Tweetbot 4 is out and is a fantastic app that any Twitter power user should consider. But if Tapbots didn't have it rough enough with the v3 paid upgrade, I think v4 is going to give people just as much heartburn when the introductory sale is over.
As of today (10/13/15) you can get Tweetbot 4 for $4.99 as a universal app. It's the same price that Tweetbot 3 was selling for. But that's 50% off; meaning it's about to go to $9.99.
Now, Tapbots have never been shy about how they feel in regards to app pricing. Upgrades in particular are a problem. But I think there's another one lurking that is only going to get bigger as Apple TV comes into play; and that's Universal Apps.
Quick review- "Universal Apps" are designed to run on both iPhone and iPad natively. Essentially, it's two apps in one. Apple has also announced that Apple TV will support Universal Apps as well; so if you buy a game, for example, you can download to all three of those devices and only have to pay the one price. It's convenient for sure, but it begs the question- why pay for versions of an app you can't use?
Tweetbot 4 costs twice what Tweetbot 3 did. Part of that pricing justification is that you're getting both an iPad and iPhone version of the app. Previously, those were purchased separately at $4.99 (iPhone) and $2.99 (iPad).
So what now for the users who only have an iPhone? They pay $9.99 for an app that used to be $4.99 and who's price jump is largely due to having an included iPad version? Doesn't seem like a great value proposition.
A Universal App's appeal is great for those that have all the included devices. For others, it's a higher price for features they can't even access.
Once again, developers and users are going to find themselves at odds. Developers will rightly want to be compensated for the work needed to make apps universally compatible. Users, by contrast, will either A) want a lower, bundled price and one purchase to work everywhere or B) to not have to pay for versions they can't use.
So what's the solution?
Well, in my very un-technical opinion, I would think perhaps bitcode could provide an answer. Apple's new way of allowing developers to download only needed assets by device type- if paired with a more nuanced pricing model- could do the trick.
What if instead of listing the price, the App Store button simply said "Buy?" This remains a clear indicator that the app is not free. However, now by tapping on the "Buy" button, you're given multiple prices - iPhone Only, iPad Only, Apple TV Only (depending which device you're buying from), or Universal- each with it's own price. Apple could use Apple ID info to limit the list only to devices you have registered (i.e., if you don't own an iPad, you won't see that option). And bitcode means you could buy just one and not all versions anyway. Now, what if you buy and iPad someday and want to download the app from your "Purchased" tab? Again, you get a choice; instead of the "cloud" icon, you see the "+Get" button. Pressing here brings up the option to pay the difference and get the native version of the app; similar to "complete my purchase."
This would allow developers to get paid proportionate to the work they do, and keep prices low for single device users.
And Apple will never do it. It adds too much complexity to the experience.
But they're going to have to do something. And soon- because if Universal Apps are coming to Apple TV, the race to the bottom pricing can't continue. Developers need to be able to charge for upgrades or device specific versions. Bitcode to me seems like a great tool to make it happen. But it all hinges on Apple having the guts to add a little complexity for users along the way.
Give us a chance, Apple. I'll be we can prove we're smart enough.
No comments:
Post a Comment