No, Apple should have added upgrade pricing years ago and I would gladly pay for upgrades that way. The fact that they still haven't added upgrades and are instead pushing for a subscription model rubs me the wrong way.
That's a flaw in all app stores (perhaps by design to force everyone to a subscription model someday?). For example, ImageLine's FL Studio was warning everyone that their new app will be completely different than their old app, but they weren't able to change version for their customers by the store policies, so they were asking users to be careful about upgrade.
So currently your only option is to release app2, app3 etc. without the possibility to address your customer base (offering upgrades etc.)
Subscriptions are basically renting apps for regular time periods. If forced, this would kill all indies for sure as most people would spend budget to the few main apps they need. I can also barely envision how the platform would attract creative people as it would feel like oligopoly. Frankly, with computers we have a chance to break natural constraints on availability but companies seem to be hell bent on reintroducing the same stinky approaches from the past. Why?
"Frankly, with computers we have a chance to break natural constraints on availability but companies seem to be hell bent on reintroducing the same stinky approaches from the past. Why?"
How does it help you if your potential customers avoid your software like a plague? Subscriptions border on restricting somebody's financial freedom. Imagine your plumber was forcing you to pay yearly for once/here and there using their services?
"How does it help you if your potential customers avoid your software like a plague?"
You're gonna have to show that would be the result. You'd also have to show that whatever your alternative idea is. You said you want to "break natural constraints on availability." How are you going to do that without charging per copy, or charing a subscription model? And how does your idea make more money that previous, or at least a similar amount?
"Subscriptions border on restricting somebody's financial freedom."
I am fine buying software but only if I can keep ownership of whatever version I bought. I shelved money for complete CS6 but stay light years away from CC. I bought Ableton Live Suite, but stay away from ProTools. Imagine I had to pay Nikon or Access a yearly fee for camera/synth in my studio?
I have a plenty of money I want to spend on software but only if it empowers me and not if it treats me as an ATM. For example, the old JetBrains model of buying a new major release (and keeping it forever) and then getting free updates for a year was simply perfect, both for allowing developers to love the company that treats them properly and financing ongoing development; not sure why they regressed.
I think its more analogous to your water/waste company who you pay monthly for them to remove your waste from your house. The provide an ongoing service, you don't get to pay a one time fee for it. Subscriptions provide a way for apps that have an ongoing support component to be paid for that instead of using ads.
A problem with upgrade pricins is the difference between new and old users.
Do new users have to pay all tiers of upgrade or do they get a reduced cost?
If it's the former, then the app's price keeps on rising and comes down to IAPs being better to unlock extra features you actually need without the whole package.
If it's the latter, then old users feel betrayed for having to pay the full upgrade price even though they bought the app earlier than new users.
There are pros and cons for both sides, unless I didn't think of one solution that could work perfectly.
>old users feel betrayed for having to pay the full upgrade price even though they bought the app earlier than new users.
Do they, though? Back when things like word processors were hundreds of dollars for the initial purchase and maybe half that for upgrades, it kept your users relatively happy. But when Apple introduced Pages on the app store originally, it was something like $30-40 for new versions. So I actually ended up spending less on it than I had on other word processors, but getting the same regular updates. It's free now, but I personally love the model of low reasonable price each time rather than really high first time price, and kind of high additional price when new versions come out. That initial high price meant there were a lot of programs I didn't buy when I wasn't making quite the salary I am today.
Yes, at least in my experience. There are many who expect updates and new features because they have already invested so much of their time into your free app.
You can make the argument that a certain price point justifies free upgrades within a certain period of time or to a certain level (e.g. buy 1.x and get free up to all 2.n versions), but "I spend a lot of time in your app" is not a valid reason to get more of it for free.
Do users still expect the upgrade for free?