f



Aggressive Mac App Store pricing

Aperture 3: $80
Individual iWork apps: $20
Individual iLife apps: $15

The 'Buy Now' links on Apple's web pages for these apps now take you 
directly to the App Store.

And while Apple is leading the way with new pricing, they're not alone:

Autodesk Sketchbook Pro: $30 (MSRP was $80)

This is clearly the new model: make apps dead simple to find, pay for, 
and install. Slash prices. Users pay less for apps. Developers make more 
money overall as a consequence of higher volume.

Some Mac traditional Mac developers seems to be holding back and 
maintaining their existing prices for the App Store versions of their 
apps, e.g. BBEdit is still $99. It will be interesting to see how that 
evolves. It might be the case that more specialty apps are better off 
sticking with more traditional price points.

-- 
"The game of professional investment is intolerably boring and over-exacting to
anyone who is entirely exempt from the gambling instinct; whilst he who has it
must pay to this propensity the appropriate toll." -- John Maynard Keynes
0
ZnU
1/6/2011 6:23:25 PM
comp.sys.mac.advocacy 34242 articles. 0 followers. Post Follow

19 Replies
814 Views

Similar Articles

[PageSpeed] 46

In article <znu-32D122.13232506012011@Port80.Individual.NET>,
 ZnU <znu@fake.invalid> wrote:

> Aperture 3: $80
> Individual iWork apps: $20
> Individual iLife apps: $15
> 
> The 'Buy Now' links on Apple's web pages for these apps now take you 
> directly to the App Store.
> 
> And while Apple is leading the way with new pricing, they're not alone:
> 
> Autodesk Sketchbook Pro: $30 (MSRP was $80)
> 
> This is clearly the new model: make apps dead simple to find, pay for, 
> and install. Slash prices. Users pay less for apps. Developers make more 
> money overall as a consequence of higher volume.
> 
> Some Mac traditional Mac developers seems to be holding back and 
> maintaining their existing prices for the App Store versions of their 
> apps, e.g. BBEdit is still $99. It will be interesting to see how that 
> evolves. It might be the case that more specialty apps are better off 
> sticking with more traditional price points.

I like what appears to be a step in the right direction.

I would have loved to have had this a bit ago.  I bought iWork for Pages 
and Numbers and don't need/want Keynote.  This could have saved me money.

-- 
Lloyd


0
Lloyd
1/6/2011 6:57:08 PM
In article <znu-32D122.13232506012011@Port80.Individual.NET>, ZnU
<znu@fake.invalid> wrote:

> This is clearly the new model: make apps dead simple to find, pay for, 
> and install. Slash prices. Users pay less for apps. Developers make more 
> money overall as a consequence of higher volume.
> 
That's been the main draw for me of STEAM: the stuff they put on sale
is damned cheap (Civ iV, all it's expansions, and Colonization for $10?
Sweet!). The other online sites also keep some prices down. Don't
expect to see everything in the App Store, though. Some publishers have
said they don't put their stuff on STEAM because Valve is their
competitor, and Valve sees Apple the same way. I doubt we'll be able to
get Portal 2 through the App Store... 

> Some Mac traditional Mac developers seems to be holding back and 
> maintaining their existing prices for the App Store versions of their 
> apps, e.g. BBEdit is still $99. It will be interesting to see how that 
> evolves. It might be the case that more specialty apps are better off 
> sticking with more traditional price points.

It will be interesting to see how this shakes out. If nothing else,
it'll now be easier to find out what in fact is available for the Mac

-- 
Chris Mack       "If we show any weakness, the monsters will get cocky!"
'Invid Fan'             - 'Yokai Monsters Along With Ghosts'
0
Invid
1/6/2011 6:57:42 PM
On Jan 6, 11:57=A0am, Lloyd Parsons <lloydpars...@mac.com> wrote:
> In article <znu-32D122.13232506012...@Port80.Individual.NET>,
>
>
>
>
>
> =A0ZnU <z...@fake.invalid> wrote:
> > Aperture 3: $80
> > Individual iWork apps: $20
> > Individual iLife apps: $15
>
> > The 'Buy Now' links on Apple's web pages for these apps now take you
> > directly to the App Store.
>
> > And while Apple is leading the way with new pricing, they're not alone:
>
> > Autodesk Sketchbook Pro: $30 (MSRP was $80)
>
> > This is clearly the new model: make apps dead simple to find, pay for,
> > and install. Slash prices. Users pay less for apps. Developers make mor=
e
> > money overall as a consequence of higher volume.
>
> > Some Mac traditional Mac developers seems to be holding back and
> > maintaining their existing prices for the App Store versions of their
> > apps, e.g. BBEdit is still $99. It will be interesting to see how that
> > evolves. It might be the case that more specialty apps are better off
> > sticking with more traditional price points.
>
> I like what appears to be a step in the right direction.
>
> I would have loved to have had this a bit ago. =A0I bought iWork for Page=
s
> and Numbers and don't need/want Keynote. =A0This could have saved me mone=
y.


IMO  Keynote is the best app in that site, especially if you really
delve into it.
0
Steve
1/6/2011 7:04:28 PM
In article <znu-32D122.13232506012011@Port80.Individual.NET>,
 ZnU <znu@fake.invalid> wrote:

> Aperture 3: $80
> Individual iWork apps: $20
> Individual iLife apps: $15
> 
> The 'Buy Now' links on Apple's web pages for these apps now take you 
> directly to the App Store.
> 
> And while Apple is leading the way with new pricing, they're not alone:
> 
> Autodesk Sketchbook Pro: $30 (MSRP was $80)

Indeed. My problem now is that my iTunes account is tied to my 
personal debit card, while I buy apps with my company card. iTunes 
should support multiple cards on file and the user could choose per 
purchase which to use.

> This is clearly the new model: make apps dead simple to find, pay for, 
> and install. Slash prices. Users pay less for apps. Developers make more 
> money overall as a consequence of higher volume.
> 
> Some Mac traditional Mac developers seems to be holding back and 
> maintaining their existing prices for the App Store versions of their 
> apps, e.g. BBEdit is still $99. It will be interesting to see how that 
> evolves. It might be the case that more specialty apps are better off 
> sticking with more traditional price points.

BBEdit is worth $199, so.. :)

And I noticed that the App Store correctly noticed that I already have 
Pages, Keynote and such installed, but not Evernote (even though I 
had). Removing my local copy and "buying" the free Evernote app 
downloaded it to the exact same place, so maybe this auto-detect only 
works for Apple apps?

Wait no, Things is correctly marked as being installed, so what does 
this mean?

I'm assuming/hoping that even though I haven't bought Things through 
the App Store, it will keep track of new versions for me.



-- 
Sandman[.net]
0
Sandman
1/6/2011 7:09:41 PM
In article <060120111357424226%invid@loclanet.com>,
 Invid Fan <invid@loclanet.com> wrote:

> > This is clearly the new model: make apps dead simple to find, pay for, 
> > and install. Slash prices. Users pay less for apps. Developers make more 
> > money overall as a consequence of higher volume.
> > 
> That's been the main draw for me of STEAM: the stuff they put on sale
> is damned cheap (Civ iV, all it's expansions, and Colonization for $10?
> Sweet!). The other online sites also keep some prices down. Don't
> expect to see everything in the App Store, though. Some publishers have
> said they don't put their stuff on STEAM because Valve is their
> competitor, and Valve sees Apple the same way. I doubt we'll be able to
> get Portal 2 through the App Store... 

I wouldn't expect it there either. The App Store is fine for the 
smaller Angry Birds kind of games I suppose, but Steam is really 
perfect for the large games.

> > Some Mac traditional Mac developers seems to be holding back and 
> > maintaining their existing prices for the App Store versions of their 
> > apps, e.g. BBEdit is still $99. It will be interesting to see how that 
> > evolves. It might be the case that more specialty apps are better off 
> > sticking with more traditional price points.
> 
> It will be interesting to see how this shakes out. If nothing else,
> it'll now be easier to find out what in fact is available for the Mac

Indeed. And to keep it all updated I gather...



-- 
Sandman[.net]
0
Sandman
1/6/2011 7:17:14 PM
Sandman stated in post mr-02F9DA.20094106012011@News.Individual.NET on
1/6/11 12:09 PM:

> In article <znu-32D122.13232506012011@Port80.Individual.NET>,
>  ZnU <znu@fake.invalid> wrote:
> 
>> Aperture 3: $80
>> Individual iWork apps: $20
>> Individual iLife apps: $15
>> 
>> The 'Buy Now' links on Apple's web pages for these apps now take you
>> directly to the App Store.
>> 
>> And while Apple is leading the way with new pricing, they're not alone:
>> 
>> Autodesk Sketchbook Pro: $30 (MSRP was $80)
> 
> Indeed. My problem now is that my iTunes account is tied to my
> personal debit card, while I buy apps with my company card. iTunes
> should support multiple cards on file and the user could choose per
> purchase which to use.

So remove the card and select on when you use it.  Still, would be best to
be able to have multiple stored... so not really disagreeing.

>> This is clearly the new model: make apps dead simple to find, pay for,
>> and install. Slash prices. Users pay less for apps. Developers make more
>> money overall as a consequence of higher volume.
>> 
>> Some Mac traditional Mac developers seems to be holding back and
>> maintaining their existing prices for the App Store versions of their
>> apps, e.g. BBEdit is still $99. It will be interesting to see how that
>> evolves. It might be the case that more specialty apps are better off
>> sticking with more traditional price points.
> 
> BBEdit is worth $199, so.. :)
> 
> And I noticed that the App Store correctly noticed that I already have
> Pages, Keynote and such installed, but not Evernote (even though I
> had). Removing my local copy and "buying" the free Evernote app
> downloaded it to the exact same place, so maybe this auto-detect only
> works for Apple apps?

Seems that way.

> Wait no, Things is correctly marked as being installed, so what does
> this mean?

Hmmm, odd.

> I'm assuming/hoping that even though I haven't bought Things through
> the App Store, it will keep track of new versions for me.



-- 
[INSERT .SIG HERE]


0
Snit
1/6/2011 7:32:35 PM
Steve Carroll wrote:
> On Jan 6, 11:57 am, Lloyd Parsons <lloydpars...@mac.com> wrote:
>> In article <znu-32D122.13232506012...@Port80.Individual.NET>,
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ZnU <z...@fake.invalid> wrote:
>>> Aperture 3: $80
>>> Individual iWork apps: $20
>>> Individual iLife apps: $15
>>
>>> The 'Buy Now' links on Apple's web pages for these apps now take you
>>> directly to the App Store.
>>
>>> And while Apple is leading the way with new pricing, they're not
>>> alone:
>>
>>> Autodesk Sketchbook Pro: $30 (MSRP was $80)
>>
>>> This is clearly the new model: make apps dead simple to find, pay
>>> for, and install. Slash prices. Users pay less for apps. Developers
>>> make more money overall as a consequence of higher volume.
>>
>>> Some Mac traditional Mac developers seems to be holding back and
>>> maintaining their existing prices for the App Store versions of
>>> their apps, e.g. BBEdit is still $99. It will be interesting to see
>>> how that evolves. It might be the case that more specialty apps are
>>> better off sticking with more traditional price points.
>>
>> I like what appears to be a step in the right direction.
>>
>> I would have loved to have had this a bit ago. I bought iWork for
>> Pages and Numbers and don't need/want Keynote. This could have saved
>> me money.
>
>
> IMO  Keynote is the best app in that site, especially if you really
> delve into it.

The whole site is better than the Microsoft and Linux sites.

-- 
You Ain't the Biggest Fish in the Crotch 


0
Big
1/6/2011 7:34:35 PM
On Jan 6, 12:09=A0pm, Sandman <m...@sandman.net> wrote:
> In article <znu-32D122.13232506012...@Port80.Individual.NET>,
>
> =A0ZnU <z...@fake.invalid> wrote:
> > Aperture 3: $80
> > Individual iWork apps: $20
> > Individual iLife apps: $15
>
> > The 'Buy Now' links on Apple's web pages for these apps now take you
> > directly to the App Store.
>
> > And while Apple is leading the way with new pricing, they're not alone:
>
> > Autodesk Sketchbook Pro: $30 (MSRP was $80)
>
> Indeed. My problem now is that my iTunes account is tied to my
> personal debit card, while I buy apps with my company card. iTunes
> should support multiple cards on file and the user could choose per
> purchase which to use.
>
> > This is clearly the new model: make apps dead simple to find, pay for,
> > and install. Slash prices. Users pay less for apps. Developers make mor=
e
> > money overall as a consequence of higher volume.
>
> > Some Mac traditional Mac developers seems to be holding back and
> > maintaining their existing prices for the App Store versions of their
> > apps, e.g. BBEdit is still $99. It will be interesting to see how that
> > evolves. It might be the case that more specialty apps are better off
> > sticking with more traditional price points.
>
> BBEdit is worth $199, so.. :)
>
> And I noticed that the App Store correctly noticed that I already have
> Pages, Keynote and such installed, but not Evernote (even though I
> had). Removing my local copy and "buying" the free Evernote app
> downloaded it to the exact same place, so maybe this auto-detect only
> works for Apple apps?

It detected BBEDIt on mine.

> Wait no, Things is correctly marked as being installed, so what does
> this mean?

That's it may not work on free apps that were previously installed?


> I'm assuming/hoping that even though I haven't bought Things through
> the App Store, it will keep track of new versions for me.
>
> --
> Sandman[.net]

0
Steve
1/6/2011 8:04:22 PM
On Jan 6, 2:04=A0pm, Steve Carroll <fretwiz...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jan 6, 11:57=A0am, Lloyd Parsons <lloydpars...@mac.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > In article <znu-32D122.13232506012...@Port80.Individual.NET>,
>
> > =A0ZnU <z...@fake.invalid> wrote:
> > > Aperture 3: $80
> > > Individual iWork apps: $20
> > > Individual iLife apps: $15
>
> > > The 'Buy Now' links on Apple's web pages for these apps now take you
> > > directly to the App Store.
>
> > > And while Apple is leading the way with new pricing, they're not alon=
e:
>
> > > Autodesk Sketchbook Pro: $30 (MSRP was $80)
>
> > > This is clearly the new model: make apps dead simple to find, pay for=
,
> > > and install. Slash prices. Users pay less for apps. Developers make m=
ore
> > > money overall as a consequence of higher volume.
>
> > > Some Mac traditional Mac developers seems to be holding back and
> > > maintaining their existing prices for the App Store versions of their
> > > apps, e.g. BBEdit is still $99. It will be interesting to see how tha=
t
> > > evolves. It might be the case that more specialty apps are better off
> > > sticking with more traditional price points.
>
> > I like what appears to be a step in the right direction.
>
> > I would have loved to have had this a bit ago. =A0I bought iWork for Pa=
ges
> > and Numbers and don't need/want Keynote. =A0This could have saved me mo=
ney.
>
> IMO =A0Keynote is the best app in that site, especially if you really
> delve into it.

LOL!

Use a real office suite please.
0
MuahMan
1/6/2011 11:17:32 PM
In article 
<1c52e6b8-ccdd-4010-b66c-90026fc29e0a@v17g2000vbo.googlegroups.com>,
 MuahMan <muahman@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Jan 6, 2:04�pm, Steve Carroll <fretwiz...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Jan 6, 11:57�am, Lloyd Parsons <lloydpars...@mac.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > > In article <znu-32D122.13232506012...@Port80.Individual.NET>,
> >
> > > �ZnU <z...@fake.invalid> wrote:
> > > > Aperture 3: $80
> > > > Individual iWork apps: $20
> > > > Individual iLife apps: $15
> >
> > > > The 'Buy Now' links on Apple's web pages for these apps now take you
> > > > directly to the App Store.
> >
> > > > And while Apple is leading the way with new pricing, they're not alone:
> >
> > > > Autodesk Sketchbook Pro: $30 (MSRP was $80)
> >
> > > > This is clearly the new model: make apps dead simple to find, pay for,
> > > > and install. Slash prices. Users pay less for apps. Developers make more
> > > > money overall as a consequence of higher volume.
> >
> > > > Some Mac traditional Mac developers seems to be holding back and
> > > > maintaining their existing prices for the App Store versions of their
> > > > apps, e.g. BBEdit is still $99. It will be interesting to see how that
> > > > evolves. It might be the case that more specialty apps are better off
> > > > sticking with more traditional price points.
> >
> > > I like what appears to be a step in the right direction.
> >
> > > I would have loved to have had this a bit ago. �I bought iWork for Pages
> > > and Numbers and don't need/want Keynote. �This could have saved me money.
> >
> > IMO �Keynote is the best app in that site, especially if you really
> > delve into it.
> 
> LOL!
> 
> Use a real office suite please.

While I have Office 2011 for the Mac, I haven't had much of a chance to 
fool around with Powerpoint yet. What I do know is that Keynote is far 
better than earlier versions of Powerpoint.
0
David
1/7/2011 1:13:38 AM
On Jan 6, 8:13=A0pm, David Fritzinger <dfrit...@nospam.mac.com> wrote:
> In article
> <1c52e6b8-ccdd-4010-b66c-90026fc29...@v17g2000vbo.googlegroups.com>,
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> =A0MuahMan <muah...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Jan 6, 2:04 pm, Steve Carroll <fretwiz...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Jan 6, 11:57 am, Lloyd Parsons <lloydpars...@mac.com> wrote:
>
> > > > In article <znu-32D122.13232506012...@Port80.Individual.NET>,
>
> > > > ZnU <z...@fake.invalid> wrote:
> > > > > Aperture 3: $80
> > > > > Individual iWork apps: $20
> > > > > Individual iLife apps: $15
>
> > > > > The 'Buy Now' links on Apple's web pages for these apps now take =
you
> > > > > directly to the App Store.
>
> > > > > And while Apple is leading the way with new pricing, they're not =
alone:
>
> > > > > Autodesk Sketchbook Pro: $30 (MSRP was $80)
>
> > > > > This is clearly the new model: make apps dead simple to find, pay=
 for,
> > > > > and install. Slash prices. Users pay less for apps. Developers ma=
ke more
> > > > > money overall as a consequence of higher volume.
>
> > > > > Some Mac traditional Mac developers seems to be holding back and
> > > > > maintaining their existing prices for the App Store versions of t=
heir
> > > > > apps, e.g. BBEdit is still $99. It will be interesting to see how=
 that
> > > > > evolves. It might be the case that more specialty apps are better=
 off
> > > > > sticking with more traditional price points.
>
> > > > I like what appears to be a step in the right direction.
>
> > > > I would have loved to have had this a bit ago. I bought iWork for P=
ages
> > > > and Numbers and don't need/want Keynote. This could have saved me m=
oney.
>
> > > IMO Keynote is the best app in that site, especially if you really
> > > delve into it.
>
> > LOL!
>
> > Use a real office suite please.
>
> While I have Office 2011 for the Mac, I haven't had much of a chance to
> fool around with Powerpoint yet. What I do know is that Keynote is far
> better than earlier versions of Powerpoint.

Yeah, that's why it's penetrated the enterprise so deeply.
Bwahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
0
MuahMan
1/7/2011 2:10:20 AM
On 1/6/11 8:10 PM, MuahMan wrote:
>
> Yeah, that's why it's penetrated the enterprise so deeply.

Why are you mentioning deep penetration in a Mac group?
0
Chance
1/7/2011 2:54:27 AM
In article <mr-02F9DA.20094106012011@News.Individual.NET>,
 Sandman <mr@sandman.net> wrote:

> In article <znu-32D122.13232506012011@Port80.Individual.NET>,
>  ZnU <znu@fake.invalid> wrote:
> 
> > Aperture 3: $80
> > Individual iWork apps: $20
> > Individual iLife apps: $15
> > 
> > The 'Buy Now' links on Apple's web pages for these apps now take you 
> > directly to the App Store.
> > 
> > And while Apple is leading the way with new pricing, they're not alone:
> > 
> > Autodesk Sketchbook Pro: $30 (MSRP was $80)
> 
> Indeed. My problem now is that my iTunes account is tied to my 
> personal debit card, while I buy apps with my company card. iTunes 
> should support multiple cards on file and the user could choose per 
> purchase which to use.
> 
> > This is clearly the new model: make apps dead simple to find, pay for, 
> > and install. Slash prices. Users pay less for apps. Developers make more 
> > money overall as a consequence of higher volume.
> > 
> > Some Mac traditional Mac developers seems to be holding back and 
> > maintaining their existing prices for the App Store versions of their 
> > apps, e.g. BBEdit is still $99. It will be interesting to see how that 
> > evolves. It might be the case that more specialty apps are better off 
> > sticking with more traditional price points.
> 
> BBEdit is worth $199, so.. :)
> 
> And I noticed that the App Store correctly noticed that I already have 
> Pages, Keynote and such installed, but not Evernote (even though I 
> had). Removing my local copy and "buying" the free Evernote app 
> downloaded it to the exact same place, so maybe this auto-detect only 
> works for Apple apps?
> 
> Wait no, Things is correctly marked as being installed, so what does 
> this mean?
> 
> I'm assuming/hoping that even though I haven't bought Things through 
> the App Store, it will keep track of new versions for me.

Apparently it only keeps track of new versions for apps purchased 
through the app store. This initially seemed silly to me, but the more I 
think about it, the more sense it makes. I suspect they're just 
detecting installed apps via bundle IDs. This has a couple of 
limitations. First off, you can't use it to tell whether apps were 
purchased legally. It probably wouldn't be a great idea for the app 
store to helpfully offer up updates for pirated apps.

Secondly, just looking at the bundle ID doesn't necessarily tell Apple 
if an app store version of an app is a drop-in replacement for what the 
user already has installed. Should the app store really have a feature 
that deletes existing apps on systems and replaces them with app store 
versions, when Apple doesn't necessarily have any clue exactly what 
third-party developers might have done in terms of installing support 
files in non-standard locations, etc.? (Remember, third-parties can't, 
AFAIK, write custom installer scripts, etc. for app store apps).


On another note, I wonder if the Mac app store will eventually support 
paid upgrades. With Apple putting apps as significant as Aperture in it, 
you'd think so. But on the other hand, they've cut the price of a full 
version of Aperture to about what the street price of an upgrade used to 
be; maybe that's their solution. It makes a certain odd kind of sense.

-- 
"The game of professional investment is intolerably boring and over-exacting to
anyone who is entirely exempt from the gambling instinct; whilst he who has it
must pay to this propensity the appropriate toll." -- John Maynard Keynes
0
ZnU
1/7/2011 5:31:59 AM
In article <znu-FEA01F.00315907012011@Port80.Individual.NET>,
 ZnU <znu@fake.invalid> wrote:

> > I'm assuming/hoping that even though I haven't bought Things through 
> > the App Store, it will keep track of new versions for me.
> 
> Apparently it only keeps track of new versions for apps purchased 
> through the app store. This initially seemed silly to me, but the more I 
> think about it, the more sense it makes. I suspect they're just 
> detecting installed apps via bundle IDs. This has a couple of 
> limitations. First off, you can't use it to tell whether apps were 
> purchased legally. It probably wouldn't be a great idea for the app 
> store to helpfully offer up updates for pirated apps.

Why not? I mean, most, if not all, apps offer in-app update processes 
(through Sparkle or likewise) that will update my supposedly pirated 
app automatically anyway. Doing this through the App Store just makes 
it easier to do in batch, so I don't always find a new version every 
time I launch a rarely-used application.

Do we know whether there is any DRM in Mac App Store apps? I've only 
bought one app so far and it didn't ask about any serial number or 
anything like that. Was it just automatically entered for me?

> Secondly, just looking at the bundle ID doesn't necessarily tell Apple 
> if an app store version of an app is a drop-in replacement for what the 
> user already has installed. Should the app store really have a feature 
> that deletes existing apps on systems and replaces them with app store 
> versions, when Apple doesn't necessarily have any clue exactly what 
> third-party developers might have done in terms of installing support 
> files in non-standard locations, etc.? (Remember, third-parties can't, 
> AFAIK, write custom installer scripts, etc. for app store apps).

Actually, the bundle ID *and* the version number has to be identical 
to the App Store app, which implies that it's the same identical app...

> On another note, I wonder if the Mac app store will eventually support 
> paid upgrades. With Apple putting apps as significant as Aperture in it, 
> you'd think so. But on the other hand, they've cut the price of a full 
> version of Aperture to about what the street price of an upgrade used to 
> be; maybe that's their solution. It makes a certain odd kind of sense.

So Aperture 4 would be a separate app? Unlikely...





-- 
Sandman[.net]
0
Sandman
1/7/2011 7:19:11 AM
On Jan 7, 12:31=A0am, ZnU <z...@fake.invalid> wrote:
> In article <mr-02F9DA.20094106012...@News.Individual.NET>,
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> =A0Sandman <m...@sandman.net> wrote:
> > In article <znu-32D122.13232506012...@Port80.Individual.NET>,
> > =A0ZnU <z...@fake.invalid> wrote:
>
> > > Aperture 3: $80
> > > Individual iWork apps: $20
> > > Individual iLife apps: $15
>
> > > The 'Buy Now' links on Apple's web pages for these apps now take you
> > > directly to the App Store.
>
> > > And while Apple is leading the way with new pricing, they're not alon=
e:
>
> > > Autodesk Sketchbook Pro: $30 (MSRP was $80)
>
> > Indeed. My problem now is that my iTunes account is tied to my
> > personal debit card, while I buy apps with my company card. iTunes
> > should support multiple cards on file and the user could choose per
> > purchase which to use.
>
> > > This is clearly the new model: make apps dead simple to find, pay for=
,
> > > and install. Slash prices. Users pay less for apps. Developers make m=
ore
> > > money overall as a consequence of higher volume.
>
> > > Some Mac traditional Mac developers seems to be holding back and
> > > maintaining their existing prices for the App Store versions of their
> > > apps, e.g. BBEdit is still $99. It will be interesting to see how tha=
t
> > > evolves. It might be the case that more specialty apps are better off
> > > sticking with more traditional price points.
>
> > BBEdit is worth $199, so.. :)
>
> > And I noticed that the App Store correctly noticed that I already have
> > Pages, Keynote and such installed, but not Evernote (even though I
> > had). Removing my local copy and "buying" the free Evernote app
> > downloaded it to the exact same place, so maybe this auto-detect only
> > works for Apple apps?
>
> > Wait no, Things is correctly marked as being installed, so what does
> > this mean?
>
> > I'm assuming/hoping that even though I haven't bought Things through
> > the App Store, it will keep track of new versions for me.
>
> Apparently it only keeps track of new versions for apps purchased
> through the app store. This initially seemed silly to me, but the more I
> think about it, the more sense it makes. I suspect they're just
> detecting installed apps via bundle IDs. This has a couple of
> limitations. First off, you can't use it to tell whether apps were
> purchased legally. It probably wouldn't be a great idea for the app
> store to helpfully offer up updates for pirated apps.
>
> Secondly, just looking at the bundle ID doesn't necessarily tell Apple
> if an app store version of an app is a drop-in replacement for what the
> user already has installed. Should the app store really have a feature
> that deletes existing apps on systems and replaces them with app store
> versions, when Apple doesn't necessarily have any clue exactly what
> third-party developers might have done in terms of installing support
> files in non-standard locations, etc.? (Remember, third-parties can't,
> AFAIK, write custom installer scripts, etc. for app store apps).
>
> On another note, I wonder if the Mac app store will eventually support
> paid upgrades. With Apple putting apps as significant as Aperture in it,
> you'd think so. But on the other hand, they've cut the price of a full
> version of Aperture to about what the street price of an upgrade used to
> be; maybe that's their solution. It makes a certain odd kind of sense.
>
> --
> "The game of professional investment is intolerably boring and over-exact=
ing to
> anyone who is entirely exempt from the gambling instinct; whilst he who h=
as it
> must pay to this propensity the appropriate toll." -- John Maynard Keynes

Aperture significant. LOL

You made another funny.
0
MuahMan
1/7/2011 8:38:54 AM
In article <mr-C9E0FF.08191107012011@News.Individual.NET>,
 Sandman <mr@sandman.net> wrote:

> In article <znu-FEA01F.00315907012011@Port80.Individual.NET>,
>  ZnU <znu@fake.invalid> wrote:
> 
> > > I'm assuming/hoping that even though I haven't bought Things through 
> > > the App Store, it will keep track of new versions for me.
> > 
> > Apparently it only keeps track of new versions for apps purchased 
> > through the app store. This initially seemed silly to me, but the more I 
> > think about it, the more sense it makes. I suspect they're just 
> > detecting installed apps via bundle IDs. This has a couple of 
> > limitations. First off, you can't use it to tell whether apps were 
> > purchased legally. It probably wouldn't be a great idea for the app 
> > store to helpfully offer up updates for pirated apps.
> 
> Why not? I mean, most, if not all, apps offer in-app update processes 
> (through Sparkle or likewise) that will update my supposedly pirated 
> app automatically anyway. Doing this through the App Store just makes 
> it easier to do in batch, so I don't always find a new version every 
> time I launch a rarely-used application.
> 
> Do we know whether there is any DRM in Mac App Store apps? I've only 
> bought one app so far and it didn't ask about any serial number or 
> anything like that. Was it just automatically entered for me?

For each app you buy, the App Store infrastructure deposits a receipt 
file on your hard drive, cryptographically signed by Apple, that records 
that that particular app was purchased by a particular iTunes account. 
Developers can have their apps check that file to confirm the app was 
purchased validly by the current user.

Some developers seem to have screwed this process up with their first 
App Store versions, leaving their apps essentially unprotected:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/01/07/app_store_receipt_fail/

It's not clear what Apple's policy is with respect to developers who 
might want to deliberately eschew copy protection. Hopefully they'll 
allow that. From a technical perspective it's certainly easy; just write 
an app that doesn't check for a receipt file.

I'm sure it won't be long before this whole system gets cracked, of 
course. It happens to every copy protection scheme. The app store will 
likely still be a net win for reducing piracy, just because it makes it 
so much more convenient to buy apps legitimately.

> > Secondly, just looking at the bundle ID doesn't necessarily tell Apple 
> > if an app store version of an app is a drop-in replacement for what the 
> > user already has installed. Should the app store really have a feature 
> > that deletes existing apps on systems and replaces them with app store 
> > versions, when Apple doesn't necessarily have any clue exactly what 
> > third-party developers might have done in terms of installing support 
> > files in non-standard locations, etc.? (Remember, third-parties can't, 
> > AFAIK, write custom installer scripts, etc. for app store apps).
> 
> Actually, the bundle ID *and* the version number has to be identical 
> to the App Store app, which implies that it's the same identical app...

Obviously for offering updates, it doesn't make any sense to only offer 
one if the version number of the app store app is identical to the 
version number of the installed app, because if that's the case no 
update would be required in the first place.

One could come up with various more elaborate mechanisms to deal with 
these problems, like allowing developers to provide a list of version 
strings eligible for update, but Apple likes to keep things simple, 
especially for first releases.

And this wouldn't address the piracy issue either. Let's say a user 
starts off with a stolen copy of BBEdit. The app store recognizes the 
user has BBEdit and happily feeds them an upgrade for it... along with a 
nice receipt file (see above) that henceforth makes it impossible to 
tell, through any technical mechanism, from a legal copy. And because in 
the pre app store world there was no standardized copy protection 
mechanism on the Mac, there's no way Apple could somehow validate copies 
of their apps before the app store offered updates, unless Apple allowed 
developers to write custom code that executed on the user's system to 
check -- which is a bad idea for all sorts of obvious reasons.

> > On another note, I wonder if the Mac app store will eventually support 
> > paid upgrades. With Apple putting apps as significant as Aperture in it, 
> > you'd think so. But on the other hand, they've cut the price of a full 
> > version of Aperture to about what the street price of an upgrade used to 
> > be; maybe that's their solution. It makes a certain odd kind of sense.
> 
> So Aperture 4 would be a separate app? Unlikely...

I usually have a pretty decent feel for Apple's thinking, and I 
seriously wouldn't rule out that possibility. But I wouldn't rule out 
alternatives either; it's hard to say exactly which way Apple will go 
here.

-- 
"The game of professional investment is intolerably boring and over-exacting to
anyone who is entirely exempt from the gambling instinct; whilst he who has it
must pay to this propensity the appropriate toll." -- John Maynard Keynes
0
ZnU
1/8/2011 1:08:02 AM
In article <znu-AE079A.20080207012011@Port80.Individual.NET>,
 ZnU <znu@fake.invalid> wrote:

> In article <mr-C9E0FF.08191107012011@News.Individual.NET>,
>  Sandman <mr@sandman.net> wrote:

[snip]
 
> > So Aperture 4 would be a separate app? Unlikely...
> 
> I usually have a pretty decent feel for Apple's thinking, and I 
> seriously wouldn't rule out that possibility. But I wouldn't rule out 
> alternatives either; it's hard to say exactly which way Apple will go 
> here.

It occurs to me, Apple has already sold iWork and iLife on the 'no 
upgrade pricing' model for years. Aperture had upgrade pricing when it 
was $199, but now it's $80, the same price iWork was until the App 
Store. Which means Apple would probably be completely comfortable not 
offering upgrade pricing on Aperture anymore.

If they want to eventually stick the $999 Final Cut Studio in the App 
Store, however, I think at that point they'd need to offer upgrade 
pricing. I mean, unless they want to just cut FCP's price to $299 (the 
current upgrade price), which I almost believe Apple is crazy enough to 
do. Especially as they could also probably safely cancel the $199 Final 
Cut Express at that point. Apple really likes simple product lines. And 
Apple has sort of been neglecting Final Cut Express lately, which would 
make sense if they were planning to eliminate the product in favor of 
lower pricing on the next version of Final Cut Studio.

-- 
"The game of professional investment is intolerably boring and over-exacting to
anyone who is entirely exempt from the gambling instinct; whilst he who has it
must pay to this propensity the appropriate toll." -- John Maynard Keynes
0
ZnU
1/8/2011 5:26:34 PM
In message <znu-68DC58.12263408012011@Port80.Individual.NET> 
  ZnU <znu@fake.invalid> wrote:
> In article <znu-AE079A.20080207012011@Port80.Individual.NET>,
>  ZnU <znu@fake.invalid> wrote:

>> In article <mr-C9E0FF.08191107012011@News.Individual.NET>,
>>  Sandman <mr@sandman.net> wrote:

> [snip]
>  
>> > So Aperture 4 would be a separate app? Unlikely...
>> 
>> I usually have a pretty decent feel for Apple's thinking, and I 
>> seriously wouldn't rule out that possibility. But I wouldn't rule out 
>> alternatives either; it's hard to say exactly which way Apple will go 
>> here.

> It occurs to me, Apple has already sold iWork and iLife on the 'no 
> upgrade pricing' model for years. Aperture had upgrade pricing when it 
> was $199, but now it's $80, the same price iWork was until the App 
> Store. Which means Apple would probably be completely comfortable not 
> offering upgrade pricing on Aperture anymore.

> If they want to eventually stick the $999 Final Cut Studio in the App 
> Store, however, I think at that point they'd need to offer upgrade 
> pricing. I mean, unless they want to just cut FCP's price to $299 (the 
> current upgrade price), which I almost believe Apple is crazy enough to 
> do. Especially as they could also probably safely cancel the $199 Final 
> Cut Express at that point. Apple really likes simple product lines. And 
> Apple has sort of been neglecting Final Cut Express lately, which would 
> make sense if they were planning to eliminate the product in favor of 
> lower pricing on the next version of Final Cut Studio.

I think we'll see $299 Final Cut and $99 Final Cut Express at the next
version. I do not think Apple will allow update sales in the Mac App
Store unless there is a huge groundswell of users demanding it.

And I doubt that will happen.

Interesting that you can finally buy Pages without buying Numbers of
Keynote though...

-- 
Chefet, Chefet, thought Dios. Maker of rings, weaver of metal. Now he's
out of our heads, and see how his nails grow into claws... 
0
Lewis
1/9/2011 4:47:49 AM
In article <znu-AE079A.20080207012011@Port80.Individual.NET>,
 ZnU <znu@fake.invalid> wrote:

> > > Secondly, just looking at the bundle ID doesn't necessarily tell Apple 
> > > if an app store version of an app is a drop-in replacement for what the 
> > > user already has installed. Should the app store really have a feature 
> > > that deletes existing apps on systems and replaces them with app store 
> > > versions, when Apple doesn't necessarily have any clue exactly what 
> > > third-party developers might have done in terms of installing support 
> > > files in non-standard locations, etc.? (Remember, third-parties can't, 
> > > AFAIK, write custom installer scripts, etc. for app store apps).
> > 
> > Actually, the bundle ID *and* the version number has to be identical 
> > to the App Store app, which implies that it's the same identical app...
> 
> Obviously for offering updates, it doesn't make any sense to only offer 
> one if the version number of the app store app is identical to the 
> version number of the installed app, because if that's the case no 
> update would be required in the first place.
> 
> One could come up with various more elaborate mechanisms to deal with 
> these problems, like allowing developers to provide a list of version 
> strings eligible for update, but Apple likes to keep things simple, 
> especially for first releases.
> 
> And this wouldn't address the piracy issue either. Let's say a user 
> starts off with a stolen copy of BBEdit. The app store recognizes the 
> user has BBEdit and happily feeds them an upgrade for it... along with a 
> nice receipt file (see above)

Hmmm, the receipt would only be there if I did the actual purchase 
through the App Store, not any updates.

Basically, Apple should push the responsibility for checking for 
piracy copies over to the developer, not the App Store. So if 
Barebones offers BBEdit in and out of the App Store, a pirated version 
of BBEdit would have the pirated serial number stored just like a 
normal serial number and if Barebones wnated to fight piracy, it would 
check that serial number towards an internal DB of pirated serial 
numbers - like they've done for ages. If the App Store receipt exist, 
no check needs to be done at all.

And when there is a new version of the App through the App Store, and 
the user downloads it, the new DB with pirated serial numbers (inside 
BBEdit) would follow along and BBEdit could block the app, telling the 
user to delete the app from the harddrive and then buy it from the App 
Store.

<snip>



-- 
Sandman[.net]
0
Sandman
1/10/2011 8:42:06 AM
Reply: