[jfmaddocks1]

Well written article Dan. The laborer is worthy of his hire, and though I paid $3 for the original version of Tweetie, just a few months ago, I am glad to support Loren in his continued efforts to update the program.

[hayesk]

metalhaze, on 01 October 2009 - 06:58 AM, said:

I bought the 10 dollar MLB app and since it's conception has had numerous huge upgrades (live audio broadcast, video highlights of plays 5 minutes after they happen, condensed games the day after the broadcast, and even LIVE GAMES!) AND I NEVER HAD TO PAY FOR AN UPGRADE, EVER

And Tweetie 1 has had several free updates. What's your point? And you will have to pay MLB next year, when the new season starts.

Quote

What the the hell makes Tweetie so f'ing special? Everything the MLB app did was 10 times more intensive and required alot more work than taking a FREE API from a FREE SERVICE (Twitter) and then double charging it's loyal consumer fanbase.

The MLB app is not 10 times more intensive - it is simply downloading and presenting data that is already on MLB's servers because they are using that data for other services they charge for. Sure they did some formatting specifically for iPhone, but it really isn't that different. And note that MLB charges $10 for the season, and you'll have to pay again next year. You can continue to use Tweetie 1 forever. You can't do the same with the MLB app.

Quote

It's not like they slaved over their own proprietary software for some unique and original application! All they did was add missing features (using other free services) to their application

Proprietary has nothing to do with. Writing an iPhone app is hard work, no matter where the data comes from. If you disagree, try it yourself. Do you really think he slapped this together in a day?

Quote

THEY EXPECT US TO PAY FOR THAT S*@!??!

You have a odd and ignorant definition of s**t.

Quote

I will stick with Twitterrific thanks. Tweetie can suck it as far as I am concerned.

Stick with Twitterrific then. But your post says a lot more about you than it does the author of Tweetie.

[richardl]

The App Store actually does now have a way to sell upgrades.

First the developer distributes a free update to the users of his or her paid app. The update contains all the features of the previous version plus many new features, but the new features are locked and unavailable. The developer can now use In App Purchasing to unlock the additional 2.0 features for a fee (presumably less than the original cost of the app). In App Purchasing can be used to unlock app features, or game levels in apps as well as many other things like digital content and digital services.

The developer could also sell a new app (call it "App 2") with all the new features already enabled for new customers.

[tayker]

With the economy the way it is, $3 to some people is a significant amount. So I think it's crass for some people to name-call without knowing a person's situation.

For me, it's about capability. I use Adium and Pidgin because I have friends and family that use AIM, GChat, icq, MSN, etc. Likewise, I have friends and family that update via Twitter, Jaiku, Plurk, and Myspace and Facebook statuses, so I rely on sites like Ping.fm and hellotxt.com. Tweetie is the only app I have found that has direct (i.e. not via a third party site requiring an additional login) support for Ping.fm. So, if Tweetie 2 has Ping.fm support then I will be upgrading.

[hagen]

$3 people. get a life. money owed for value given. and only $3. The once proud US culture: work hard and you to can make it has now fully morfed into cheap bstds where you get rich by growing fat watching 'as far from reality' tv while figuring out how you can sue someone as well as steal your next purchase instead of paying for it.

[Dan Frakes]

richardl, on 01 October 2009 - 08:17 PM, said:

The App Store actually does now have a way to sell upgrades.

First the developer distributes a free update to the users of his or her paid app. The update contains all the features of the previous version plus many new features, but the new features are locked and unavailable. The developer can now use In App Purchasing to unlock the additional 2.0 features for a fee (presumably less than the original cost of the app).

You're essentially describing a "lite" version that can be upgraded to a "full" version via In App Purchasing. Apple prohibits devs from using In App Purchasing in this manner.

[richardl]

Dan Frakes, on 02 October 2009 - 10:00 AM, said:

richardl, on 01 October 2009 - 08:17 PM, said:

The App Store actually does now have a way to sell upgrades.

First the developer distributes a free update to the users of his or her paid app. The update contains all the features of the previous version plus many new features, but the new features are locked and unavailable. The developer can now use In App Purchasing to unlock the additional 2.0 features for a fee (presumably less than the original cost of the app).

You're essentially describing a "lite" version that can be upgraded to a "full" version via In App Purchasing. Apple prohibits devs from using In App Purchasing in this manner.

I have heard that now from both you and John Gruber, but where does Apple say that, or where have they shown this to be their policy? To the contrary I can find nothing in the iPhone SDK "In App Purchase Programming Guide", nor did I hear anything to that effect at the WWDC session I attended where they went through what was allowed and not allowed in great detail. Apple makes it clear that apps CAN unlock features through In App purchasing in the very first paragraph of the aforementioned guide.

[richardl]

richardl, on 02 October 2009 - 10:37 AM, said:

Dan Frakes, on 02 October 2009 - 10:00 AM, said:

richardl, on 01 October 2009 - 08:17 PM, said:

The App Store actually does now have a way to sell upgrades.

First the developer distributes a free update to the users of his or her paid app. The update contains all the features of the previous version plus many new features, but the new features are locked and unavailable. The developer can now use In App Purchasing to unlock the additional 2.0 features for a fee (presumably less than the original cost of the app).

You're essentially describing a "lite" version that can be upgraded to a "full" version via In App Purchasing. Apple prohibits devs from using In App Purchasing in this manner.

I have heard that now from both you and John Gruber, but where does Apple say that, or where have they shown this to be their policy? To the contrary I can find nothing in the iPhone SDK "In App Purchase Programming Guide", nor did I hear anything to that effect at the WWDC session I attended where they went through what was allowed and not allowed in great detail. Apple makes it clear that apps CAN unlock features through In App purchasing in the very first paragraph of the aforementioned guide.

I think there is some considerable confusion surrounding this issue. Apple prohibits free apps from using In App Purchase. Period. Apple also prohibits the use of In App Purchase to sell downloadable code such as plug-ins or scripts (but that's always been disallowed). There is NOTHING in the "iPhone Developer Program License Agreement" nor their "In App Purchase Programming Guide" prohibiting the selling of advanced features. To the contrary the Introduction to the "In App Purchase Programming Guide" states:

"For example, you could use In App Purchase to implement any of the following scenarios:
"- A basic version of your application with additional premium features."

That sounds like Apple allows applications to sell "premium" features to me.

This post has been edited by richardl: 02 October 2009 - 11:08 AM

[metalhaze]

Twitter API is free

Twitter is a free service

If he wants to make money, he should make something else.

I don't see how he can justify charging for something that is free.

And that is where my anger stems from. I was reluctant to buy the app the first time around. And now that I did I regret it.

[shota]

Dear Dan, I think your article has less ground behind it than wished for.
Point by point:
1. "...a piddling matter of $3?"
Well, strictly speaking, and assuming all of the current users would like to update, it's not a piddling matter of only $3 that we have at hand, but $3 + $x of whatever initially was paid by the users of Tweetie 1.x.x.
2. "But three dollars, right?..."
We all may attach utility to those $3 differently, and while you are sarcastic about fractions of movie tickets, it could be well reasonable to ponder the fact that not all of the users may be ABLE to provide for an update fee without sacrificing opportunity costs.
3. "And yet, people are exploding all over the Internets—yes, all of them..."
Why are you exaggerating the facts deliberately?
4. "...I attribute much of the criticism to simple ignorance of a few key facts..."
Smacking the label of ignorance on criticism is not the most chivalrous thing to do, Dan. It would be more prudent if you could consider reasoning behind criticism.
5. "...Loren Brichter is not a bazillionaire..."
We are well aware of that. Although, have you considered the fact that neither are the users of Tweetie. While some of us could shell the upgrade fee without much suffering or deliberation, some may face viable budget constraints, and thus UNABLE to upgrade or justify payment of additional $3 for an app they had paid $3 already.
6. "He’s ... trying to make a living by creating software..."
Well, he's not the first one, and he's not the last one. But somehow other small developers who operate facing the same background as Loren do manage to provide free upgrades to their software. How would you explain that?
7. "And that isn’t easy, especially in a market as crowded as the one for iPhone apps..."
I don't think this really adds up to your argumentation. If it is not easy for Loren to compete on the iPhone software market, than either his approach is wrong, or he should refocus on other software markets. Charging additional fees for the upgrade, and having all negative publicity afterward, does not help his market case either.
8. "Brichter’s charging a reasonable amount of money for a product that he’s invested his time and energy into creating..."
You do have a point here. Loren may charge ANY price he wants for the products he develops. It is his privilege, as much as it is user's privilege to point out that he may be wrong in doing so. Why haven't you raised the question that he may have well underpriced the initial release of Tweetie?
9. "The App Store, you see, has very strict rules on pricing..."
Blaming it on App Store rules does not bring any validity to your argumentation either. Let me break it down: Loren may have been well aware of the "no paid updates" policy while releasing Tweetie to the public at $3. As it is clear now, such pricing was outright wrong and could not support his development efforts. So, in reality, did Loren plan to compete with other great Twitter clients by arbitrarily underpricing the release of Tweetie while thinking that he could charge upgrade fees later on? And further, did Loren actually plan to charge the users for subsequent upgrades of his software when he released Tweetie first?
10. "...it would also be great if I didn’t have to slip money in George Lucas’s voluminous coffers..."
You are actually trying to compare black and white here. George Lucas (or any other example you brought) has nothing to do with the reasoning behind charging upgrade fee. I mean, why aren't you considering that you are not paying for every additional chapter of a book, or word, or page for that matter.
11. "...And, while we’re at it, it’d be just fantastic if I didn't have to pay for every major new version of Mac OS X that Apple comes out with..."
So, while you are disapproving of Apple asking for the upgrade price on their software, why do you deviate from your own logic and approve of Loren doing the same?
12. "...They might very well be more willing to give out free updates if you’d paid $10 or $20 upfront, but then again..."
And the users might as well be willing to pay those $10 knowing there would be no additional fees associated with further updates.
13. "Software developers don’t pluck prices out of thin air any more than the grocery store does...."
True, but some of them might face trouble identifying the efficient price.
14. "...Loren’s put a lot of work into the update..."
I have no doubt he had put a lot of work in the previous updates too, and lots and lots of work in releasing Tweetie as such. This is not the matter of developers dedication, passion or hard work. Question is, how justifiable is the upgrade fee that the developer is trying to charge. In fact, this even has nothing to do with Loren himself. Any developer saying they would charge upgrade fees would face the same question.
15. "So there you are. If you want to complain to someone here, complain to Apple..."
Prior to redirecting us to Apple, please consider your argumentation.
16. "But don’t take it out on Loren..."
I trust I am not perceived as taking this out on Loren, but rather the motifs and their justifications...

[IndyJinx]

metalhaze, on 05 October 2009 - 05:26 AM, said:

Twitter API is free

Twitter is a free service

If he wants to make money, he should make something else.

I don't see how he can justify charging for something that is free.

And that is where my anger stems from. I was reluctant to buy the app the first time around. And now that I did I regret it.

You do realize that you don't NEED any app to use twitter right? It can be used via SMS (and indeed was intended to be used that way, hence the character limit) and you're PAYING for the developer providing you with convenience functions? TV over the air is free too. If you can build your own TV from the dust under your couch it's totally free to use. You pay to have someone else build you an interface to make it nice and easy to sit on your couch and watch.

Of course you should probably not listen to me, I also paid for my FREE pandora radio just because I WANT to support these people that are doing wonderful things for me with THEIR time. I also often paid for shareware.

[ctopher]

metalhaze, on 05 October 2009 - 05:26 AM, said:

Twitter API is free

Twitter is a free service

If he wants to make money, he should make something else.

I don't see how he can justify charging for something that is free.

And that is where my anger stems from. I was reluctant to buy the app the first time around. And now that I did I regret it.

I'm going to guess that people who complain about paying for an update are also those people who download movies and music from BitTorrent.

To metalhaze specifically, I wonder why there's anger? Anger over an App? Really? Did you use the software before you found out it was a free service? Do you find that the software doesn't do what you want it to do? Did you learn that the new version DOES do what you want it to do and it does something that the free methods don't and you feel like you were ripped off because the first version didn't do what you wanted it to do?

Caveat emptor baby!

(Translation - Do your homework. No one lied to you.)

I love your statement "If he wants to make money, he should make something else."

Sez you. And who are you to tell people what they can and cannot do to make money? It's the American way to make money by improving something. Even something that starts out free.

But you see he DID make money. He made 3-Bucks off of YOU. Someone who paid without really understanding what they were paying for. Seems like if he wants to make money, he should keep doing what he's doing. It's working!

This post has been edited by ctopher: 05 October 2009 - 11:45 AM

[gmancuso]

metalhaze, on 01 October 2009 - 06:58 AM, said:

I bought the 10 dollar MLB app and since it's conception has had numerous huge upgrades (live audio broadcast, video highlights of plays 5 minutes after they happen, condensed games the day after the broadcast, and even LIVE GAMES!) AND I NEVER HAD TO PAY FOR AN UPGRADE, EVER

What the the hell makes Tweetie so f'ing special? Everything the MLB app did was 10 times more intensive and required alot more work than taking a FREE API from a FREE SERVICE (Twitter) and then double charging it's loyal consumer fanbase.

It's not like they slaved over their own proprietary software for some unique and original application! All they did was add missing features (using other free services) to their application

THEY EXPECT US TO PAY FOR THAT S*@!??!

I will stick with Twitterrific thanks. Tweetie can suck it as far as I am concerned.

Umm... This is an asinine statement. The MLB app you are so proudly putting forth is no better. By your logic all MLB content should be included for free in the MLB app. However, the app is MLB2009, not MLB-In-Perpetuity. I bet there is going to be an MLB2010 as a NEW APP next season. Hell, MLB even has the nerve to charge extra for the World Series coverage. How dare they. I mean, you did buy the MLB app and it's all baseball isn't it?