I have been alive).

[mmuro]

You may not be aware but these are available on the Mac App Store.

[wil_shipley]

Angry Birds and other games are in a totally different category. If you buy “Angry Birds Space” it’s reasonable to assume (a) you’re done with the original, and (b) you’re going to get as many hours of enjoyment out of it as the original, so it’s fair to pay as much.

This isn’t the case with productivity applications, necessarily – you can keep using Delicious Library 2 and it’ll keep working great, so we need a way to reward customers who say, “Yes, I’ll pay to have some extra functionality.”