Whilst no-one should post abuse, I would say that the author of this site started it by stating that the developer was spitting in the face of Tweetie users. That is abuse as well. Or are you advocate one rule for some and a different rule for others?

First off, on your paragraph about 'now you basically say' – No, not now I basically say – two of the three things you mention (not being about the money and acknowledging the current App Store restrictions) are clearly mentioned in my original post. The third thing, this whole bit about 'entitlement' I've addressed below. If some of you guys would read the post before jumping in here, that'd be lovely.

I don't know what the exact boundary line is for major update vs. new app – but I feel like if an app still has exactly the same purpose, is still a Twitter app for iPhone, and has had precious few updates of any kind for many months apart from bug fixes, while major new features are being developed (and still for a Twitter app) then it is probably on the upgrade rather than new app side of the line, for me.

As for your question 2, I'll try to answer this as simply as possible – for what feels like the 700th time. I have not – ever – said I feel 'entitled' to a free upgrade, or entitled to be handed Tweetie 2. I have simply said there should some sort of break, any sort of break, offered to existing Tweetie users.

Still too vague?

First off, on your paragraph about 'now you basically say' – No, not now I basically say – two of the three things you mention (not being about the money and acknowledging the current App Store restrictions) are clearly mentioned in my original post. If some of you guys would read the post before jumping in here, that'd be lovely.

I don't know what the exact boundary line is for major update vs. new app – but I feel like if an app still has exactly the same purpose, is still a Twitter app for iPhone, and has had precious few updates of any kind for many months apart from bug fixes, while major new features are being developed (and still for a Twitter app) then it is probably on the upgrade rather than new app side of the line, for me.

As for your question 2, I'll try to answer this as simply as possible – for what feels like the 700th time. I have not – ever – said I feel 'entitled' to a free upgrade, or entitled to be handed Tweetie 2. I have simply said there should some sort of break, any sort of break, offered to existing Tweetie users.

Still too vague?

It does seem that atebits has a weakness in Marketing/PR and could make more of an effort to improve their customer relationships. Maybe something like a limited time small discount on one of their desktop apps, where the higher margins can afford it, for existing Tweetie users.

"But I also don’t expect a developer to veer off from improving App A for months, then present what looks to be simply a much improved version of it as App B and offer nothing to existing users."

If I'm reading your words correctly – this is the entire gist of your argument, right? I mean you posted a rather emotional – and therefore weakly worded – version last night. And now you basically say (1) it's not about money, (2) you don't feel entitled to anything, and (3) you have a grasp of the limitations of the App Store. So is it okay if I assume this is what you are upset about? Because if this is so, then you need to color in some things:

(1) What's the line for improving App A?

It's right now at version 1.3.2. Did you buy 1.0.0, or did you buy 1.3.1? How long have you owned it? It makes a difference.

Using OS X as an example, Apple offers upgrades to Snow Leopard for the price of shipping for those who purchased a Mac with Leopard on it after June 12 (or thereabouts). There's two problems with trying this with an iPhone app – first, it's not part of the App Store way of pricing. But second, Apple announced Snow Leopard months ahead of releasing it – something that would be suicide to an App Store developer.

In fact, they *have* been improving App A. And no, like Apple, they should *only* be responsible to put out updates to fix bugs once App B is released.

(2) What makes App B "simply a much improved version"?

I'm sorry, but this is way too vague. Are you saying that something that is "simply an improved version" is something you feel your entitled to? How about something that is "more than simply a much improved version"? And is your definition of "simply a much improved version" the same as mine, or the same as the developers who spent their time and money working on it?

I think you are entitled to one thing, and one thing only: Your money's worth.

That means you think you bought $3 worth of value and features. That means that any bug fixes should be available for free. Period.

For non-iPhone apps there's another route the developers could have taken. They could have upped the price to $5. Usually when that happens they'll give you an upgrade for $2. You get the "much improved version" for 60% off, the developers get the full price price you through two purchases, you get the opportunity to not upgrade, and finally new customers pay $2 more for the $2 worth that makes it a "much improved version".

Unfortunately, real life as an iPhone developer won't allow that. Instead, you get to have a hissy fit because you have to pay another $3 for that "much improved version" (but yet you *still* can choose not to buy it. And the developers just spent what was probably many man-months making a "much improved version" that won't retail for anything more than the original version.

Hey Andy – thanks for the civil and reasonable comment. I don't think you called me any names anyway – tired now, could be wrong. 🙂

Well said. I'm a lot like that – and like your closing lines there.

Thanks K. Tomorrow is another day, and I'm looking forward to getting a little distance from 'that' post.

The long truth of it depends upon people on both sides (consumers and developers), as well as the type of software in question.

Software offered by Microsoft, Adobe, and other large-scale developers creates files that (for the most part) can only be created, edited, and/or maintained by that software, so there is a certain amount of backwards compatibility with previous versions that must be maintained. These software packages usually cost a lot of money, and consumers now expect upgrade pricing for software packages of this type.

Video games fall into a different category. Each individual title is sold as a self-contained software package that doesn't create or modify any files (except "bookmarks" to save one's progress). For many series (i.e., Tomb Raider, Madden NFL, Grand Theft Auto, etc.) no one version is compatible with another (backwards or forwards). These software packages usually fall within an established price range, averaging around $60 or so. Consumers don't expect to get any upgrade price for owning a previous version of a game (even if they want one).

I think iPhone apps lean more towards video games, but also exhibit characteristics of other types of software. The App Store economy is fairly flexible and continually evolving, but consumers should expect to see more pricing strategies similar to video games than anything else. In the case of Tweetie and Tweetie 2 specifically, I think Loren Brichter is more than fair with his pricing strategy and the fact that he's submitting Tweetie 2 as a whole new app.

I hope you can put this behind and get back to what you love to do .. reviewing iPhone apps. 🙂