Breakout discussion of pricing/business models from Loopy Pro thread

jonmoore · August 2021

When it comes to subscriptions my main motivation for signing up is where I see value as a portfolio of benefits or distinct aggregate value. SettApp is a great example of this. For a relatively small monthly fee you get access to well over 100 applications/apps from the macOS/iOS/iPadOS ecosytem. And the applications are decent, well respected ones (in a good many cases), many of which I used to purchase outright and pay upgrade fees for ongoing support.

Amongst Apples subscription options, taking the all you can eat option and sharing the benefits through the family is great value. I’d never subscribe to Apple TV/Apple Music/Apple News etc, etc individually, but Apple One for up to five family members makes perfect sense.

The aggregate value story is the same with Adobe for me. Subscribing to the full suite doesn’t cost much more than Photoshop and Lighroom alone.

As someone else mentioned, the majority of audio app developers are individuals (or part of a very small team). Something like SetApp, but strictly for apps in the audio ecosytem could be a compelling offer for developers and customers alike. Paying e.g $15 per month to gain access to a portflo of audio apps is a far more attractive option then having to pay a bunch of individual developers $8 per month.

Lil_Stu07 · August 2021

@tahiche said:

@AudioGus said:

@tahiche said:
Reading through the comments I’m seeing some great understanding of the situation, I find that encouraging. On the other hand I’m feeling like there’s no easy way out… Most of us dislike the subscription model, @Samu painted a very clear picture, if every dev rightfully decided to go for subscriptions we’d soon end up in an absurd situation where you’d be possibly spending 100€ a month on subscriptions alone, appholism x 100 until you drop it all.
It’s obvious that there’s a problem with the current model. I’ve spent a couple thousand in the past years in iPad for the sole reason of music apps, yet the devs that make those apps can’t even break even.

Over the years I also spent thousands on iOS and also thousands on desktop. On desktop the money went to less than 1/20 of the number of devs though.

Desktop apps are a lot more expensive AND sell a lot more. Sort of goes against market logic, really.

@Michael said:

@Lirea said:
A major update of Patterning was released last year: they called it Patterning2 and they charged for it, whether you were a new customer or not. No problem, as far as I am concerned.
Michael, I think you also should think of what is the most simple for you, and thus spare your time for working and for enjoying your own life - family etc.

Good call!

Loopy Pro 1, Loopy Pro 2, Loopy Pro 3… sounds fine to me. Less hassle. If you’re ok with the current functionality you don’t need to upgrade. Might be a hassle to keep updating all those for new iOS versions, though.

I imagine there wouldn't be very many updates to older versions. If at all. That seems like the purpose of the new versions and not going subscription. You pay for up to date software and new features. The old version would essentially be deprecated.

ksound · August 2021

@echoopera said:
Keep it simple:
$19.99 USD for the first 10 days, and then $39.99USD thereafter.

IMO, I think established developers selling to the small, loyal iOS music creator community are better off not offering an introductory price. Save the sales for the plebeians, and maybe give a timeline of upcoming discounts in the forums to head off complaints about price drops.

Samu · August 2021

@ksound said:

@echoopera said:
Keep it simple:
$19.99 USD for the first 10 days, and then $39.99USD thereafter.

IMO, I think established developers selling to the small, loyal iOS music creator community are better off not offering an introductory price. Save the sales for the plebeians, and maybe give a timeline of upcoming discounts in the forums to head off complaints about price drops.

I kinda like what Bleass is doing with their apps offering a pre-order period and once the app is out the price is bumped up to the regular price. This could also give an indication if the 'hype' created around an app is real or not?

If we take Loopy Pro as an example it's quite 'hyped' already and the number of pre-orders could give an indication of the real interest of potential customers?
(Ie. start the 'hype machinery' with 'teasers' about one month prior to release...).

Those are just my thoughts...
Cheers!

Michael · September 2021

I just read this in Ariel of AppFigures' weekly newsletter:

Paid Apps are Dead

We tweeted a stat earlier in the week that surprised many people, and that's that the share of paid apps, those you have to pay for before downloading, has reached very low single digits.

I was also a tiny bit surprised at how low it is, but not that surprised. Why? Because I've been talking about friction in the app world for 10+ years at this point.

First, numbers. Of the 1,878,916 iOS apps available in the App Store right now, only 111,827. That's just 5.95%. I usually round numbers off because they're easier to read and don't make a big difference overall. But the number is so tiny here that I couldn't do that.

Google Play is pretty much the same. Of the 4,077,118 apps and games you can download right now, only 149,886 are paid. That's just 3.68%.

This is the lowest the share has ever been, and all things considered, is probably going to shrink even more in the future as the companies who still publish them realize they're leaving money on the table.

So, what's the alternative? In-app purchases and subscriptions. Well, kind of.

More numbers!

There are 233,857 free apps with in-app purchases or subscriptions on the App Store and 269,039 on Google Play. That translates to 13.23% and 6.85%, respectively.

I expected to see more, but there are a few things to consider.

Many apps monetize with ads. It doesn't mean they're actually making more money than they could if they used in-app purchases or subscriptions, but that's a whole other thing.
On Google Play, some apps can monetize outside of the store without having to sue, and many apps that can, do it.
Some apps are clients that charge elsewhere. The Appfigures app is one such example.
And lastly, some apps monetize their data... Meaning their users. Those are much harder to catch in the wild, but they certainly exist. Apple is trying to make that impossible with ATT and stricter permissions around location tracking, which is imperative to selling usage, but they still continue.
So, what? "Simple" no longer cuts it when it comes to making money with apps. It did for many years, but those are behind us, and that's actually a good thing. If you're still holding on to a pay upfront model, it's time to stop doing that. It'll help you be more competitive and more profitable. I've yet to speak with one developer who regretted switching.

The music app category specifically has about 36k apps (which is only 1.6% of all apps), and within that category, about 5k (14%) are paid.

So that's interesting.

Note that I'm not at all convinced this has anything to say about complex desktop-class apps like Loopy Pro, though.

yokotate · September 2021

@Michael said:
I just read this in Ariel of AppFigures' weekly newsletter:

Paid Apps are Dead

Wow, that sucks, if it is true at all. How are subscriptions going to work if this should become the norm? How am I, as a "consumer", supposed to keep track of all my subscriptions and not feel stressed, constantly thinking about what subs to keep? I already have subscriptions in my life, like rent, electricity ... but apps, software? No way. I rather not partake and/or find a free/one time payment option.

(I gladly pay for substantial updates/IAPs)

Lil_Stu07 · September 2021

@Michael perhaps offering the app at a certain price point ($29.99+) and then offering a subscription for au hosting would be a suitable tradeoff. Or some feature that isn't absolutely crucial but is appealing for enough people to subscribe.

Michael · September 2021

Like I said, I don’t think it has anything to do with Loopy, just posting it here for interest

johnfromberkeley · September 2021

@Michael said:
Yeah...subscriptions are the elephant in the room. As far as I can see, they're the only viable long-term business model; charging just once for lifetime updates for an app is a recipe for disaster, and I would be silly not to use a subscription model if I want Loopy Pro to continue into the future. But there's a vocal cohort that really vigorously hate the idea (for reasons don't fully understand, but can sympathise with to a limited extent), so it's a tightrope exercise.

I tend to lean towards preferring the model that commercial software (Ableton Live, for instance) has followed for decades - you pay once to get the latest version, and have access to it indefinitely, but if you want to stay on the latest-and-greatest, then you buy updates to support development. Maybe some discount upgrade pricing to give existing users a little love.

It provides a more sustainable business model – i.e. supports further development over abandonware – but also might be a little easier for those among us who dislike subscriptions to cope with, as one keeps what one buys, as it were, rather than 'renting'. Feels fairer.

Downside is that it's messy to deal with on the App Store, as one has to release separate apps each time, so incoming App Store links break, App Store Optimisation efforts may be compromised, etc. And having monolithic updates means having to hold onto new features for some length of time, rather than being able to release them straight away, which is a shame. But I feel it's worth the hassle.

Other alternative is In-App Purchases for new features – but that introduces some rather annoying user experiences in the app, and some not insignificant overhead in providing gated access to features.

Any better ideas?

I’ve seen some developers have a subscription and a lifetime unlock:

4.95 USD / month
39.00 USD / year
120.00 USD / lifetime

ervin · September 2021

@Michael said:
I just read this in Ariel of AppFigures' weekly newsletter:

Paid Apps are Dead

We tweeted a stat earlier in the week that surprised many people, and that's that the share of paid apps, those you have to pay for before downloading, has reached very low single digits.

I was also a tiny bit surprised at how low it is, but not that surprised. Why? Because I've been talking about friction in the app world for 10+ years at this point.

First, numbers. Of the 1,878,916 iOS apps available in the App Store right now, only 111,827. That's just 5.95%. I usually round numbers off because they're easier to read and don't make a big difference overall. But the number is so tiny here that I couldn't do that.

Google Play is pretty much the same. Of the 4,077,118 apps and games you can download right now, only 149,886 are paid. That's just 3.68%.

This is the lowest the share has ever been, and all things considered, is probably going to shrink even more in the future as the companies who still publish them realize they're leaving money on the table.

So, what's the alternative? In-app purchases and subscriptions. Well, kind of.

More numbers!

There are 233,857 free apps with in-app purchases or subscriptions on the App Store and 269,039 on Google Play. That translates to 13.23% and 6.85%, respectively.

I expected to see more, but there are a few things to consider.

Many apps monetize with ads. It doesn't mean they're actually making more money than they could if they used in-app purchases or subscriptions, but that's a whole other thing.
On Google Play, some apps can monetize outside of the store without having to sue, and many apps that can, do it.
Some apps are clients that charge elsewhere. The Appfigures app is one such example.
And lastly, some apps monetize their data... Meaning their users. Those are much harder to catch in the wild, but they certainly exist. Apple is trying to make that impossible with ATT and stricter permissions around location tracking, which is imperative to selling usage, but they still continue.
So, what? "Simple" no longer cuts it when it comes to making money with apps. It did for many years, but those are behind us, and that's actually a good thing. If you're still holding on to a pay upfront model, it's time to stop doing that. It'll help you be more competitive and more profitable. I've yet to speak with one developer who regretted switching.

The music app category specifically has about 36k apps (which is only 1.6% of all apps), and within that category, about 5k (14%) are paid.

So that's interesting.

Note that I'm not at all convinced this has anything to say about complex desktop-class apps like Loopy Pro, though.

There's that. Also, I wonder how useful it is to come at it from that perspective at all. Most of the "music apps" I come across in the store are indeed free to download, but they are completely useless (for me) as well, so free is a fair price.

BUT if I look at the music apps on my ipad, that is to say the apps that I as a customer actually want, an overwhelming majority of them was paid for up front*. I have no idea if this is representative or not, but I find it a much more meaningful stat than talking about the totality of music apps, most of which are music apps in name only.

(*The one thing I do hate about paying up front is if there's no free trial version, which makes it a leap of faith. That really sucks in ios. But that's a different topic.)

Ploe · September 2021

@brambos said:
I can understand people's reluctance against subscriptions. But at the same time I feel the irony of the general expectation that a dev keeps developing and adding to apps with no compensation for many years. So people want the advantages of a subscription model, but without the cost factor.

I don't expect a lifetime of upgrades from an €8 Whopper menu, but people do expect this from an €8 app for some odd reason

So what about a splashscreen with a “buy me a coffee”-button, which appears when the app was updated.
I think most iPad Musicians are loyal to the developers.

ervin · September 2021

@Ploe said:

@brambos said:
I can understand people's reluctance against subscriptions. But at the same time I feel the irony of the general expectation that a dev keeps developing and adding to apps with no compensation for many years. So people want the advantages of a subscription model, but without the cost factor.

I don't expect a lifetime of upgrades from an €8 Whopper menu, but people do expect this from an €8 app for some odd reason

So what about a splashscreen with a “buy me a coffee”-button, which appears when the app was updated.

That sounds like begging tbh. (It's also rather annoying: if you are selling a product, ask to be paid for the product, not for a hypothetical "coffee". Noone should expect you to work for free.)

I think most iPad Musicians are loyal to the developers.

In which case, they can simply decide not to expect upgrades for free. 🤷

richardyot · September 2021

@Michael said:
I just read this in Ariel of AppFigures' weekly newsletter:

Paid Apps are Dead

We tweeted a stat earlier in the week that surprised many people, and that's that the share of paid apps, those you have to pay for before downloading, has reached very low single digits.

I was also a tiny bit surprised at how low it is, but not that surprised. Why? Because I've been talking about friction in the app world for 10+ years at this point.

First, numbers. Of the 1,878,916 iOS apps available in the App Store right now, only 111,827. That's just 5.95%. I usually round numbers off because they're easier to read and don't make a big difference overall. But the number is so tiny here that I couldn't do that.

Google Play is pretty much the same. Of the 4,077,118 apps and games you can download right now, only 149,886 are paid. That's just 3.68%.

This is the lowest the share has ever been, and all things considered, is probably going to shrink even more in the future as the companies who still publish them realize they're leaving money on the table.

So, what's the alternative? In-app purchases and subscriptions. Well, kind of.

More numbers!

There are 233,857 free apps with in-app purchases or subscriptions on the App Store and 269,039 on Google Play. That translates to 13.23% and 6.85%, respectively.

I expected to see more, but there are a few things to consider.

Many apps monetize with ads. It doesn't mean they're actually making more money than they could if they used in-app purchases or subscriptions, but that's a whole other thing.
On Google Play, some apps can monetize outside of the store without having to sue, and many apps that can, do it.
Some apps are clients that charge elsewhere. The Appfigures app is one such example.
And lastly, some apps monetize their data... Meaning their users. Those are much harder to catch in the wild, but they certainly exist. Apple is trying to make that impossible with ATT and stricter permissions around location tracking, which is imperative to selling usage, but they still continue.
So, what? "Simple" no longer cuts it when it comes to making money with apps. It did for many years, but those are behind us, and that's actually a good thing. If you're still holding on to a pay upfront model, it's time to stop doing that. It'll help you be more competitive and more profitable. I've yet to speak with one developer who regretted switching.

The music app category specifically has about 36k apps (which is only 1.6% of all apps), and within that category, about 5k (14%) are paid.

So that's interesting.

Note that I'm not at all convinced this has anything to say about complex desktop-class apps like Loopy Pro, though.

While this analysis is interesting (and a little depressing to be honest), it reflects the wider app market, but not necessarily the specialist music app market that the Audiobus forum caters to.

This niche is very much its own thing, and so those statistics don't really apply to us. I would say the percentage of paid apps in this market is closer to 80%. That doesn't mean that the current model is viable for developers, just that the advice in that newsletter doesn't necessarily translate to this particular market.

(I do think inevitably some apps, especially the more complex ones such as DAWs, will have to move to a subscription-based model.)

wim · October 2021

I read on the other forum that this will hopefully be out pre Black Friday.

If it comes out before and then a Black Friday discount is offered, there will be the crowd that gets outraged that they paid full price not long before. If no Black Friday discount is offered, there will be the crowd that gets upset that there is no discount.

Ironically, I think the latter group will be fewer and less vocal. Personally, I think not offering a BF sale is the best route.

SNystrom · October 2021

A simple solution would be to announce a special introductory price that would end after the typical Black Friday sales expire.

attakk · October 2021

@yokotate said:

@Michael said:
I just read this in Ariel of AppFigures' weekly newsletter:

Paid Apps are Dead

Wow, that sucks, if it is true at all.

Why would it not be true at all?

NeonSilicon · October 2021

@attakk said:

@yokotate said:

@Michael said:
I just read this in Ariel of AppFigures' weekly newsletter:

Paid Apps are Dead

Wow, that sucks, if it is true at all.

Why would it not be true at all?

The information is going to be basically true, but it doesn't mean that it has much impact on pricing models for many types of applications. The Epic vs. Apple trial indicated that something like 70% of app store revenue comes from games. Of the 30% that's left, much of the revenue is going to come from content delivery type apps. Then there is the whole add supported type app question that won't work in any sort of professional tool. Looking at what an average app does to make money on the App store is going to be heavily skewed away from what's useful for entire categories of applications.

espiegel123 · October 2021

Comparing the economics of all apps in all sectors as if their user bases all make decisions based on identical considerations isn't very helpful for sectors that have underlying differences. And even in a sector, there can be sub-categories where different factors are relevant.

The one thing that is clear is that we are in a period of change and the app store economics are a bit messed up and in flux.

Samu · October 2021

I still don't get or understand people who pay real money to get a new outfits for their virtual avatars...
...but apparently it's a huuuuuge market?!

Poppadocrock · October 2021

@Michael

I haven’t used it yet so this is solely based on Mike’s video, and some of the thread talk, but The absolute minimum should be $20, there’s no doubt it’s at least worth that. Financially, for me, I’m hoping it’s $29.99 or $24.99, that’s an insta buy. I could see it realistically being as much as $40, maybe $45 in the current app market, but I think $25-$30 would be a reasonable request. Maybe $25 Intro price, $35, $40 after that. This is all hypothetical.

orand · October 2021

While I personally would love a special introductory price, you have to carefully assess as an app developer whether you’re throwing away revenue with that approach. I wouldn’t be surprised if a very significant percentage of total lifetime sales happens during the initial introductory price period, purchased by people who would have paid full price anyway.

If this app is the solid game-changer it appears to be, it seems worthy of a single, unchanging price, like Drambo.

NeuM · October 2021

@Poppadocrock said:
@Michael

I haven’t used it yet so this is solely based on Mike’s video, and some of the thread talk, but The absolute minimum should be $20, there’s no doubt it’s at least worth that. Financially, for me, I’m hoping it’s $29.99 or $24.99, that’s an insta buy. I could see it realistically being as much as $40, maybe $45 in the current app market, but I think $25-$30 would be a reasonable request. Maybe $25 Intro price, $35, $40 after that. This is all hypothetical.

I have to imagine operating this site is no small expense, so I wouldn't be surprised if it was a bit higher eventually.

Michael · October 2021

@NeuM said:
I have to imagine operating this site is no small expense, so I wouldn't be surprised if it was a bit higher eventually.

Nah it’s not that much. Fifty bucks a month or so.

NeuM · October 2021

@Michael said:

@NeuM said:
I have to imagine operating this site is no small expense, so I wouldn't be surprised if it was a bit higher eventually.

Nah it’s not that much. Fifty bucks a month or so.

Surely you must be kidding! That’s impressive for as much traffic and posted material as you get here.

Michael · October 2021

@NeuM said:

@Michael said:

@NeuM said:
I have to imagine operating this site is no small expense, so I wouldn't be surprised if it was a bit higher eventually.

Nah it’s not that much. Fifty bucks a month or so.

Surely you must be kidding! That’s impressive for as much traffic and posted material as you get here.

Yep. CloudFlare takes about half a TB per month of load off the server for free, which helps. But it's surprisingly light.

knewspeak · October 2021

Frankly iOS and it’s hardware and software ‘subscription’ model, with it’s instability every time you upgrade has only pushed me closer to an hardware only model.

ashh · October 2021

@Michael said:

@NeuM said:
I have to imagine operating this site is no small expense, so I wouldn't be surprised if it was a bit higher eventually.

Nah it’s not that much. Fifty bucks a month or so.

So that's about £25 in real money. A fortune to all you struggling devs, surely!?

"Dear diary, so it has come to this. Eat or put a quid in the meter for leccy and write some code."

[Deleted User] · October 2021

The user and all related content has been deleted.

ashh · October 2021

@d4d0ug said:
My 2p

Might sound like heresy but I’d pay a subscription for Loopy Pro.

Already have subs for Calm, OS Maps, NordVPN, Apple news.

I used to be like - no way would I ever…. but with monthly subs it’s easy to cancel.

Not a popular opinion, and I’m not expecting many / any people to agree.

If it makes development more sustainable then that has to be a positive.

I am currently paying a sub for the SDS drum machine app. Took it out yesterday, £0.79p for a month. An embarrassingly low sum of money. That gives me the chance to try it out and just plain see if I use it. The other tiers are yearly for £4.99 and outright for £10.99.

If I'm honest I would prefer every dev to do this. I would guess that there are at least half of the apps I've bought that I wouldn't buy outright or even for a year. Now that I come to think of it, that's a hell of a gamble for the devs but then if they believe in what they have coded then that's a way of backing their app, I guess.

MisplacedDevelopment · October 2021

@ashh said:

@d4d0ug said:
My 2p

Might sound like heresy but I’d pay a subscription for Loopy Pro.

Already have subs for Calm, OS Maps, NordVPN, Apple news.

I used to be like - no way would I ever…. but with monthly subs it’s easy to cancel.

Not a popular opinion, and I’m not expecting many / any people to agree.

If it makes development more sustainable then that has to be a positive.

I am currently paying a sub for the SDS drum machine app. Took it out yesterday, £0.79p for a month. An embarrassingly low sum of money. That gives me the chance to try it out and just plain see if I use it. The other tiers are yearly for £4.99 and outright for £10.99.

If I'm honest I would prefer every dev to do this. I would guess that there are at least half of the apps I've bought that I wouldn't buy outright or even for a year. Now that I come to think of it, that's a hell of a gamble for the devs but then if they believe in what they have coded then that's a way of backing their app, I guess.

I agree, the ecosystem suffers for having no built-in system for demoing apps. If Apple allowed you to pay a one-time non-refundable % of the app price to try it for a month which then went towards the cost of buying the full thing if you chose to do so then that would work for me and would seem a fairly frictionless option for them to offer devs.

I find a number of apps get put to one side after discovering they don't quite do what I thought they were going to do for me, or don't fit into a particular workflow despite glowing reviews from others. I would never refund these apps as I want to support the devs and in many cases I should have done more research but I'm pretty sure I would have saved money over time if I was paying an ongoing subscription for the apps that I actually use rather than play with for a couple of hours and decide they are not a good fit.

There is also the question of how long you have access to an app versus how much you used it. We are effectively renting almost all of our apps over the long term, albeit the monthly cost would normally be peanuts per app. Access may be cut short for a number of reasons that the end user has little control over - the developer lets their developer license lapse so you can no longer download the app or its function it is broken or deprecated by some iOS update that the developer is never going to (or can't) fix. That risk at least feels less present on the desktop where you can make backups of software and keep it running on hardware which can be replaced relatively cheaply indefinitely.

Loopy Pro: Create music, your way.

Breakout discussion of pricing/business models from Loopy Pro thread

Comments