It seems to be an optional paid feature to enable the sort of version data collection that Mac Updater had, but the sub will mean it is financially viable.
Personally, I don’t need it so I won’t pay for it. But I’m cool if others find it useful.
I tested this new function and I got several updates which Updatest did not found/list before.
The main/basic function of Updatest is to find updates for the installed apps. But, if this main/basic function (to find updates) is partly packed in a new subscription (in addition to the on-time purchase) then it is not a fair deal.
It’s crowdsourcing additional update data - the same thing Mac Updater had but they went out of business because it wasn’t financially viable. Updatest is trying a way to make it financially viable. They’re not forcing anybody to pay for it.
1 Like
I understand this problem.
But it does not go well with their statement one-time purchase - and now adding a feature, which improves a lot the basic function (“finding” more updates than without this feature).
Sorry, but I feel cheated. Yes, it is not the intention by the developer to “cheat”, of course not. But this is my feeling at the moment. I dont know the new features implemented in Updatest in the future or which features are on the list, but now the door is open to add practical features to the subscription. I payed already for a licence and now have to pay again for getting an advanced “basic-feature”?
Disclaimer: I am no user for apps that update other apps. I don’t care about apps like that: I will keep my frequently used apps up to date. And apps that are not used frequently will be purged regularly.
With regards to Updatest:
The developer posted in December in this thread how Updatest is working in order to detect if there are updates available:
Updatest takes a programmatic approach to find updates. In some cases, it finds more than MacUpdater as it doesn’t require a human to validate. In some cases, it finds less than MacUpdater for more niche/smaller apps that don’t support the sources Updatest uses (Brew, Sparkle, GitHub, Electron, Mac App Store).
Apparently, there are some users who like to have the “human option” on top, which seem to be Community-discovered updates. In order to have an option like that, you need a service that is working in the background, that has to be monitored, maintained, and its infrastructure has to be paid for.
Updatest currently does cost $9.99 for three Macs as an OTP (one-time purchase). “You pay once and own the license forever.” For three Macs. That sounds like a very fair price. It is not exactly a huge investment. And as far as I understand it, this will still work that way in the long run: programmatic approach with an OTP.
While I get that it sounds weird to read about “no recurring fees or hidden costs” and at the same time finding in the release notes that “Community Updates will become a separate subscription in a future release and will be priced fairly”, I do not see the issue: there is an indie developer that had a vision for an app that took a programmatic approach to find updates (made for himself). That can be done on device.
Apparently, there is a community that wants more than that: a human-curated option on top that discovers updates that cannot be discovered automatically. This information has to be gathered, curated, synced, and whatnot. And this is happening constantly. This cannot be done for “free”. A service like that has to run on servers and has to be maintained. I honestly do not see any alternative to a subscription for something like that.
Does it look good to have FAQs that say “no recurring fees or hidden costs” and then to offer a subscription on top? Be it as it may. The FAQs have been written at a time when there only was a “programmatic approach” for gaining update info. In the future, apparently there will be a human-curated update info on top of that because there seems to be a demand for it. As far as I understand, the app still will work without this human-curated service on top. I would not be shocked if the FAQ eventually will be updated, too. 
MacUpdater apparently was a nice app for the user, but unsustainable for the developers. $9.99 for three Macs indefinitely combined with a service that is generating ongoing costs cannot work either. It does make sense to consider using this service on top or to just go with the on-device “programmatic approach” with the OTP and without this human-curated service.
And if this is no option:
What if I’m not satisfied?
We offer a 30-day money-back guarantee. If you’re not happy with Updatest, contact hello@hugeideas.ca within 30 days for a full refund.
2 Likes
As @Christian explained the (optional) subscription seems to be specific “to support the infrastructure required to collect and serve community data”.
And, it “will be priced fairly and transparently”.
I’m curious what price @HugeIRL will settle on.
Without this new optional feature Updatest is still useful to me.
Honestly pricing and scale hasn’t been solidified yet. My goal here with Community Updates was three-fold:
-
Address the need I get emails about 100x+ times a week: Surface updates for users who can’t/don’t use Homebrew or are non-technical/non-power users
-
Release the feature free to start, to prove it’s value and worth BEFORE ever trying to charge for the service
-
Be up front about the sustainability model due to the recent MacUpdater shutdown and clarify what our plans are from Day 1 to not end up in the same situation.
This has caused tons of backlash, and I think most of it comes from my explanations and the overall explanation of the feature itself.
You do not need this feature if you’re using Updatest currently and understand how to manage your update sources.
This feature was designed specifically for the opposite crowd, who can’t do the things we do or don’t want to do the technical things and just want it to “work”, or at least notify them an update exists somehow. No source management, no homebrew, no github, nothing.
I need to see the usage numbers, run cost analysis, make sure the server can sustain proper scale before I ever consider charging for the feature, but I will never lie or hide the fact that this needs a separate model to sustain itself. This is why the website only mentions the subscription in the future, and doesn’t update the pricing page (because there’s no subscription to buy right now).
6 Likes
Just bought the Household license I’m not paranoid about app updates so Updatest only has to identify the majority of updates for me to be happy with it.
2 Likes
Oh boy… That statement did not age well.
I purchased Updatest and it updated more than a dozen of my frequently used apps. 
4 Likes
I’ve switched off the community updates - I had a higher version numbers installed through testflight and it kept trying to update (think if it’s discernibly a higher version number it shouldn’t be flagged) and others were flagged that might be US app store only at present.
There’s a couple hiccups still that need to be ironed out as the data matures (and TestFlight apps should be not included!).
It’ll take a bit of time to iron stuff out as it comes up. 
3 Likes
So just some follow up here:
A few changes I’ve made:
- App Store apps don’t get community updates/are pre-filtered client side so they don’t hit the server
- Same with SetApp, TestFlight apps too
This will take some time for the server to run it’s automatic purge (which is on a slow schedule to keep costs low and data easy to access) but will iron itself out as the service keeps running.
I also wanted to clarify one thing for a lot of people that I completely missed:
Community Updates is NOT a datahording service. It’s actually a live service that routinely purges the data to keep things fresh. We don’t horde data because thats expensive, wasteful and useless (you don’t care about App 1.0.1 if you’re already on App 2.0.0).
The intent here is that the data is as fresh as it can be, with proper caching and deduplication.
5 Likes