Apple Introduces a Cheaper Option For App Store Subscriptions

Apple is adding a new App Store subscription option that lets developers offer lower monthly prices in exchange for a 12-month commitment. "This model will allow developers to offer discounted rates to customers in exchange for more predictable long-term revenue," reports TechCrunch. "This also caters to how many developers have already been marketing their annual subscriptions in their apps." From the report: Often, app developers will display the lower monthly price to highlight the discount the customer would receive if they purchase the annual subscription instead of the monthly option. If the user is on the fence about a longer-term commitment, the notion that they're getting a better deal can help to push them toward the annual option.

Now, Apple is essentially formalizing what these developers were already doing, which allows it to also craft a set of policies around how these subscription offers are to be displayed so as not to mislead customers about the true cost of the deals.

However, the option will not be available to developers in the United States or Singapore at launch. While Apple didn't offer an explanation for this, it's still in App Store litigation in the U.S. around the specifics of the court's ruling in its case with Epic Games around how Apple can charge for subscriptions. Apple likely doesn't want to complicate the matter further until that matter is finalized. Singapore, meanwhile, also has a sophisticated payments market with strong consumer rules, which is why it may have been left out of the initial release.

Or you could just redirect them outside the store

[rsilvergun]

Which is what basically everyone is going to do thanks to antitrust lawsuits forcing Apple to allow them to do that. At least in Europe I'm not so sure about the United States and how that will play out.

But my Netflix subscription is through Netflix not through Apple so Apple doesn't get a 30% cut. It's a little crazy that for the longest time they were.

I get that offering the store has value. There are Indies on steam who basically use valve as their entire marketing budget so the 30% valve takes is pretty damn good for them. Steam finds their customers for them and all they have to do is make the game and pop it up there. A marketing budget is typically about 50% of the cost of making anything so steam taking 30% is pretty damn good.

But it definitely would rub me the wrong way with subscription services. Although now that I think about it I wonder how it works when you sign up for an MMO from steam...

Re:

[tlhIngan]

It's a little crazy that for the longest time they were.

Why? It was relatively convenient and even though it cost more, it meant if you wanted to give up Netflix for a month, you just clicked the little slider to "off" and that was it. No need to deal with customer support for deal with retentions or other nonsense. When you wanted to start it back up you click it back to on, it charged you for the month and was immediately available.

The no-fuss-no-muss nature of the subscription cancellation was a major b

Re:

[ctilsie242]

The Apple Store's ease of cancelling subscriptions is very nice. Especially when dealing with some media outlets where the only way to cancel normally is to call by phone, and pray they don't hang up on you after throwing "offer" upon "offer" at you, then handing you to another person, then another. Apple forcing purchases being done through them allowed for easy cancellation.

I really dislike the mandatory subscriptions where one signs up and is forced to pay a bunch of monthly payments. In this job mark

So, still awful then?

[memory_register]

Apple and Google take a huge slice - usually 30% - for the privilege of you selling the software you made to someone on a device they own. Getting a 'better deal' is entirely relative.

Re: So, still awful then?

[FudRucker]

That's why I am hoping the GrapheneOS/Motorola phone makes a good FOSS alternative, so there will be both free software and developers that build more elaborate more highly polished software can cut out the apple/google duopoly and sell directly to the customer

Not 30%

[Ecuador]

I develop apps on the side as a hobby. Apple takes 15% if your annual income is under 1 million. They also provide a lot of infrastructure and good development tools. I would say it's a bargain.

I remember my company developing BREW apps (Verizon's Get It Now), which was basically the only way to make apps for the majority of US phone users. I have forgotten the cut Verizon took, it was over 30% IIRC, but what's worse you could not just publish an app, it had to be "selected". For it to be eligible for selec

A turd by any other name still stinks

[Powercntrl]

I hate software subscriptions. Granted, I'll give that in the context of corporate customers it can make sense when it includes bundled support services for the software, but for individual home users, it's just a sneaky cash grab to trick you into spending more money than you otherwise would've on an application.