[tb303]

So now that I've paid for instapaper for iPhone and iPad, I don't have to give Marco any more money. That means the only way he stays in business as the product grows (being that I am not a revenue source anymore) is by either a) figuring out an additional revenue stream from the data or b) discontinuing the apps I paid for and charging me for new ones.

The same goes for sparrow. These one-time purchase apps don't have continued revenue per user. So we can write rants on the internet all we want about "don't give in to the acqui-hire," but obviously the benefits of taking google's money greatly outweighed the future of trying to run a business by selling an app on the App Store.

[JeremyBanks]

Instapaper isn't entirely without other revenue. The web interface displays ads, and he offers a $1/month subscription that improves some features. (I pay for it so that I can send larger compilations to my Kindle.)

http://www.instapaper.com/subscription

[wpietri]

Yes. I subscribe not because I cared about whatever features he was offering at the time. (I think it was all about the iPad, and I've never owned one.) I did it because I wanted to make sure he was getting paid enough to keep doing it.

Glad to see that he's happy and feels like he's making enough.

[bvlaar]

Great point. I guess we can draw parallels to other purchases we make. When I purchase a car, I get the car I paid for in that current state, they wont 'update' it for free, nor do we as consumers expect that. The app industry has created a covenant of sorts that says, pay for the software, and we will update it for x period of time going forward. Which is great for consumers but to be frank, kind of a bad deal for developers (considering most apps we buy are relatively inexpensive). Either developers have to adapt the more common pay for updates model (Sparrow 1 = 4.99, Sparrow 2 = 8.99) or it will be a pure 'create the best x' keep adding features so they can amass more and more users.

[jasonlotito]

> When I purchase a car, I get the car I paid for in that current state, they wont 'update' it for free, nor do we as consumers expect that.

That's not entirely true. I buy a car knowing that if it needs repairs, I can repair it. Or at least go somewhere else to get it repaired. It will cost money, but so be it. I would not buy a car I had to rely on the manufacturer to fix. There are slow attempts at that in the industry, but by and large, cars are much more open than something like Sparrow ever was.

And yes, I consider carefully my choice in software the same way. I don't mind paying for software.

I also consider the business model. Does it make sense what they are doing? Does it make sense in the long term? Will they be around to support their own business?

The App Model doesn't make sense (and so I generally don't invest in it, at least for nothing critical).

[Firehed]

Or Instapaper v2? Paid upgrades have been around since the dawn of software, and there are plenty of companies that have been around long enough to show it works quite well. Adobe is a great example, and Microsoft as well although they've obviously diversified a lot in the past decade.

[fceccon]

Instapaper also offers a subscription plan http://www.instapaper.com/faq

If I remember correctly it adds search and the ability to use the full API by 3rd party clients.

[smackfu]

So what's the takeaway for us as users? Should we prefer free apps with IAP or advertising because that's a more sustainable business model?

[moron]

Another revenue stream, you say? Hmm. I wonder if Marco has a way for his users to pay him a little bit of money every month.