On Apple purportedly dropping the 3.5mm audio jack

Tech Life

Bye headphone jack?

So, rumour has it that with the next-generation iPhone — or rather, starting with the next-generation iPhone to then include future iPads and Macs — Apple will remove the standard 3.5mm headphone jack and use the Lightning connector for audio input/output.

I dislike discussing rumours, but the debate has quickly reached stupid proportions (stupid being the operative word) that it has become difficult to ignore. Of all the articles and contributions I’ve read so far, this one by Peter Kirn at CDM is one of the most balanced and the one I agree with most.

Personally, I don’t have strong feelings about this change (if or when it’ll take place); my first reaction has been one of quiet resignation — I’m the kind of user who will get an adapter and keep using the earphones and headphones I’ve spent so much time on finding, and that’s it, crisis averted.

I don’t intend to spend one Euro in a new pair of Lightning or Bluetooth earphones/headphones. I’ve always had a bit of trouble in finding comfortable solutions for my ears, and I’m happy with what I have, from a pair of heavy but beautiful 1980s Technics headphones (for when I’m in ‘audiophile’ mode), to a lighter foldable pair of JVC over-ear headphones for everyday use at my desk, to cheaper earphones for when I’m out and about. Earphones have been the most annoying to find, because my ears have a different fit: I can’t wear Apple EarPods in particular because the right bud keeps falling off, while the left one fits fine. Conversely, while a lot of people complained about the previous Apple earphones, they were a better fit for both my ears. 

So, if Apple includes a new pair of Lightning EarPods with the iPhone 7, and if their shape stays the same as it is now, I’ll probably sell them and buy an audio adapter.

Where this purported change gets irritating for me is that it’s completely unnecessary, it introduces a proprietary solution, and it’s a pseudo-innovation that only furthers Apple’s agenda. I smile when some people bring up the iMac’s introduction and compare this purported change to that time when Apple dropped the floppy drive and ADB and SCSI connectors in favour of optical drives, USB and FireWire ports. Not only were all those standard formats, they also were undoubtedly an improvement over the formats and connections they replaced. 

This change, from 3.5mm standard jack to proprietary Lightning connector, is Apple removing an obstacle that’s hampering their design process/progress towards absolute thinness; and Apple introducing a solution that, as Kirn notes in his article, gives them more control [1] and the opportunity of selling more products, since now Apple is in the headphone business as well. Users are the last to benefit from this change: except for those who are perfectly fine using Apple EarPods, this change will mean spending additional money for at least one decent adapter — maybe two if you want to leave one attached to your car stereo system.

Don’t tell me this could be a welcome change because it’ll bring thinner iPhones. That the current iPhones 6 and 6s are already uncomfortably thin is confirmed by the amount of people using them with a case. A new iPhone as thin as the latest iPod touch may be cool on paper, but definitely slipping from your hands (by the way, the iPod touch is so thin and yet it has a standard 3.5mm jack, how about that).

I also don’t believe that removing the standard audio jack leads to better waterproofing. Sony and Samsung, in particular, have produced lots of smartphone models that are waterproof or water resistant, and still have the standard 3.5mm jack.

Finally, there is no increase in audio quality either. As Kirn writes, What happens here is that the digital-to-analog circuitry moves from the phone to the headphones. That could potentially have some sort of benefit as far as electrical interference, but beyond that, there’s no reason to believe it will make any difference at all – and mainly might become a reason for headphone makers to charge more.

 


  • 1. Kirn: “Accessories with Lightning jacks can be forced into the Made for iPod certification program (MFI), which since the days of the iPod has allowed Apple to have say over who is certified as an accessory and how those devices are designed.” ↩︎

 

More on iOS 9 and older devices

Handpicked

Chris Carson at Low End Mac writes:

Yesterday, a gentleman by the name of Chaim Lerman filed a Class Action Lawsuit seeking US$5 Million in damages for “deceptive trade practices and false advertising”. Plaintiff Chaim claims that he and other iPhone 4S owners became unable to use their devices because the iOS 9 update slowed down their devices. […]

The problem of “forced obsolescence” is as old as the tech industry itself. Everybody reading this article has felt the sting of buying something new only to have it replaced months, weeks, or even days later. While your new device may not be rendered useless as soon as the next one comes out, it is inevitable that it will eventually become “obsolete”. […]

Listen, folks, you have to come to terms with the fact that older devices simply won’t run the latest and greatest as well as newer devices will.

Apple has gone out on a limb by supporting the iPhone 4S as long as it has, and I personally applaud them for keeping it up to date. But there are those out there who have unrealistic expectations about how well their older devices should perform with the ever increasing demands of modern software.

I understand Carson’s point, but as I wrote in my previous post, I think that Apple shouldn’t have allowed iOS 9 on devices with an A5 processor and 512 MB of RAM, stopping iOS updates at version 8.4.1 for these devices. (The third-generation iPad, despite having similar specs, handles iOS 9 much better — apparently, having 1 GB of RAM is enough to make a noticeable difference). 

Since publishing my previous post, I’ve heard from people who have installed iOS 9 on their older devices — iPhone 4S, iPad 2, iPad mini — which share the same specs and memory, and some of these people told me that iOS 9 runs well enough on them; others confirmed the overall disappointing user experience. This class of devices is exactly on the dividing line between a good and a bad user experience under iOS 9. Apple favoured support and compatibility over user experience, and decided to extend the life of the iPhone 4S and similar devices, probably thinking that it was doing their owners a favour. 

The real favour in this case would have been to drop iOS 9 support for iOS devices with an A5 CPU and 512 MB of RAM — iOS 8.4 was running just fine and there are still a lot of current apps on the App Store supporting iOS 8. An iPhone 4S or iPad 2 with iOS 8 would still prove to be quite useful today, and pleasant to use. Even my humble iPhone 4, stopped at iOS 7.1.2, is still a decent (secondary) device. 

The kind of ‘forced obsolescence’ that’s truly irritating is when we have technically capable hardware that is denied to run the latest software largely for marketing-related reasons. In this case, exactly for the reason Carson mentions (“older devices simply won’t run the latest and greatest as well as newer devices will”), leaving the iPhone 4S and similarly older devices behind wouldn’t have been forced obsolescence, but a honest realisation of their technical limitations. And a more dignified semi-retirement.

Apple should really offer the possibility to download older iOS ‘combo updates’ via iTunes to allow for a system downgrade with a simple restore & reinstall. Before the process begins, users should be warned about the security implications and informed that such downgrades are unsupported, etc. It’s exactly in cases like this that user experience should be favoured. Take the choice Apple made to not offer Web content blockers on iOS devices with a 32-bit architecture. Although technically possible, the reason given was that user experience would be negatively impacted. Yet making the iPhone 4S and the iPad 2 struggle under iOS 9 is considered fine, apparently.

iOS, especially when it comes to older devices, should benefit from a more Mac OS-like approach. There are a lot of vintage Macs that can technically support certain versions of Mac OS and Mac OS X, but that are way more responsive and usable if kept on a slightly earlier version.

iOS 9 on the iPad 2

Software

In short — it’s bad.

In iOS 9 on the iPhone 5 and the iPad 3, I wrote:

The range of devices supported by iOS 9 is surprisingly ample, the principle being that if a device was able to run iOS 8, then it’ll run iOS 9. Performance-wise, according to what I’ve been reading on the Web so far, the consensus seems to be: If you were satisfied by iOS 8’s performance on your (older) device, then iOS 9 won’t disappoint. I agree with this assessment, and I’ll go as far as saying that iOS 9 feels even smoother and more stable in places where iOS 8 stuttered every now and then. I noticed this on the iPhone 5 especially.

That, sadly, isn’t true for the iPad 2.

At the time, I left the iPad 2 out of my initial impressions because I didn’t want to be too precipitous in my assessment. I don’t use an iPad 2 on a daily basis — my wife does, so I just told her: “Let me know if you encounter any issue with iOS 9, and how the overall performance is.”

Time passed and I didn’t hear many complaints from her, so I assumed things were generally fine. However, it appears that every iOS 9 minor update released after version 9.0 has negatively impacted performance and usability on the iPad 2. I took advantage of the Christmas holidays to take a closer look, spending more time with her iPad 2. Now I can definitely say that allowing the iPad 2 (and by extension the iPhone 4S) to run iOS 9 was a grave mistake on Apple’s part. 

  • Animations and transitions are a sad spectacle to behold: stuttering, sometimes even stopping midway for a couple of seconds; it really looks like the device is struggling to complete them. Every now and then, the lock screen is unrensponsive, meaning that you can slide to unlock all you want, nothing happens. Invoking Control Centre and Notification Centre can be a hit-or-miss affair. On a bad day, even swiping from one app screen to another is comically slow. The fluidity of the multitasking interface is barely acceptable.
  • Keyboard input is frequently lagging. You type in a search field, or in Safari’s address field, or you just want to type a quick note: you start tapping the keys, nothing seems to happen, then most of the text you’ve entered is finally rolling down all at once, machine-gun style.
  • 512 MB of RAM are simply not enough to handle iOS 9. This is noticeable everywhere: Safari tabs constantly reloading; applications losing their state after you quit them and reopen them after a short while; and finally, I know the practice of entering the multitasking interface and force-quitting apps is frowned upon, but on the iPad 2 it really looks like it helps give the device a bit of breathing room to operate. Maybe it’s just a subjective impression, so take it with a grain of salt.
  • I’ve noticed that apps have taken to unexpectedly quit with an alarming frequency. Even apps that shouldn’t have any compatibility issues with iOS 9, either because they’re first-party apps, or because they’re freshly-updated apps. I’ve also noticed that in a couple of occasions the iPad 2 self-rebooted out of the blue. I haven’t been able to reproduce the issue. It all just seems so random.

It’s really a pity that Apple makes it hard to downgrade to a previous version of iOS. I know, security reasons and all that, but downgrading to iOS 8 would really help regain some fluidity and overall performance on the iPad 2 (and the iPhone 4S, I guess.)

Speaking of iPhone 4S, Rich Edmonds at iMore reports that Apple faces lawsuit over how iOS 9 negatively impacts iPhone 4s performance:

More than 100 iPhone 4s owners have asserted that the update has led to a negative experience on their smartphone to the point where it’s simply unusable for daily use. Delayed launch times for apps, slower response on the touchscreen, as well as sluggish performance overall plague said owners. Then you have the reported freezing and crashes. Not fun times for anyone.

From my recent direct experience with my wife’s device, I’d say this is also exactly true for the iPad 2.

The first Spotlight interface is still the best

Software

Spotlight first appeared with the release of Mac OS X 10.4 Tiger in April 2005. The first things you noticed after upgrading from Mac OS X 10.3 Panther and its Find interface were, first of all, the new Spotlight menubar icon in the upper right corner and its simple search field when invoked; but more importantly you immediately noticed how much faster Spotlight in Tiger was in finding what you were looking for. That’s because “the first time that a user logs onto the operating system, Spotlight builds indexes of metadata about the files on the computer’s hard disks. It also builds indexes of files on devices such as external hard drives that are connected to the system. This initial indexing may take some time, but after this the indexes are updated continuously in the background as files are created or modified.”[1] Therefore, when you perform a search query, Spotlight checks these indexes instead of going through all the files on the hard drive, like its ‘Find’ predecessor on Mac OS X 10.3 and earlier versions — or Sherlock under Mac OS 9 — used to do.

Find in Mac OS X Panther
The Find interface in Mac OS X 10.3 Panther.

 

Search in Spotlight was (and is) performed with a find-as-you-type process. Here’s a search for disk in Spotlight’s upper right field. Results are automatically divided into basic categories:

Spotlight Tiger results

 

What I really like about Spotlight under Mac OS X 10.4 Tiger is the separate, standalone window that comes up when you select Show All at the top of the list:

Spotlight tiger showall

 

And this is the Search interface I’ve really been missing since Apple removed it in Mac OS X 10.5 Leopard. Perhaps the Aqua elements like the three buttons in the upper left corner or the scroll bar on the right will make you cringe, but I think this is still the best search interface ever appeared on Mac OS X. Whenever I use one of my vintage PowerPC Macs running Tiger, it’s great to be back using Spotlight that way.

For starters, the contents are neatly organised and presented. There isn’t a single obscure UI element. Everything is discoverable. Each category is clearly separated by horizontal bars, each section can be expanded or collapsed by clicking on the triangle near the label. If you want additional information on a file or application, you click on the ‘i’ icon near the date/time column. Some categories provide alternative ways of displaying their files. If you look at the Images section, you’ll see three icons on the right of the separator: slideshow, list view, icon view. PDF Documents can also be displayed in icon view. It’s very useful because you can see little previews of the documents (remember, there wasn’t Quick Look under Tiger, that feature would appear later in Leopard). The pane on the right is for sorting and grouping the search results. Again, the UI is very clear, and the search results are rearranged immediately when you select different options.

Spotlight Tiger options
By right-clicking on an element, you have access to additional actions via a contextual menu.

 

If you’re using the keyboard to navigate this window, the actions are rather predictable: with the Up/Down arrow keys you move from one entry to the previous/next. With the Right arrow key, you expand the info for the selected element (like clicking the ‘i’ icon mentioned above). And if you hit Option and the Right arrow key, you’ll expand the info for all the elements contained in a category. If you have selected an application, and hit ⌘-↓ or ⌘-O, the application will launch.

The Spotlight window is persistent, so whatever you do with the search results (open a document, check a few images, launch an application, etc.), you can always go back to it later and you’ll find all the results as you left them.

 

From Mac OS X 10.5 Leopard onwards, while the Spotlight menu and find-as-you-type list of results on the upper right corner of the desktop remained essentially unchanged, this neatly organised window disappeared, and the Show All option simply triggered a new Finder window with the search results amassed in an unorganised fashion. If you didn’t find what you were looking for in the first results Spotlight displayed from the Search menu on the top right, you’d have to perform more organised searches with various filters and criteria directly from a Finder window. But the overall approach was less clean and clear than under Mac OS X Tiger. On the other hand, Spotlight got better as an app launcher and new features were introduced, like the ability to do quick calculations from the Spotlight search field itself.

When the Spotlight interface was finally redesigned with the release of Mac OS X 10.10 Yosemite, it was great to see that Apple was revisiting that kind of search interface, with a panel front and centre, and with the results organised in categories in a similar way as it was under Tiger. Since I upgraded from Mac OS X 10.9 Mavericks to 10.11 El Capitan avoiding Yosemite completely, I only started using this new Spotlight interface in recent times. And I have mixed feelings about it.

Spotlight in El Capitan

Under Mavericks, and in my experience, Spotlight was really fast, especially as an app launcher, to the point that I found myself ignoring the Dock increasingly often, even to launch apps I keep in the Dock. Why move my hand away from the keyboard to reach the mouse, when I can just hit Command-Space, type tex and Enter, and TextEdit is already launching? But after upgrading to El Capitan, the first thing I noticed was that Spotlight’s responsiveness was much worse than before. Sometimes I would start typing and nothing happened — no suggested apps, no search results as I typed, nothing. After dismissing and invoking Spotlight again (sometimes twice), everything would work, but never at the speed experienced under Mavericks. After updating to OS X 10.11.2, I must say Spotlight appears to be snappier than before — maybe still not like under Mavericks, but definitely more usable than under OS X 10.11.0.

The interface is certainly more pleasant than the one that lasted from Mac OS X 10.5 Leopard to 10.9 Mavericks, but I still find it less usable and less predictable than it was under Mac OS X 10.4 Tiger.

First of all, the way find-as-you-type has changed makes Spotlight under El Capitan appear slower than Spotlight under Tiger — and sometimes it actually is slower. If you look at the following screen recordings, where I performed a simple search for disk, you’ll see that under Tiger results start appearing immediately as I type d, then get progressively refined as I keep typing i, then s, then k. Under El Capitan, as I type disk, I only briefly see suggestions for launching apps, and then, after a pause where the panel is just blank, I finally see some results.

 

Searching ‘disk’ under Tiger

 

Searching ‘disk’ under El Capitan

(The Spotlight search under Tiger you see in the video above was made on a Power Mac G4 Cube, with a 450 MHz processor and 1.5 GB of RAM; the Spotlight search under El Capitan was made on a MacBook Pro, with a 2.66 GHz dual-core processor and 8 GB of RAM.)

 

Then, while I can navigate the Spotlight window with the arrow keys, there’s not much else I can do. While it’s great to be able to select a folder in the search results and see its contents on the right side of the window…

Spotlight folder contents under El Capitan

…Image files and documents have a big preview but no additional info visible. Things like Created, Last Modified, Last Opened — which are instead displayed for other file types.

In the Spotlight standalone window under Tiger, the file path (i.e., where the file is located) was easily visible by expanding the file info, either by hitting the Right arrow key or clicking the ‘i’ icon. Under El Capitan, it’s a game of guessing which keys to press (if any), and it turns out you have to hold the Command key while the file is selected in the Spotlight window. And when the path is too long to fit, you’ll only see a part of it. Under El Capitan there’s also no way (that I’ve found) to reveal a file in the Finder — right-clicking on a file does nothing, and the only key that seems to work is Enter, which will open the file in the designated application to handle such file.[2]

There aren’t any grouping or sorting options, either. It seems that, after Mac OS X Tiger, everything related to the organisation and filtering of search results is delegated to the Finder window. And it’s not a bad option when you realise how much you can filter by selecting different criteria — here I have kept clicking on the [+] button to show additional options:

Search criteria

But every time I go back to one of my Macs still running Tiger, I realise how flexible the Spotlight window is by offering grouping and sorting options right there; these options aren’t exhaustive, but in my searches they’re often good enough to help me wade through hundreds of results because, for example, I can quickly choose to display only the files modified ‘Today,’ or ‘Since Yesterday’. Additionally, since I’ve accumulated a fair amount of PDFs and other documents, it’s nice to be able to group them by author straight in the Spotlight window under Mac OS X Tiger. It also works with Mail results, so you could quickly find all emails written by a certain person and have them neatly grouped together in the Spotlight window by simply clicking People in the Group by: section at the top of the right pane.

Another annoying thing is that, in Spotlight under El Capitan, when you navigate the results with the arrow keys, the original search term (disk in my example) is replaced with the name of the currently selected search result (e.g. DiskWarrior), so if by chance you then hit the Right arrow key, you’ll be taken to an entirely new list of search results:

Disk to diskwarrior1

Disk to diskwarrior2

Disk to diskwarrior3

I can see the possible usefulness of this behaviour, but for me it just gets in the way.

When I was talking about the Spotlight window in Mac OS X Tiger, I said that it is a great example of clarity and usability — basically everything is discoverable and there’s not much guessing when you start interacting with the various UI elements. Under El Capitan, there’s the occasional inconsistency. For example, if you hover the pointer over a category name (Images, Folders, etc.), a little “Show All…” appears on the right side of the label/horizontal bar/separator. You click it once and it immediately opens a Finder window with all the results from the selected category. But if you select the last item in the Spotlight window — Show all in Finder… — when you click it, nothing happens. You have to double-click it. Why? Who knows.

Another couple of quirky things I’ve found: 1) Some email messages get a full preview, others do not. At first I thought that only messages in HTML got a preview, but sometimes I also see previews of messages in plain text. And 2) When searching for a word in Spotlight, the Dictionary search result I get is in Japanese. I’d like it in English, but I haven’t yet found out how to change this setting.

Don’t get me wrong, I like the ‘new’ Spotlight interface that was introduced in OS X 10.10 Yosemite. The big search field in the centre of the screen, the clearer way search results are displayed, it’s undoubtedly better than before and going in the right direction from a visual standpoint, but the interface of the Spotlight window still isn’t as flexible, clear and usable as it was under Mac OS X Tiger; and the speed and responsiveness are nowhere near Spotlight’s performance under Tiger to Mavericks — at least on Macs equipped with hard drives. If your Mac has an SSD, your experience has probably been more satisfying than mine.

Addendum: Third-party software

You’re probably already aware of apps like Alfred and LaunchBar, which offer a lot of useful features and can also act as application launchers, but I wanted to specifically mention two third-party solutions that put search first and are directly related to the aspects discussed in the article.

  • If you, like me, prefer the way Spotlight handled searches under Mac OS X Tiger, I recommend you check Tembo, by Houdah Software. Its interface behaves in basically the exact way. It’s fast and well-designed. It’s $14.99 on the Mac App Store (there are two versions: get the 2.0 version if you’re running Yosemite or El Capitan, get the 1.8 version if you’re running Mavericks or earlier), but you can download a free trial by visiting Houdah Software’s website.
  • Then there’s Find Any File, by Thomas Tempelmann, which I keep recommending because, while unable to search for file contents, it is capable of very extended searches in places Spotlight usually ignores, such as inside packages, or inside system’s folders. I also like how it handles search results: it has an extremely useful Hierarchical view, so you can see at a glance where a file is located and if it’s inside an invisible or otherwise not-directly-accessible folder. As for its looks, let’s say long-time Mac users will love its utilitarian, pre-Spotlight interface. Find Any File is shareware and costs $6. Finally, the developer still offers an older version that runs on PowerPC Macs.

 


  • 1. John Siracusa, from his Mac OS X 10.4 Tiger review on Ars Technica, 2005.
  • 2. A few nice and helpful readers have emailed me, and made me aware that the method to reveal a file in the Finder is to select it in the search results and hit ⌘-Enter. A shortcut that, while not uncommon, was totally non-obvious to me.

 

Patronage model? Good luck with that

Software

In Castro is now free with patronage, Samantha Bielefeld writes:

Castro was updated to version 1.5 today with some great new features like Spotlight search, in-app Safari, and support for 3D Touch. Another change that went live today? It’s now a free app, every feature is available without charge, and they added an optional non-renewing patronage model. Sound familiar? In my original Arment piece, The Elephant in the Room, I said: “What he is most certainly doing is increasing the odds that no other third party podcast app will feel viable in the market by charging up front for their offering.”

Are we now seeing this theory become a reality? Absolutely, and this is only the first of many in the category who will likely do the same. You can argue that Arment is only one developer in a sea of many, that he can’t alter the revenue model of the entire App Store ecosystem, but you simply cannot argue that his recent change doesn’t signal a fear amongst other podcast apps, and Castro becoming entirely free is proof of this.

[…][T]he fact remains that it would be disingenuous to believe this isn’t in response to Overcast becoming entirely free. Marco has indeed accelerated the race to the bottom, and he comes bearing a well made app that is difficult not to feel satisfied with as a user when faced with other apps that charge up-front. Why should I pay for an app when this developer has made it seem unnecessary? The patronage-only model is so new, and very experimental, but has that stopped others from replicating it? No, and this is because they are being forced into adopting it in order to hold onto their existing customers, and hopefully bring some new ones on as well. The only good thing about this move by Castro is that perhaps Overcast won’t remain the default choice champion simply because of having a price of zero.

This piece is worth a full read, as is the quoted The Elephant in the Room (in case you had missed it). It made me think about this new patronage model, and I’m quite sceptical about it. Just a few personal observations:

1. I’m not a particularly eager podcast listener, I only follow four podcasts currently: Release Notes, with Joe Cieplinski and Charles Perry; The RetroMacCast with James & John; John Gruber’s The Talk Show; and Covered, by and with Harry C. Marks. Apple’s built-in Podcasts app should be more than enough for my listening needs, and I also tried Arment’s Overcast. Still, I opted for ShiftyJelly’s Pocket Casts because I like the app itself, but more importantly because I want to support developers who offer reasonably-priced iOS apps that I can pay up-front (and, if it’s the case, pay any major update that might be released at a later date). I like the occasional free app like anybody else. I don’t like ‘freemium’ models, of any kind.

2. I appreciate many, many great iOS (and Mac) developers and the apps they’ve created and maintained over the years, and I also appreciate — as a struggling author myself — what it means for indie developers to try to turn their hard work into something profitable. That’s why sometimes I purchase paid apps which are so well made that I don’t really care if they overlap or replicate features of apps I already purchased. By doing this (when I can), and/or spreading the word, I express my support for this or that developer. I don’t think I’m alone in this, but I do think I’m in a minority.

3. I also think that the so-called patronage model doesn’t scale well and may ultimately be unsustainable. While in principle I could decide to offer my support by basically ‘subscribing’ to an app instead of making a one-time purchase or In-app purchase, if more developers decided to move to a free-with-patronage structure for their apps, I simply wouldn’t be able to offer my support to all of them — not even to all those among them I’d theoretically love to support.

4. I believe that the patronage model isn’t for everyone. I think it may work out for those developers who have already established an audience of fans of their app(s), and that it may work as an option after a certain amount of success/notoriety. I see patronage as a sort of pension which could potentially sustain apps that have already worked their way to success.[1] I don’t see how it could work as a starting option for any app. A lot of App Store customers are cheapskates: they look for the free app or — when there’s not a free app for the task they’re after or that fits their needs — they tend to settle for the cheapest among the ‘good enough’ apps. If you’re a little-known indie developer debuting on the App Store with a free-with-patronage app, I guarantee you’ll hardly make a penny out of it. If your app is great and gets popular, maybe you’ll start getting patrons later. My educated guess is that you have better chances if you price your app at $0.99 from the start. 

5. Finally, another aspect of patronage’s probable unsustainability is that — always assuming more developers decide to follow this route — patronage might end up working reasonably well only for the early proposers. True, App A may get the patronage support of many fans of App A’s developer, while App B could very well thrive thanks to App B’s developer’s fan club, and the same might happen to App C thanks to its supporters. But since we’re talking of already moderately successful operations (as per what I postulated in point 4), sooner or later it’s possible to find people who equally love App A, App B and App C. What are the chances of finding people willing to be patrons of all three apps? (Or five, or eight, etc.)

As a regular App Store customer who is simultaneously budget-conscious and willing to support paid apps where possible, if you’re a developer considering the switch to a free-with-patronage model for your app, my humble suggestion is to think hard about it before doing something you may have difficulties undoing. 

Some have said that, if the patronage model starts spreading, it may exacerbate the already serious problem of the race to the bottom in the App Store, but I think that its probable unsustainability may make it backfire first on the developers themselves. Because what do you do when a lot of people grab your app for free, but very few of them are willing to support it as patrons? How long can you go on updating and maintaining an app that generates little to no profit? Not many indie developers can afford that. 

 


  • 1. The only three cases I know of free apps with an optional patronage/subscription option are — in chronological order — the original Instapaper (before Arment sold it), Overcast 2, and now Castro. In Instapaper’s case, people were willing to support it because it was a useful app that quickly became truly popular and successful. In Overcast 2’s case we have another well-made app by a prominent developer (Arment again) with a huge audience and lots of fans. In Castro’s case — well, it’s too soon to say, but the app is by now well-known, has good ratings on the App Store, and has certainly built up enough audience to make support via patronage an option worth considering (see also Bielefeld’s remarks I quoted at the beginning of the article.)