WTF...Simplify Media now charging for update.

[kas23]

There is a new update for Simplify Media out now; the catch is that they are charging for this update. The original Simplify Media will now be phased-out (no longer updated) and there is now an entirely "new" app for us, called Simplify Media 2.0.

http://appshopper.com/music/simplify-music-20

Now, developers can do/charge what they want, but I just don't like the trend that is occurring - instead of updating an app, some developers are just calling it something new so they can charge for it. We saw the same thing with the change of MobileFiles Pro to QuickOffice Mobile Office Suite. The problem is, what constitutes a big enough update to charge for it? When a developer is low in cash, will they now just make a small change in it and then re-name the app so they can have you re-buy it?

What also ticks me off is that I just downloaded the original Simplify Media app. It was recently on sale and I decided to take the plunge and buy it. I would never have bought it if they were going to discontinue updating it.

 

[thomasanderson]

Now thats funny. Whats even more funny is that this is just the beginning of the price gouging. I cant wait to see how people react when developers start nickel and diming within the app after the 3.0 update hits. I cant wait to get my Pre. LETS GO PALM!

 

[xsecretfiles]

That's horrible

Same thing happen to me with "face melter" now they have a pro version, which is basically the same thing but added youtube upload.

Just because of that I am not longer buying apps that are more than $1. EVER

 

[kas23]

Pisses me off that I just got duped into buying the original version when they put it on sale on 3/23/09. The kicker is, now on the "original" Simplify Media App Store page they just increased the price to $3.99 and state that people should NOT buy it. Their reasoning is because Simplify Media 2.0 is cheaper at $2.99! Well, I don't know what the hell happened over the last 3 hours because 3 hours ago the "original" Simplify Media was the cheaper one (at $0.99) and they were pleading with you to buy it!

Well, FU Simplify Media. I didn't know I was buying an app that was in the bargin bin because it's getting discontinued. I feel bad for the people who actually got into this app and use it often because now you need to re-purchase it. And for those of you who were lucky enough to grab this app at its inception (because it was initially free), you're not so lucky this time.

 

[Tallest Skil]

Now thats funny. Whats even more funny is that this is just the beginning of the price gouging. I cant wait to see how people react when developers start nickel and diming within the app after the 3.0 update hits. I cant wait to get my Pre. LETS GO PALM!

Fortunately, free apps are forced to remain free.

 

[kas23]

That's horrible

Same thing happen to me with "face melter" now they have a pro version, which is basically the same thing but added youtube upload.

Just because of that I am not longer buying apps that are more than $1. EVER

I know it's just a buck and maybe I'm getting my panties in a bunch, but you don't put something on sale to move a product, then without warning, discontinue it 6 days later. If you're going to do this, in the very least say it's discounted because it's going to be discontinued.

Furthermore, I see this as a very slippery slope. They are calling this a x.0 update. Then is this the justification for the re-charging? What happens when developers make a 0.x update and call it a x.0 update, just so they can re-charge you?

 

[kas23]

Fortunately, free apps are forced to remain free.

At first I was against this policy, because I thought it would force developers to charge money for an otherwise free app. But, from seeing what's been going on lately, I see this as a good policy. There WILL be nickel & diming. We will see apps that offer many different versions via subscriptions (which is not its original intent). We WILL see various pricing for different features ("you want the ability to email from this App? Well, that will be an additional $0.99") and we WILL see developers offering every little update via paid subscriptions. The direction the App Store is heading is scary.

 

[Chundles]

I know it's just a buck and maybe I'm getting my panties in a bunch, but you don't put something on sale to move a product, then without warning, discontinue it 6 days later. If you're going to do this, in the very least say it's discounted because it's going to be discontinued.

Furthermore, I see this as a very slippery slope. They are calling this a x.0 update. Then is this the justification for the re-charging? What happens when developers make a 0.x update and call it a x.0 update, just so they can re-charge you?

How does this situation differ from all other software manufacturing?

This is the exact same issue we go through with computer based apps ten times the price of an iPhone app.

So a developer is only meant to make their money once and then update you for free forever? Nobody does this. At some stage they need to make more money to stay viable and to progress their app. The same thing happens in the rest of the software world.

You're not forced to upgrade but if you want all the new whizzbang features somebody has put a lot of time and effort into then you should pay.

If it's a dodgy upgrade then the company is going to cop some serious flak but again this is the same with desktop apps - look at what happened to FileMaker with Bento 2.0. They copped some stick.

Why do people have such different expectations of the way things work on the App Store as opposed to anywhere else? If someone releases a crap paid upgrade or are nickel and diming everyone then their app won't sell and they'll change tack.

 

[Gokunama]

Quite agree, develepors need to see returns for the effort they put into updating apps. I'm sure developers will figure out how much and how often they can charge for updates, as well as what kinds of updates people are willing to pay for.

 

[wooo]

why simplify had to charge

Quite agree, develepors need to see returns for the effort they put into updating apps. I'm sure developers will figure out how much and how often they can charge for updates, as well as what kinds of updates people are willing to pay for.

I've followed Simplify Media's moves very closely (I have a competing product in the store as well). I think they made their first mistake by releasing Simplify Media 1.0 as a free download. They left it that way for so long that probably 90% of people who were interested got it for free... then they started charging, which was fine, since they had a ton of press, and a bunch of happy users. But there was no way that this was sustainable as a free upgrade. The number of downloads per day that they were getting (based on my own estimates from the numbers I've seen when my app's been a bit higher on the top 20 ... it's there now, hopefully to stay was not enough to support continued development. Anyway, I don't know everything about business but I do know you can't make much money giving everything away. That's why I never have, and never will (except when people help me out in some way, and I feel they should be rewarded). Some people have claimed that my own software (I charge for the server end of things) is too much, and that's a fine assessment, but it's a constant and a known. I don't think I'll ever charge for an upgrade of the iPhone app, even with 3.0. I just released 2.0 and it's a free upgrade, and it added a ton of new features. But I didn't have to figure out how to make my "company" profitable, 'cause it was from almost day one, I've invested mostly time and energy, with a bit of investment in the server side infrastructure...

Then again, I don't have as many customers as Simplify (yet) 'cause I don't give stuff away for free. I always fear for the long term viability of "free services" if I can't immediately see their revenue potential. I personally think Simplify should be charging for the Server (and not just cause that will make mine easier to sell).

There's my $3.99... I mean $.02

 

[veeco3110]

honestly i think simplify media is a sweet app. even if i had to pay to use it i would. seriously thousands upon thousands of songs at your disposal without using any physical hard drive space on your phone? thats bad ass. granted battery life is depleted. nothing a quick charge wont fix.

 

[normwood]

Steps onto soap box....

A very small percentage of App developers are just doing it for fun. The majority are business people who are developing apps to make money and put food on their family's tables. Updating apps for free for eternity may get them sales growth, but much smaller growth than creating a new and more improved version and selling it.

This is business.....it's how it works. McDonalds doesn't sell burgers because they like selling burgers...they do it to make money. Most App developers are in the same boat....they create and sell Apps to make money.

If you don't like it...don't buy their product. Voice your opinion with your wallet....but don't throw them under the bus in a public forum because you can't afford $0.99....$1.99.....$2.99...or whatever.

And no....I am not App developer. I am a business person though.

Steps off of soapbox.

Steve

 

[MotionxxUSxx]

you guys are ridiculous. You should be happy you can get some apps for free. In my eyes a developer should be paid for his work. If they want to start charging than that's ok. You should be happy that apps on the iphone are cheap relative to other smartphones. Stop all your crying.

 

[return7]

How does this situation differ from all other software manufacturing?

This is the exact same issue we go through with computer based apps ten times the price of an iPhone app.

So a developer is only meant to make their money once and then update you for free forever? Nobody does this. At some stage they need to make more money to stay viable and to progress their app. The same thing happens in the rest of the software world.

You're not forced to upgrade but if you want all the new whizzbang features somebody has put a lot of time and effort into then you should pay.

If it's a dodgy upgrade then the company is going to cop some serious flak but again this is the same with desktop apps - look at what happened to FileMaker with Bento 2.0. They copped some stick.

Why do people have such different expectations of the way things work on the App Store as opposed to anywhere else? If someone releases a crap paid upgrade or are nickel and diming everyone then their app won't sell and they'll change tack.

QFT. If you do free upgrades forever, you'll just go out of business and then everyone loses. iPhone software is super cheap (relative to desktop software), but that doesn't mean it takes less time to develop. Having said that, it better really be a good 2.0 release w/ a bunch of good features/redesign/something. It's standard practice to give away point releases and charge for major releases.

 

[TulsaWoody]

Wooo

I've been checking out your app and i have a question...is there a limit to the amount of space you give a customer on your server for the $20 fee? Thanks,
Woody

 

[wooo]

I've been checking out your app and i have a question...is there a limit to the amount of space you give a customer on your server for the $20 fee? Thanks,
Woody

Hi Woody,
No, there is no storage at all used anywhere but on your own computer. That's why the setup can be a bit difficult, the ooTunes server is just a fancy webserver that serves up the audio and video in a format the the iPhone can play. So I've had people report using it with absurdly large libraries (on the order of terabytes). If you have a huge library (like more than 100,000 tracks probably) you will need to increase the default memory for the server most likely. The cool thing though is that load time is almost instantaneous, even with large libraries, and even with smart playlists, etc.. There are some other good things that come from using a standards based webserver (aside from it being able to play DRM'd tracks and videos) and that's that it allows background playback (without jailbreaking), by playing in apple's own safari browser... (which does run in the background). This is probably the #1 requested feature I've seen for just about any audio app... but apple simply doesn't allow an app to keep running in the background.

The tradeoff is that it's harder to setup than Simplify (which truly lives up to it's name in that respect!)

Here's a quick demo I recorded the other day... fyi. (excuse the unprofessional recording/audio).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2ZVIBsWCHCc

 

[kas23]

you guys are ridiculous. You should be happy you can get some apps for free. In my eyes a developer should be paid for his work. If they want to start charging than that's ok. You should be happy that apps on the iphone are cheap relative to other smartphones. Stop all your crying.

You obvious have no idea about what this situation is about. You should at least read the thread to know what you are talking about.

The truth is, this developer was already paid for his work. They are not just now starting to charge. They already charged. In effect, this developer is making you re-purchase an app you already purchased. Does that make sense to you?

 

[Buschmaster]

You obvious have no idea about what this situation is about. You should at least read the thread to know what you are talking about.

The truth is, this developer was already paid for his work. They are not just now starting to charge. They already charged. In effect, this developer is making you re-purchase an app you already purchased. Does that make sense to you?

You mean they're doing something that Adobe, Novell, EA, Macromedia, 2k Sports, Bungie, Apple, Microsoft, Verisign, Symantic, Intuit, Ahead, Sony, Rockstar, El Gato, Trend Micro, Quicken, Filemaker, Autodesk, and many others do? How dare they!

The simple fact of the matter is that if it weren't for releasing new versions of software and people upgrading, it wouldn't be worth it to develop software.

This is exactly what happens across the entire industry. People have to pay more money, or software goes nowhere. It's either that, or the companies would all go away completely and the next company would develop a similar application, release it, and it will go nowhere from there because they run out of money.

It's easy for me to say this as a developer and a student of computer science myself, but it's just like any industry. If I buy a house the construction company doesn't continue to come to my house, fix any problems and make improvements and expansions to my house forever for free.

 

[Jeremy1026]

You mean they're doing something that Adobe, Novell, EA, Macromedia, 2k Sports, Bungie, Apple, Microsoft, Verisign, Symantic, Intuit, Ahead, Sony, Rockstar, El Gato, Trend Micro, Quicken, Filemaker, Autodesk, and many others do? How dare they!

The simple fact of the matter is that if it weren't for releasing new versions of software and people upgrading, it wouldn't be worth it to develop software.

This is exactly what happens across the entire industry. People have to pay more money, or software goes nowhere. It's either that, or the companies would all go away completely and the next company would develop a similar application, release it, and it will go nowhere from there because they run out of money.

It's easy for me to say this as a developer and a student of computer science myself, but it's just like any industry. If I buy a house the construction company doesn't continue to come to my house, fix any problems and make improvements and expansions to my house forever for free.

+1. Very well said, if they want to charge for a major update, then they have every right to. The App Store has turned into nothing but 'I want it free, I want it without ads, and I want it yesterday.' And until the major players break stride and start to charge what they feel their applications are worth the App Store will only get worse.

 

[return7]

+1. Very well said, if they want to charge for a major update, then they have every right to. The App Store has turned into nothing but 'I want it free, I want it without ads, and I want it yesterday.' And until the major players break stride and start to charge what they feel their applications are worth the App Store will only get worse.

Yep, people complain about the over all quality of software, but if no one is willing to pay for quality software, who's going to spend time developing it?

 

[johnqh]

Yep, people complain about the over all quality of software, but if no one is willing to pay for quality software, who's going to spend time developing it?

All the newbies who want to join the gold rush, and release 40 pages of call # apps.

Pretty good quality software for iPhone, won't you say?

 

[kas23]

You mean they're doing something that Adobe, Novell, EA, Macromedia, 2k Sports, Bungie, Apple, Microsoft, Verisign, Symantic, Intuit, Ahead, Sony, Rockstar, El Gato, Trend Micro, Quicken, Filemaker, Autodesk, and many others do? How dare they!

Bad analogy. I may be completely wrong, but the developers above don't necessary charge for multiple "updates" within a 12-month span. I do know for Apple, they will give multiple 10.5.x updates for free during the year. Their major (paid) updates come every 1-1.5 years. This may be a poor example, but Microsoft's major updates come every few years and they don't charge for the updates (sp1, sp2, etc.). How long was it between Adobe CS3 and CS4?

Furthermore, the developers above will still support their previous versions and provide them with updates, even if they have a more current version out. Heck, I'm still getting (free) security updates for a Windows XP machine I have. The "original" Simplify Media has now been discontinued.

Now, iPhone Apps are a bit different. Their update timeline and lifespan may be totally different (but hey, you used the analogy, not me). Maybe this is what were going to see. An App developed for 6-8 months, then dropped for something new. This will fit well for the "I want the best and I want it now" crowd.

 

[kas23]

Yep, people complain about the over all quality of software, but if no one is willing to pay for quality software, who's going to spend time developing it?

This is probably the best, most logical argument in this thread.

 

[Kahnyl]

Adobe want me to pay for CS4 even though I already bought CS3. Bastitches!

 

[kas23]

Adobe want me to pay for CS4 even though I already bought CS3. Bastitches!

You obviously don't read threads before posting in them, do you?

Exactly how long did Adobe wait between the release of CS3 and CS4? Did the update from CS3 to CS4 comprise one major change? Does Adobe still support the use of CS3 or have they washed their hands of that application? Did Adobe place CS3 on sale and without prior warning, drop support and discontinue the application 6 days later?

If you agree with what Simplify Media has done, then it only makes sense that you should not purchase any new apps until firmware 3.0 comes out. As soon as Push and other APIs are implemented through 3.0, by Simplify Media's logic, this is going to necessitate the introduction of a "new" app and whatever version was sold previous to 3.0 will be discontinued. It's best to just wait until after 3.0 comes out, unless you would like to re-purchase the app after it's updated with 3.0's new APIs and Push.