App Store订阅不确定性

Lauren Goode对The Philge的Phil Schiller采访,特别是关于订阅第一年后的新85/15收入分配(斜体强调我的):

But Schiller insisted that it wasn’t any kind of “Apple tax” backlash or companies encouraging users to go to their own websites that drove Apple’s new subscription model: “It wasn’t done from a negative like that,” he saysWhen I asked about this, he stresses that it was “absolutely done because we recognize that developers do a lot of work to retain a customer over time in a subscription model, and we wanted to reward them for that by helping them to keep more of the revenue.” Apple can help drive customers to the original download, Schiller argues, but only the developer can keep the customer over time and “we want to incent them to do that.”

Schiller imagines scenarios where many kinds of apps that were previously single-time purchases could move to the modelGames that have an ongoing subscription-like program, ones that have a massive online playing world that require upgrades of game worlds, might make sense.He suggests many enterprise apps could move to subscription, and that professional apps that require “a lot of maintenance of new features and versions” would be a good fit.


这极大地改变了App Store的经济性Until now, productivity apps could charge up front as paid downloads and that was itUpdates had to be free, or, to charge for major new versions, developers would have to play confusing games by making the new version an entirely new SKU in the app storeTwitter clients like Tweetbot and Twitterrific, for example, did this, to justify years of ongoing developmentNow, apps like this can instead charge an annual/monthly/etc订阅收费。


Starting this fall, apps in all categories on the App Store will be eligible to offer in-app purchases for auto-renewable subscriptions to services or contentUsers enjoy the reliability that comes with subscribing to a service that they love, and the experience must provide ongoing value worth the recurring payment for an auto-renewable subscription to make senseAlthough all categories of apps will be eligible, this business model is not appropriate for every app.

Like many freemium apps, successful auto-renewable subscription apps operate as services that are continuously supported, and often require sustained content development or feature enhancements to retain usersWhether updating content on a regular basis, providing on-demand use of a service, or giving access to a large collection of content, successful auto-renewable subscription apps are equipped to offer continued utility and enjoyment to their subscribers.

In a sidebar titled “Types of Auto-Renewable Subscriptions”, Apple lists only two, “Content” and “Services”:

Provide paid access to content that is updated or delivered on a regular basis, such as newspapers, educational courses, or audio or video libraries.

Provide paid access to an ongoing service within your app, such as cloud storage or massive multiplayer online games (MMOGs).

需要“大量维护新功能和版本”的专业应用程序不适合这些类别。Twitter clients like Tweetbot and Twitterrific qualify for subscription pricing? After talking to Schiller yesterday, I thought so现在,我不知道开发人员肯定很困惑。


I have a side project, a Mac app, that I could also do as an iOS appI have no plans to do so — but the news about subscriptions and free trials makes me reconsider.


但事情就是这样:应用程序是一个独立的东西I’m not running a backend web service for itWould it be okay to use the subscription-based pricing? […] What does “not appropriate” mean? Does that mean rejection? Or is that just a warning that it’s maybe not the best fit, but it’s okay to try it anyway?

席勒显然知道他在说什么,但他所说的似乎不在新的书面规则之内所以我认为Apple试图在这里做的事情是劝阻轻浮使用订阅我认为从Apple自己的描述中可以明显看出来自任何应用程序的应用程序类别现在允许提供订阅,这并不意味着每一个应用将被允许与许多App Store规则一样,Apple不会详细说明,以保持控制和灵活性像法官波特斯图尔特的“我知道它,当我看到它“淫秽”的定义,我认为Apple希望将“良好使用订阅商业模式”定义为“我们在看到它时就知道”。



我认为Apple应该允许任何应用程序提供订阅定价,期限Apple的角色应该是值得信赖的平台供应商,确保用户可以轻松取消订阅,要求选择加入任何定价,并确保没有人以任何方式被欺骗或混淆否则Apple应该允许开发人员根据自己的需要定义订阅的使用In the same way that developers with paid-up-front apps can pick their own price, and users determine whether it’s worth it or not, developers of subscription-based apps should be able to define their own “here’s what you get when you subscribe” features and let users decide whether they’re worth the price or not我不认为苹果应该控制这个 - 市场会自行解决由于他们没有在App Store以外的世界注册不良订阅交易,人们不会注册不良订阅服务。


Another question: If an app is deemed qualified to use subscription pricing, must it be functional in some limited way without a subscription? Apps that use in-app purchases必须在没有IAP的情况下运行对于基于订阅的应用程序也是如此吗?


我应该补充一点,我不认为订阅定价 - 即使Apple澄清订阅对所有应用程序开放,期限 - 都是灵丹妙药没有完美的软件销售方式旧的方式 - 预付款,然后为未来的主要升级付费 - 也有问题,只是一组不同的问题如果我有我的druthers Apple将在App Store中启用付费升级,但我感觉不在卡片中这让我们订阅了订阅。

DF读者Sean Harding很好地解决了订阅定价问题,在一系列推文中

I think the new stuff is good, but I don’t think it really solves the upgrade pricing problem from a customer standpointA sub forces me to effectively always buy the upgrade or stop using even the old versionI don’t dislike subscriptions because I don’t want to payI just want freedom to decide if the new features are worth paying for.

Tapbots开发者Paul Haddad

I’d probably be fine with a subscription model, if they degraded nicely停止付款,应用程序仍然有效,但没有更多的升级That seems fair.

这是一个很好的概念,但我很确定App Store不允许这样做,也永远不会付费下载的一个好的副作用是,您(用户)可以继续使用旧版本的应用程序,直到技术上不再运行,因为操作系统更新或类似的东西(例如PowerPC二进制文件不再在基于Intel的Mac上运行 - 如果Apple开始在Mac上安装ARM芯片,这种情况可能会再次发生With software-as-a-service, when you stop paying for the service, you don’t get to keep using the current version of the app — or if it’s a freemium model, you don’t get to keep using the non-free features that were previously enabled via the subscription.