People need to realize that the sales business model does not necessarily lead to better outcomes.
I (pretty much single handedly) made a reasonably profitable mobile app. It was my bread and butter for a decade. It has millions of downloads and hundreds of thousands of monthly active users. It's a “power” tool, not a game.
Unfortunately, it depends on servers for a lot of it's core features. There are no accounts, data passes through my servers and, aside from caching, gets deleted as soon as feasible. I really wish I could avoid it, tried to reduce this as much as possible, and made servers as cheap as possible in the process. But it's still in the $100s/month, which I can't justify without compensation.
I tried donations, and have ad free paid versions: they don't cover costs. Ads are 95% of revenue.
People who paid $1 half a year ago will complain that I killed their pet if the server is down for an hour on a weekend. They've paid their hard won $1 after trialing the product for a month, and feel entitled to forever support of something that has running costs, in both hardware and brain power. Whereas I've made my buck, and have every incentive to tell them to f-off.
People on ads will give me a tenth of a cent everytime they use the app, so I have the incentive to keep then coming back. Of course I can be sleazy and trick them into clicking ads, or drown them in popup hell, or whatever.
But the point is, if $0.001 is enough to make a nice profit from each use of my app, there's no better model than ads. A $1 sale means I'm loosing money on a power user after a few years. A $1 yearly subscription is something users just won't do, especially without fancy upgrades. And, in all models I've tried, 95% of revenue is always ads. Sales don't even cover the costs of the sales channels.
That's why ads took over the internet, and you won't be turning that back.
You would know your market way better than me, but just anecdotally I'm usually willing to pay $5 for a useful app. Based on your numbers it sounds like that would still make you money after 10 or so years. If the app is source available, I'll go up much higher. I'm definitely not a typical user, but for a "power" tool I'd think I'm in your market.
I know you exist. I'm actually able to find literally dozens of people like you, every month.
OTOH, for everyone of you (users willing to pay $1 for a tool that'll solve a problem they have every once in a while), I'm able to find 1000 that'll just install the ad supported app, use it that one time and forget about it (until the next time they need it).
Trust me: the barrier to get even $1 from a user for an app the majority uses once a week tops for a couple of minutes, is immense, especially if they can run it for free, in exchange for the annoyance of a single banner ad, that you can dismiss (and go full screen) after 30s, if you do use it longer than that.
But the free version must exist, for discoverablity if nothing else, and experience shows that degrading it to drive sales only jeopardizes total revenue. So ads it is.
But if I were a user of your app, I would personally prefer to pay you $5/yr for whatever "fancy upgrades" it would require for that to get you enough subscribers to be workable.
But this is a personal preference! It's definitely the case that most people prefer to use free (apologies, I don't know if this applies to your app, but it usually does) crap.
But I do think a niche of people like me totally exists, and is actually not that small.
I think paying for something does encourage users to be more invested in it, but paid software can neglect their power users too if they're comfortable being "good enough for most people"
Yeah I guess it's more of a continuum than a binary. But I do feel like there may be a discontinuity between free and cheap, where the business model totally changes in a way that (in my view) better aligns the incentives between the business and its customers.
As I commented on TFA, and will gladly repeat here:
Wow. Well put. The scariest thing is, this translates even to domain-specific apps such as Navionics Boating. I use it every time I go out, because, somehow, they've not yet managed to touch the charts and rendering and it just works, better than any of the competitors. But, the rest of the interface is like a Fisher Price toy. You want to add a waypoint based on a specific lat/long you got out of a pilot book? There is no such thing as "Add waypoint" in the UI, nooo, you enter the lat/long in "Search" and then tap on something or other to add it as a waypoint.
This attitude manifests itself throughout the application's UI, as if, indeed, the application is optimized for "Marl’s tolerance for user interface complexity is zero.".
So, I guess it would require a lot more research to make a real argument about this, but to me, this just sounds like an application that isn't very good, but I don't think is the same phenomenon described by the article. I definitely don't think charging money is any kind of guarantee of quality. Software is hard to make and lots of software sucks just because it sucks.
But the difference I see is that I think Navionics Boating has an incentive to make that app better. That if they make improvements for users like you, that will likely impact their bottom line positively, because they'll attract and retain more users like you.
But free mass-market consumer apps have the opposite incentive. They are incentivized to dumb things down to the lowest common denominator, because there will always be > 1 user that they attract with that approach for every 1 user like you that they alienate.
Basically: I think free business models can ignore retention, whereas for-pay subscription models can't, and that's why I prefer them.
> Basically: I think free business models can ignore retention, whereas for-pay subscription models can't, and that's why I prefer them.
I think that only holds if you have enough competition that it starts making a real dent in your profit margin.
I don't have any proper data, but pretty much everyone I've met in the sailing community just uses Navionics. Fair enough; the company has been in the ECDIS business for many many years before smartphones even existed, and their electronic charts are good.
Their competitors, based on my subjective use of some of them, more or less fall into two groups:
(1) Similarly big players. Basically just C-MAP (parent is Navico, also in ECDIS for many years).
(2) Startups: savvy navvy and Orca.
I've only really used (1) enough to form a proper opinion. I originally picked it because it was way cheaper (50 EUR/year for global charts), but gave up since Navionics, despite being Fisher Price, at the end of the day just works, is fast, offline, and does not crash. OTOH C-MAP feels like a neglected side-line of the parent company designed to steer you into buying their expensive chart plotter brands (B&G mainly).
To be fair, I also tried a FOSS alternative (OpenCPN), but the app suffers from such a lack of UI design of any kind that I don't even want to go there, so I don't count it as a real competitor. And there's also Imray Navigator which is surprisingly good, but a different product category (raster charts).
TL;DR: Boating is making good money for Navionics, there's not really an alternative, so they don't care.
> This is why I like to pay for things. This dynamic only really exists for things that are given away for free.
There's cable TV.
To be fair though, cable TV was the original Poo-To-Marl Service and has been getting supplanted by free versions of itself. So I guess it proves your point anyway.
