Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

Your comment only makes sense under the argument that when a user purchases an app, the developer is indebted to the user to provide future functionality of any variety.

Maintenance should not be expected for free. New features should not be expected for free. How much those two pieces of work cost should be dependent on future expected earnings for the developer and the perceived value to the consumer, not on whether or not they are "expected" by users.

For an argument that starts out pandering to the "users perspective", I don't see how having a dedicated upgrade process is less "pro-user" then in-app purchases. Not only does it introduce more testing (altering the expected earnings vs. perceived value equation) but it also inserts delivery and design issues for the purchases which wouldn't be necessary with an upgrade system.

To me this looks lose(devs)-win(apple)-push(consumers)




> Maintenance should not be expected for free.

Users who purchase an app definitely expect there to be maintenance on the app. This is because we know no one tests their app to 100% perfection.

If I knew that the app I get at the time I pay is all I get with no future updates, not even bug fixes, then I'd wait several months to make sure no one else finds any bugs before I ever dare to buy the app. So developers give users the expectation of future updates and fixes to assuage user fears so that they actually buy the 1.0 release and give the developers some money to keep living on.


Just different types of thinking I guess.

I justify charging for new features, not maintaining the ones the user already paid for.


If I've paid for an app, then I expect it to work. If it's not working, then I expect you to fix it. I don't expect to pay for those fixes.

Features, on the other hand, I expect to pay for.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: