01-10-2014 09:27 AM
- Hah! I was actually making a tongue-in-cheek comment that given the avarice of the Tapatalk dev's charging ppl several dollars for the app, then once users buy it they try and tack on a extra $8-$10 of in-app purchases for full functionality or features that should NOT be additional charges once I've just paid for the app. A whopping $5 for color schemes?! Give me a break.
And for those who want to make the argument about how can a developer provide free lifetime updates and survive? Millions of dev's do it every single day! In fact, the minute fraction of dev's who try and charge for major version updates are dwarfed by those who do not and will not. It's not a matter of "everyone does it"; that's simply not true.
Second, as far as necessity for income; do you realize how many potential NEW customers are out there who have not yet bought the app-- and the features added to the new major update may just be the impetus that pushes those potential customers over into paying for the app.
Adding features and functionality is of benefit to those who have already purchased the app, obviously, but these same updates and features benefit the developer by attracting previously indifferent or unconvinced consumers to finally take the plunge. To re-charge paid customers is something more attributed to major software companies. Is it a double standard that Microsoft or Apple can charge for new versions/updates to their software, but small-time dev's can't?
I'm not saying what anyone can or can't choose to do with their products; I just think considering the generally accepted nature of iOS apps, this is an aberrance rather than the norm, by far. Why can Microsoft or Apple get away with it without second thought? These are major companies that spend millions in R&D, QA, have hundreds or thousands of employees on their payrolls; they pay royalties and licensing fees, they have a physical presence, they have so many more expenses to recoup vs. a $99 developer's license.
Sure, the developer's time spend coding and testing their apps, providing support to end-users, I can appreciate.
My only poignant point is that when dev's appear to be acting egregiously in their respect and handling of the very customer base that has helped get them to the point they are at now, customers feel shafted and I just know that personally, I see the developer(s) of this app to be consumed in penny pinching, "squeeze every dime from them" attitudes, unparalleled by so few other dev's. I say this from personal experience, as I have well over $1,000 (probably over $1,500) in paid apps-- so I have no qualms about supporting software developers... I just have problems with feeding outright avarice.
Also, consider that client purchases of this app are NOT the only buck being made off of this software. They're also charging on the other end-- at the forum/board software integration level.
They're milking every angle possible... and that's their right; I just won't support it any longer. I'm sure a great tear-jerker to them... but I guarantee I'm not the only one with this perspective.
Finally, I'm a software developer, myself; and I have several friends who are iOS developers... and they are in-line with the way I see things: It's their right, but it's not necessarily right. These developers (a handful of which, have extremely impressive and well-developed products) have realized other ways to capitalize on their successful apps, without screwing their customer base (the ppl that have ultimately enabled their great success)... or at the very least not imparting a feeling of indignation that results in the isolation and loss of previously supportive customers.
The key is not to re-establish a customer base (in so far as the adoption of a unique software, including a "spin-off / major overhaul" of existing software which is sold as a distinct product)-- the key is maintaining existing customers (this will help in many ways, including the facilitation of the mass adoption/acceptance of your software as a "standard", by default; by spreading positive word and recommendation of your product, etc etc).
But... as said, in reality, they could give two turds about losing me and my support... which is fine. That's life, and all they're doing is exploiting the benefits of capitalism. If it's working for them, they're on some level a success. Some may even say "shrewd" or "savvy"... "resourceful".
But I feel as long as I accept and acknowledge their right to handle the marketing and sale of their software as they choose; I should have an equal right to contest and express my thoughts regarding those same practices.
I realize why I had abandoned this app for ages. I had a bad impression of their "sell them the full version, or at least what they thought to be... then nail them with another $10 of in-app purchases post-sale to gain features that should have been included as a gratuity for purchasing their product and supporting them.
Again, I'm a programmer myself. I cannot fathom charging an additional $5, AFTER someone has purchased my software, to enable something as asinine as the ability to change colors. The reality is, the code/time/effort required to implement this is insignificant in comparison to the rest of this app; plus it is code that can be recycled/reused. Simply code the function to alter the color properties of the controls, then after that, it's merely a matter of passing arguments/parameters to that same function for each scheme. Reusable code, no extra effort, but an extra 99 a pop! To me, that's nickel and dime'ing the consumer with flagrant overpricing of denied basic features.
That's when I developed my distaste for this way of business, surely long before v2 was even a concept design.
So, to reiterate my point-- I'm not claiming they have no right or reasoning to do this. I'm not dictating concrete terms and conditions; merely expressing contempt for the way this app has appeared to be a classic bait-and-switch trap, from the early days; and IMO, continues to be just that-- this being a prime example of just that.
For every app that does this, there are inherently tens of thousands who do NOT dump previously paid users upon even a series of major upgrades.
It's not a necessary evil. It's necessarily evil, perhaps... but if my thoughts are taken as unfounded-- the empirical evidence backing my statements is out there, plain to see.
Not only from practical observation of trends and patterns of business ethics and approaches, but from personal experience as a programmer; but more importantly, from the experiences of relevant, proven successes in the context of iOS app development. When their peers disagree with these business ethics and practices; I must consider that I'm not merely a single dissenting opinion in a vast sea of approvals.
Any constructive arguments or counter-examples, I am open to considering. I'm not infallible; nor am I full of unwarranted and unsubstantiated derogatory claims. Remember I paid for the original app, and grew to loathe not the software, but the socio-economic manipulation tactics hiding behind the scenes. If you're going to respond, please at least make an attempt at a logical or reasonable rebuttal, as it will give your ideas a sense of validity and relevance which will only help to serve your interests and make you seem to be offering a rational argument. If I'm the fool here, please explain to me where I fall short in my points, and offer practical examples to support your thoughts. I can respect an educated, sensible retort-- "your stupid, l00zer, Lolz!?!" is unconvincing. My mind is open to your suggestions and thoughts. Please share.01-25-2013 08:19 PM
- Tapatalk had the users help with Tapatalk 2, I know, I was one of them. But I'm done stressing the point that v2 is NOT an update to v1 but it is a SEPARATE APP. Now, they don't get away with the plugins fully, there are 3rd party apps for that. But I understand the disdain for paying for color schemes, I have not bought them, I don't need them.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk 201-25-2013 08:29 PM
- 01-25-2013 11:40 PM
- I can relate to the disappointment of the others in that despite my very clear disapproval of making this a separate app (TBD if the difference is so profound that this couldn't have been considered an update/overhaul of the original v1)-- but my point is this:
Even with the indignation of having to she'll out more cash for an app I'd already paid for; at 99, I would have humored the developer. For 99 I can see a justification if the app is that much better, but by time my confusion subsided (I had been waiting for an AppStore update and was looking up the original in the AppStore the whole time); like so many others I missed the brief 99 intro price that I would have given into.
IMO, they need to bring this back again for a day or two because it deals with a fundamental principle in economics-- reduction in profit margin per unit lends to increase in units sold; the opposite is also true.
For practical example, view how Blurays were first introduced (actually for years) to the market. They were ~$30 a piece and sales were few.
If we consider their cost to market is $5 per disc, they're working a 500% profit margin. Ok, but when they finally realized (these are professional marketers?) that if they took a pretty massive hit by reducing their profit margin from 500% ($30 movies) to a more reasonable 100% mark-up ($10 movies)-- what happened?
While they were selling say, 5 copies for every movie at $30; when they reduced that same Bluray's cost to $10-- sales soared.
They were selling on a far thinner profit margin, but this hit taken in margin was greatly overshadowed by the increased demand and amount of units sold!
Common sense to some; a mystery to others-- fact is, for every 5 copies they sold at $30, they sold 50 copies at $10.
It takes no genius to figure that, if given the overhead/cost is $5 per disc, the formula so goes:
(units sold * retail price) - (units sold * cost to market) = net profit
(5 * $30) - $25 = $150 - $25 = $125
(50 * $10) - $250 = $500 - $250 = $250
Now granted this is a very rudimentary and simplified demonstration of the principle; the fact to realize is by reducing profit per disc from $25 to a mere $5-- one's first inclination might be disastrous profit loss.
But in reducing this margin, consumer cost was drastically reduced, and thus demand and sales, conversely skyrocketed, boosting sales by 10x; and the end effect?
By cutting their profit margin to just 1/5 of the original, they increased units sold tenfold-- and the end result was DOUBLED PROFITS, DESPITE SHAVING PROFIT MARGIN TO 20% of the initial figure.
Price reduction increases sales volume and 9x out of 10, the resulting sales/profits overshadow any would-be loss by trimming profit margins.
This same principle applies directly here. If the app were offered at $1 instead of $4, how many extra sales would result?
How many people will not purchase this at $4, but would purchase it at $1?
I bet the numbers are significant enough to create the economic effect I just detailed, and would profit the developer greater than by simply leaving the price fixed at $4.
That also taps into the impulse buy phenomenon. You're far more likely to purchase a movie at $10 vs. $30, even if it's a movie you want to buy. $30 is often just a bit much.
But you will end up purchasing movies you had no intention of buying until you saw they were on sale for $10! You may not have even really liked the series, but you're bringing home "Beverly Hills Cop 6" because it was on clearance for $4.99! What a deal!
An impulse buy you made based not on need or want, but simply based on the perceived value/deal.
Same is true of apps. While $9.99 seems to be the "sweet spot" to get consumers to buy movies they wouldn't otherwise buy; so seems the 99 price point for apps. I'll buy an app for 99 without great torment or lengthy consideration. The same doesn't apply for apps $2.99, $3.99, $4.99+. I will take time to consider if it's really worth the money in these cases; deciding at least half the time, the answer is "no".
Developers need to be wise and take these phenomena into consideration if they want to maximize profitability. I think most are scared to take the risk but without greater risk, there is no greater reward.
Reduce the price to 99 again and I'll pay your "upgrade fee" without an incredible fight. At $3.99? Not a chance; I went years without using v1-- I can live without v2 if need be.01-26-2013 06:52 AM
- One shortcoming of this app is just inherent to circumstance. You will never see forums like Apple's Community, Microsoft Technet or MSDN boards; or any large/commercial forums show up in Tapatalk due to the sheer implications in implementation and the inherent risk of introducing third-party proprietary code into a forum with such masses of content and users.
You introduce the possibility of buggy code that could result in downtime/crashes; you open the door for additional potential exploits, then there's the increases workload introduced by the necessity of testing the integration prior to release into a production environment... as well as any additional maintenance that may be required to maintain this integration.
It's too much work, it's too risky to security and stability, and is just not going to be integrated to please a considerably niche group of users of the app (versus those users who do not).
So there's an inherent handicap by principle and circumstance.
Even some medium-sized, though well-known boards that I'd love to see in the Tapatalk list-- I'll most surely never seen; Hydrogen Audio Forums being a prime candidate.
So by inherent limitations, participating forums are largely going to be made up of smaller, hobbyist forums rather than more professional, robust ones.
And this is the reason why Tapatalk is of limited value to me. I have like 3-4 forums in it that I occasionally use when I'm bored. For most of the forums I participate in and read regularly, I've gotta go elsewhere.
Anyone know any exceptions to this general rule? I think the most well known ones I saw were maybe tomshardware or overclockers?
Any good ones I'm missing/overlooking? I'd love to use the app more, but if the boards that I use regularly aren't supported-- that is defeated.01-26-2013 07:21 AM
- 01-26-2013 08:37 AM
I had to get the red SGS3...garnet is my birthstone! Excuses sent via Tapatalk 201-26-2013 09:25 AM
- Weird that tapatalk 2 on android allows multi quote but not the ios version... I'm deciding if I want to download it or not. I still switch back and forth from my gs3 to my iphone so I keep my apps up to date on both.
I had to get the red SGS3...garnet is my birthstone! Excuses sent via Tapatalk 2
Beamed from my iPhone 5 using Tapatalk01-26-2013 11:05 AM
- By Alexan81 in forum iPhone 5Replies: 11Last Post: 01-15-2013, 08:46 PM
- By rich67 in forum Jailbreaking, Unlocking, Hacks, Themes & ModsReplies: 7Last Post: 02-16-2012, 04:43 PM
- By sinime in forum iPhone Apps & GamesReplies: 1Last Post: 10-15-2011, 07:06 AM
- By TheDot in forum iPhone 4Replies: 26Last Post: 01-11-2007, 11:25 PM
- By Jeff DLB in forum iPhone 4Replies: 2Last Post: 01-10-2007, 07:40 AM
LINK TO POST COPIED TO CLIPBOARD