While I dislike this attitude from non-programmers, I despise it from my peers and it seems to be universal across the spectrum except, maybe, older programmers (> 50) who seem to have a better sense of the value they're getting.
Peer: "You paid $30?!?! For an app?!?!" (I think it was OmniFocus)
Me: "Umm, yeah, because it's good and I use it literally every day across all my devices" (At the time I'd just ditched my Windows gaming PC, and my Linux instances were all VPSes or similar)
Peer: "But it's an app!" (like shouting louder explains something)
Me: "Right, which is what we make. You should understand, more than most, the actual work that goes into something like this."
Peer: Shaking head "But it's an app..." wanders off confused
I suspect people know what they're getting out of that $4 cup of coffee. With a $1 app, it might end up being a waste of money.
Does the Apple Store have refunds? If a user could refund an app within 48 hours of purchase (no questions asked), might that increase sales? (An abrupt change in policy might negatively impact premium "one time use" apps though...)
I've bought cups of coffee that were bad enough to throw away for $4. Not often, but it's happened. It doesn't stop me from buying coffees from new cafes.
I reckon trying to solve this as though it's rationally thought-out is wrongheaded. I didn't consider and decide that I didn't like paying for apps, I just got used to not paying for apps. And indeed, once I got used to paying for apps again,* I stopped worrying about whether the $1 app would actually do what I wanted.
* Since we're sort of discussing what would prompt people to spend money, for me it was games. Free-to-play games are so reliably so annoying that I eventually swore off downloading them.
And many cups of coffee either taste bad or are bad for health, yet those customers still pay for those options and throw the cup away afterward. It's worth noting those cups of coffee typically cost more than $1.
Coffee has a marginal and fixed cost. Digital products like apps only have fixed costs and marginal costs for manufacturing and distribution is zero or near zero.
This allows lots of new methods that aren’t possible for physical products.
For me, I buy software when it has a good value (I like Omni products) but the argument that people should buy apps because they buy coffee is disingenuous and not useful without more info.
I certainly wouldn’t buy coffee for 3-4 if it didn’t require a building and barista and shipping coffee across the world and roasting beans, etc. If coffee could magically appear in my hand for almost $0, then I certainly wouldn’t pay so much.
Of course, there are still costs like design for digital goods, but they are very different.
At my previous office one of the guys brought in a $300 espresso machine that (most of us) chipped in to pay for, we had an "espresso club" with $2/month dues for 15 people other than that one time we asked everyone to chip in an extra $20 to cover the new machine (replaced the much cheaper Mr. Coffee machine that he donated to us at no cost). We made much better drinks than you'd find at Starbucks for a fraction of the cost.
Over 4 years we asked people to pay, about, $120 total (regular dues, the better machine, and once to replace some broken cups or mugs), that's approaching $0 to get a coffee to appear in your hand (and for most of the people it was "magic" as they didn't operate the espresso machines, they showed up and a coffee was handed to them).
Maybe, but this will be very, very, very hard. I'd love to be able to make a paid-front app rather than freemium, but the current habits make that impossible unless you are an established brand or have a huge marketing budget.
Hence my point about learning to pay. Its a mindset change for both parties involved. If your app is something people don't want to pay for, then maybe its not worth it. If you aren't willing to pay for an app you use a lot, dont expect it for free or look for other alternatives.
I wonder if that will ever happen. IMO even if all ads went away, the freemium model where a couple of paying users bear the burden of supporting the developer wins in the end, due to the “natural” marketing of having lots of users. Now, this of course won’t work for niche programs.
If someone was giving out free coffee on demand on your phone, trust me, after a certain amount of time, you'd see a lot fewer cafes. It's a very toxic orange site take, this "just pay for it" perspective.
I strongly suspect that $3-4 for coffee is dictated by the unwillingness of the American public to have different prices for take away, counter or sit at a table with a computer for two hours. I live in Italy, and an espresso at the counter is on average 1 euro, go to a nice place sit down and have a waiter serve you and it can easily double in price, if you're sitting in a famous square in Venice it can go up to 5, but in any case you won't be able to order just one coffee and sit for two hours.
So my guess is that every Starbucks customer is just paying for rent, whether they use the table or not. (also possibly the fact that Starbucks can't overcharge you for alcohol is a factor).
killing advertising also means discovery is going to be a huge problem for developers. it doesn't matter how many people are willing to pay for your app if there's no effective way to make them aware of it
By definition sharing information about your product to convince people to buy it is an ad. Doesn't matter where you put it or how it reached the user. I'd love to hear your way of sharing information that doesn't match this definition.
"An advertisement (often shortened to advert or ad) is the promotion of a product, brand or service to a viewership in order to attract interest, engagement and sales."
The vast majority of people on the planet cannot afford $4 for a cup of coffee, though Apple tends to not care about most people as much as its rivals (so it doesn't market its phones to most people).
Your cafe charging $3-4 for coffee doesn't have to pay 30% to Apple.
They'd have to charge $4.28 - $5.71 to make the same as before - actually more, since demand would also be reduced due to the higher price.
Its likely that the cafe business would be basically completely uneconomic... we cannot anticipate the kind of ecosystem we could have if the platforms charged based on the service that they provide (which would be a few % points, with credit card fees as the main cost) instead of extracting monopoly rents.
Your cafe charging $3-4 for coffee doesn't have to pay 30% to Apple.
No, but they do have to pay their landlord. In all likelihood, they pay even more than 30% to their landlord, especially when sales slow down. I can't tell you how many restaurants and cafes have closed during the pandemic.
Businesses buy and rent land on an open market, with pricing based on supply and demand, and the opportunity to move if they feel they are not getting a good deal.
No such ability exists on iOS.
Software developers have to pay rent too. And salaries, and for hardware, and finally for a giant 30% commission to Apple..
You are operating on the basis that a 30% commission from a platform owner is an established fact of the Universe, whereas I am suggesting it is merely an artificial cost tacked on to extract exorbitant rents and for no purpose other than to enrich an owner who faces zero competition.
I think one way to look at Apple's iOS App Store is like a mall. Storefront property in a mall must be leased from the mall, it's not available on the open market. Shop owners pay a lot for access to the large amount of foot traffic the mall provides.
Developers are free to take their business elsewhere, such as to Android or PCs, or even to some open source phones. Apple just happens to own the "mall" with the lion's share of the foot traffic and the wealthiest customers.
Former director of a coffee shop here. If we could limit our rent, business rates, etc. etc. to 30% (or indeed 15% as per the new small business rate) we’d have been very happy.
We can buy $3-$4 cups of coffee every day, but $0.99 for an app is too much? Come on.