Nope. For any non-trivial app there’s quite a bit of work just making sure new versions of iOS/iPadOS/macOS don’t break the app. Then there’s support for new OS features that users want or expect. For iPad and iPhone apps there’s supporting new screen sizes. Then after all of that, the developer can finally get around to adding new features. Software is not a one-and-done type of thing.
The way the old business model accommodated this was every few years the developer incremented the major version number on the app and charged everyone to upgrade. Some companies are still following this model (among them Cultured Code and Bare Bones Software). However, Apple has made choices that make this more difficult, particularly on iOS/iPadOS, but also to a lesser degree on the Mac App Store. Beyond that, the way we use computers, with users who want cross-platform apps, want feature updates every year rather than every few years, etc. makes the old model less tenable. So developers turn towards subscriptions.
Did you have a Notability license that promised you lifetime access to their software at no cost? Almost no one reads the software license. Notability’s license explicitly says they can change the terms of the license whenever they want, and they assert that your use of the software is agreement to the license terms. That looks like you have no real rights at all. And it is legal.
I might have subscribed if it supported family sharing, as there’s me and two high schoolers that use it.
But it doesn’t and I’m not shelling out 3 x subscriptions for it.
Due uses the same model. And, as I recall, the developer recommends cancelling your subscription immediately so you don’t forget and risk paying for an upgrade you don’t want. That’s about the best upgrade policy a developer can offer in the iOS App Store.
If you are changing your existing app to a subscription-based business model, you should not take away the primary functionality existing users have already paid for. For example, let customers who have already purchased a “full game unlock” continue to access the full game after you introduce a subscription model for new customers.
But I haven’t seen it enforced. Twitterrific pulled something similar with no consequences.
I think developers have a choice of which approach to take:
Price the app high enough in the first place that you’re comfortable providing n years of guaranteed compatibility but no feature updates.
Go to a subscription model where customers get compatibility + feature updates for as long as they subscribe.
Communicate clearly to customers who want to pay a one-time fee that they are buying a product that works with the current OS revision and nothing else is guaranteed. Bug fixes for current/minor updates to that OS, fine. But not guaranteed compatibility with major updates and certainly not new features.
My disappointment is how few developers choose option 3, simply saying that “Customers expect updates…”
I expect what the developer tells me to expect and I am exhausted with having all of the tools I like to use put behind monthly paywalls to support the development of features I usually don’t want or need. I’m not against (all) subscriptions, but I’d really like to be given the options to buy the software once and know that as long as I don’t do a major OS upgrade, I’ll maintain access to the features I had when I purchased it. Even Microsoft still sells Office this way - you just have to look hard to find the option.
Read Notability’s press release. It looks like they are attempting to work around any App Store limitations by a lot of fancy words about what’s free, what’s not free, what’s going to be not free in a year or so, and what will stop working.
I’m not justifying what Ginger Labs is doing – I quit using the product a few years ago when GoodNotes upped their game. But I cringe at claims of bad faith and “illegal” – it’s easy to throw those words around, but they are usually backed with zero facts.
Coincidentally, I just installed Notability on my iPad mini to test as a notetaking device. Based on a meeting today I think I may like it better than Goodnotes. Goodnotes ink engine is still better, but I like the way Notability handles multiple pages on the iPad mini’s small screen and the process for getting plain text out of the Mac app. Still got two weeks on the trial but I may be signing up for another sub.
I did not use “bad fath” or “illegal” but it is scummy. People have icloud sync in version 10. GingerLabs forcing an upgrade to 11 which is what the app store is doing (unless you never want to hit the Upgrade All button ever again) and then charging people is scummy.
In the end, Developers have to make a living. They have to decide how much their apps are worth.
As Users, we have to decide how much we like the apps we use, do they earn their keep?
One off App prices on the app stores became a race to the bottom which hurt Devs.
Subscriptions are a way for Dev’s to make a decent living (if they get the price right) and also (if the app needs it) to release features in a little and often model rather than waiting 2 years to release a big upgrade version to justify the cost.
Some apps charge a minimal Subscription, but don’t release new features often, that’s OK too.
Subs are also a way for people to use the apps on demand, e.g. I may need an app twice a year, and only need to pay 2 months of subs rather than 12 months.
Each to their own, if you don’t think an app is worth the sub, don’t pay for it.
All businesses want recurring revenue of course. But just in the case of Notability, it’s not like they’re not profitable. They raked in $1m per month according to sensor tower. As they said in press release, they turned this business decision to have more rapid growth.
If it’s indie dev struggling on mediocre sales, maybe your arguments would apply better.
We probably all heard all the different arguments on each side. We can’t really convince people of opposing opinions on subscriptions.
But I hope everyone would agree that taking away features already paid by customers is not acceptable, no matter how well the words are said.
I’m not going to add much to another thread dealing with subscriptions. I’ll only add a few thoughts:
Applications are different than most things we purchase. We buy them and keep them. If they break we either replace or pay to have them fixed. In a way, a subscription is the cost of “fixing” them (keeping them running on new platforms) and doing what one can’t do with tangible goods–add features. Subscriptions are justifiable.
App subscriptions are much like streaming services or utilities–there is a cost to keep them going which I, as the consumer, pay monthly for.
That said, most of us have a finite budget so we have to make decisions. I anticipate even more apps going to subscription–including the real possibility of Things doing so. OF already has a new subscription model. Craft is also subscription as is Ulysses. I mention these three programs because I have used them and I like them. However, I’m hedging my bets and saving a little money by using non-subscription apps whenever they are “good enough.” Here are my examples:
Moved from Things to Reminders. I like Things better. It is easier but I can make Reminders work good enough and I don’t have to worry about Apple converting Reminders to a subscription–I don’t think!
I will use Obsidian for all writing and note taking. I like Ulysses and Craft better. But, with Obsidian, all of my markdown files are local and I can use a lot of different apps to work on them. So even if Obsidian went subscription, it would have no material effect on me.
I’ll use Apple Notes for personal notes.
The decision to go subscription with Notability–again, justifiable–has finally forced me to make decisions about my app choices. I’ve been experimenting with different options for several months but as subscriptions continue to proliferate I am going to minimize their impact in my workflow and budget even if the subscription apps are better.
Agreed. I have seen several other apps do the same thing and think it’s a bit of a shady/unethical practice. Devs tout the change as “the app is now free” but often existing functionality is lost without a subscription once the existing owner period, if offered, expires.
I wouldn’t have as big an issue if the change from paid to free-with-subscription happened by releasing a new app. That way, those of us who want to keep using the legacy version can keep doing so as long as it works without having to disable automatic app updates or worry about tapping on Update All.
OK. No, of course, I never read it. I love the law but I would hard pressed to get through a document like that unless I had to do so. They do cover their butts. Note that they can afford high priced attorneys too. Ah, maybe it is a boiler plate contract.
The Court would most likely support the company but stranger things have happened.
And, no, I paid for the app. Until they started up with this subscription stuff, I owned it.
I do not know who came up with the subscriptions but it is inherently unfair.
Agreed. I love OmniFocus. it’s overkill for what I do, but I’ll happily pay the upgrade price every few years to keep using it on my iPad, but I ONLY use it on my iPad and if the only option was the £9.99 a month Subscription I’d find something else with a heavy heart.
Software isn’t a boxed product any longer where what you buy is what you keep, there’s a massive benefit to buying software these days in that new features and fixes are provided over the air. There’s also a downside in that things get taken away, even by Apple sometimes.
Do you really buy an app from the App Store thinking you’ll have it forever? If so, I think you need to look at the history of the app store, 64 bit apps, new OS updates breaking compatibility, dev’s going out of business or choosing to step back.
Yes, I appreciate that the Dev is putting features you’ve paid for behind a paywall, if they were sunsetting the app in 12 months, what would your reaction be then? the same?
I’ll only add a few thoughts:
