MacPaw Launches 'Setapp for Teams' Subscription App Store

I have no plans on getting another monthly subscription especially for apps :).

Another garbage subscription service.

Setapp: 160 apps
App Store: 2 million apps
article: "extensive" catalog

?

Okay, so, what this tells me is that you are not a coder or, even, an observant user of software.

I have already, further up in this thread, given my criticisms of SetApp but what you are saying here completely misses what they are offering.

The fact is that all software you buy becomes, in effect, a subscription if you continue to use it for years. Every popular app must be developed continuously, not only to deal with edge-case bugs unearthed by the activities of thousands of users, or to add features that keep them ahead of the competition, but also because operating systems keep evolving. The app you bought last year is not the same app today.

When you buy an app, you "own" the code as it stands at that point. Most developers will also include a period of updates, sometimes a year, sometimes until the next major version. If you want to upgrade to the major next version, you may get a discount but the principal that you have to pay again has been well-established: you do not have to upgrade to the next major version but, if you do, it is fair that you share a tiny part of the ongoing development cost.

Saying that there are Open Source or free versions of all these apps is delusional. I am an Open Source advocate but even I understand that these are not the type of app that will attract sufficiently skilled volunteers or the type of sustained, longterm effort required.

What you are really saying, by bothering to complain on a thread about a paid software product, is that you think you should be given the work of these developers for free because, to you, they are not worth 99 cents. Trust me when I say that you are the epitome of the type of customer who software developers do not want, the miserable guy who never sees value in the talent or hard work of other human beings.

My general objection with subscription based software is how it handles end users risk. Lets say a user decides that a software application they expect to use for one year is worth $60. Paying $60 isn't the same as charging $5 a month, because after 12 months of use the software continues to function and the cost per month decreases. If they use it for 2 years than they paid an average of $2.50 a month. If they had paid a $5 a month they would have spent $120 over that same time period or twice as much as they estimated it was worth.

You might argue that when they pay $5 a month they get access to updates that they wouldn't have gotten by paying $60 upfront. This is where the risk comes in. Subscriptions ask the end user to pay more to have access to features that might have value for them if they are ever released. If they don't come out, or the new features don't have value, than all they did is pay more. Maintenance updates do not add value and their cost to the developer should have been factored into the original price.

I am not saying anyone deserves software for free, but the reality is that some software is free, and paid app developers are competing in a market where they exist. If app developers feel they need to charge a reoccurring price to maintain income should be prepared to defend why they charging that cost and not simply increasing the initial price. Unstable pricing of third party data and server costs can just as easily be offset by allowing users the ability to select their own data input locations, supporting multiple data profiles, or allowing users to choose their own hosting options.

Software subscriptions are a marketing concept designed to manipulate the cost-value relationship. To endusers it seems cheaper upfront but they end up spending more in the long run, and getting less back since developers have less pressure to release killer new features. Subscription bundles are worse in that they use volume to obscure the cost-value relationship even more. Gamers know this all to well. Sure, this Steam sale offers 20 games for $1, but considering the average person might only play 25% of four of them the value is hidden behind this idea that they had access to hundreds of hours of gameplay.

Setapp: 160 apps
App Store: 2 million apps
article: "extensive" catalog

?

i don’t think you know how this service works if you really think those two things are comparable.

with setapp, you may install and use *all* 160 apps for your one charge, as well as being entitled to *every* update, even the ones that are in the App Store under a new name and listing so that the devs can charge existing users again.

also, setapp’s library is curated, unlike Apple’s, which is filled with garbage.

here’s the thing: there was an app in the App Store that I very much wanted... actually bought... and it was about $60. I had been researching setapp, but didn’t realize that app was already in their library before I bought it from Apple. There were also several apps on setapp that I had previously purchased or was considering, so it was a no-brainer, really: for the price of this one app, I could have the whole library.

also, sub models, which suck as one-offs, are actually a really good deal when bundled. Better for the devs, too, as they get paid residuals based on app usage. This is why so many apps have moved to a model of “upgrade” listings or IAP subs in the App Store. The can’t survive on one-time purchases.

i mean, you DO realize that this is LITERALLY what Apple has done with Apple Arcade, right?

but, you do you...

i don’t think you know how this service works if you really think those two things are comparable.

with setapp, you may install and use *all* 160 apps for your one charge, as well as being entitled to *every* update, even the ones that are in the App Store under a new name and listing so that the devs can charge existing users again.

also, setapp’s library is curated, unlike Apple’s, which is filled with garbage.

here’s the thing: there was an app in the App Store that I very much wanted... actually bought... and it was about $60. I had been researching setapp, but didn’t realize that app was already in their library before I bought it from Apple. There were also several apps on setapp that I had previously purchased or was considering, so it was a no-brainer, really: for the price of this one app, I could have the whole library.

also, sub models, which suck as one-offs, are actually a really good deal when bundled. Better for the devs, too, as they get paid residuals based on app usage. This is why so many apps have moved to a model of “upgrade” listings or IAP subs in the App Store. The can’t survive on one-time purchases.

i mean, you DO realize that this is LITERALLY what Apple has done with Apple Arcade, right?

but, you do you...

Oh I'm fully aware of how it works, thanks. As to "filled with garbage" let's take a look at the top nine featured apps on their web page... a disk cleanup app, two file compression apps, two download managers, an app to upload images to Insta, Bartender and iStats. The latter two being the only recognizable apps there and both minor utilities. The only thing I've seen there that I'd like is iStats and I already own it (I think it was a one time purchase for $3 on the REAL app store).

So how do you like working at Setapp anyway? :p

edit to add: and locked to just the Mac you use it on, no sharing across your Apple ID or Family Sharing. Have two systems, you need to subscribe twice!

with setapp, you may install and use *all* 160 apps for your one charge, as well as being entitled to *every* update, even the ones that are in the App Store under a new name and listing so that the devs can charge existing users again.

There is so much to this sentence that needs to be addressed.

1. No one would install all 160 apps. There are multiple apps that duplicate functionality (compression apps, calendar apps, to do apps, note apps, etc.), and these don't even account for the apps that replicate MacOS functions (desktop organizing, screen sharing, remote access, etc.).
2. Of course you are entitled to the updates, you are paying for them if you update the software or not.
3. Why would someone want to support a developer that intentionally changes the name of an app to force people to buy their app again?

also, setapp’s library is curated, unlike Apple’s, which is filled with garbage.

SetApp curates their list? Scrolling though their apps most of what I see is junk. Oh look, they have iFlicks! That will make adding music videos to iTunes much better... oh wait... that might not be useful anymore.

here’s the thing: there was an app in the App Store that I very much wanted... actually bought... and it was about $60. I had been researching setapp, but didn’t realize that app was already in their library before I bought it from Apple. There were also several apps on setapp that I had previously purchased or was considering, so it was a no-brainer, really: for the price of this one app, I could have the whole library.

At $60, I suspect you purchased the overhyped text editor Ulysses. This is the poster-child of inappropriately applied subscriptions.

Or was your point that Set Apps curation is so bad you couldn't locate a specific app by searching for the name of the app? Which is weird because their search function ONLY lets you search by app name. Want to find something that helps stay updated on the weather? You better search for 'Forcast Bar' because searching for the term 'weather' reports that there are no weather apps available.

also, sub models, which suck as one-offs, are actually a really good deal when bundled. Better for the devs, too, as they get paid residuals based on app usage. This is why so many apps have moved to a model of “upgrade” listings or IAP subs in the App Store. The can’t survive on one-time purchases.

Most of these apps are not worth the $0.99 one time price, and these developers shouldn't be expecting to live off the sales of one of these apps. Most of the things on here have an open source or free version available. The only way they can justify charging anything is by giving it a better UI which in no way entitles them to reoccurring revenue.

i mean, you DO realize that this is LITERALLY what Apple has done with Apple Arcade, right?

but, you do you...

I haven't signed up for Apple Arcade yet, but there are a few things Apple Arcade has that SetApp doesn't.

1. Games are abandoned by the end user when they finish it. Game value drops rapidly after release. This increases the value of a subscription game service since the end user is often more interested in the next game than the existing catalog.
2. Apple Arcade offers exclusives, either timed or platform based.
3. Apple Arcade allows you to play games on not only all of your Macs, but also iPhones, iPads, and Apple TVs. Set App only gives you 1 or 2 Macs, based on your plan.
4. Apple Arcade is significantly cheaper. Sure, there are more Apps on SetApp than games on Apple Arcade, but as I mentioned many of them replicate the functionality of other apps provided on SetApp. This point is even more important when taken in the context of point 5...
5. Apple Arcade games are newer. SetApp offers content that hasn't seen a reasonable update in years.

Most of these apps are not worth the $0.99 one time price, and these developers shouldn't be expecting to live off the sales of one of these apps. Most of the things on here have an open source or free version available. The only way they can justify charging anything is by giving it a better UI which in no way entitles them to reoccurring revenue.

Okay, so, what this tells me is that you are not a coder or, even, an observant user of software.

I have already, further up in this thread, given my criticisms of SetApp but what you are saying here completely misses what they are offering.

The fact is that all software you buy becomes, in effect, a subscription if you continue to use it for years. Every popular app must be developed continuously, not only to deal with edge-case bugs unearthed by the activities of thousands of users, or to add features that keep them ahead of the competition, but also because operating systems keep evolving. The app you bought last year is not the same app today.

When you buy an app, you "own" the code as it stands at that point. Most developers will also include a period of updates, sometimes a year, sometimes until the next major version. If you want to upgrade to the major next version, you may get a discount but the principal that you have to pay again has been well-established: you do not have to upgrade to the next major version but, if you do, it is fair that you share a tiny part of the ongoing development cost.

Saying that there are Open Source or free versions of all these apps is delusional. I am an Open Source advocate but even I understand that these are not the type of app that will attract sufficiently skilled volunteers or the type of sustained, longterm effort required.

What you are really saying, by bothering to complain on a thread about a paid software product, is that you think you should be given the work of these developers for free because, to you, they are not worth 99 cents. Trust me when I say that you are the epitome of the type of customer who software developers do not want, the miserable guy who never sees value in the talent or hard work of other human beings.