Should the Pedia's move to a Different Financial Model

[FineWine]

When Conor & Nora return from their well deserved Hiatus, I think it is well worth our while, that is all us loyal fans of the these wonderful Pedia's, (over the top I know ) to discuss another type of financial model for the Pedia's.

Several forum members have suggested that the Pedia's move to a Subscription Model or Crowd Funding Model.

Crowd Funding Model
There are four common types of crowdfunding, these are:

• rewards-based;

• equity-based;

• debt-based; and.

• donation-based.

Have a read here: https://www.crowdfunding.com/types-of-crowdfunding/

I do not think the "Crowd Funding" model is appropriate in this case and besides it can become complicated.

Subscription Model
Subscription based apps justify the recurring payment by providing ongoing value and user experience whilst continually encouraging the developer to maintain and innovate their apps, all the while continually rewarding the developer for their knowledge, innovation, creativity and time.

So what does this mean financially?

The present payment model which Conor uses is a ONE off payment in the Apple App Store. Apple charges a 30% fee for each download. There is bundle pricing. For small developers like Conor & Nora this is a huge chunk of their hard earned dollar.

However, Apple has a Subscription Service for which during a subscriber’s first year of service, (that is you & me), the developer will receive 70% of the subscription price at each billing cycle, minus applicable taxes. After a subscriber accumulates one year of paid service, the developers net revenue increases to 85% of the subscription price, minus applicable taxes.

For the Pedia's Conor could use the Free download with a 20 item database limit and possibly a time limit as well. Then go into the Subscription mode using your Apple Account Subscription service which would also fully unlock the Pedia. He could also do bundle Subscription deals as well. Remember there are six pedia's.

So, IMO, this incentivises the developer to continue to support and develop their products.

My vote is for the "Subscription" based model and is a big YES

Please can we have forum members thoughts and votes on this.

[klausness]

I am pretty seriously against the subscription model. I have stopped using several pieces of software because they moved to a subscription model.

I thinik a better approach is the old-fashioned one of charging for major-version upgrades. We're already on version 7 (beta), and I think I started with something like version 4 (or even 3?). I could have paid for several upgrades by now (and I would have). To keep people from just skipping a version, you need to do something like charging for each major version you skip. So let's say (to pick a random number) it's a $10 version upgrade. So your upgrade to version 7 would be $10 from version 6, $20 from version 5, $30 from version 4, etc. For app store purchases, I guess you'd need to handle that via one-time in-app purchases. So you'd have a demo version (20 item limit, or something like that) that's freely downloadable. There would then be in-app purchases for full activation (full price, for people with no previous license), upgrade from version 6, upgrade from version 5, etc. I guess you would have to have a new app store item for each version. So instead of CDPedia, you'd have CDPedia 7. When the new version is released, you'd make that only available for people who've already purchased it and upload a new CDPedia 8. It does have the issue of losing reviews from previous versions, but unless Apple has changed things recently, I believe they have no good way of dealing with upgrades.

[MusicGuy]

I wholeheartedly agree with klausness. Normally, I don't like subscriptions, although, I do have ONE, which is a weather app ($10 annually), which I consider essential, for my needs. For the two Pedia apps that I have, I would gladly pay a (reasonable) version update fee every couple of years, as is warranted.

[DanThe]

Crowd funding from my understanding would not be a fix amount and is more of a give what you can for the product. I do not believe this would be good and it would certainly be more work to track the funds.

Therefore the subscription model which has been available on the App Store for many years now would be a better option for maintaining a steady revenue stream.

The apps would available with a limited amount of entries for free. Then a monthly and a yearly subscription would be available to unlock the entry limits. Another thing is that version updates would be covered as well given that we have not been paying for updates under the current buy once own forever model.

Apple also charges a lower percentage from the App Store if the annual sales is below a certain amount and 30% if the annual sales exceed that amount.

So I have voted for the subscription model.

[ScottH]

I would also vastly prefer paying for major new releases. I avoid subscription software like the plague. It makes me feel like my data is being held for ransom, and if I choose not to pay, I can no longer access it. I'm all in favor of supporting Conor's continued work on the Pedias after the hiatus--the first major release after his return should absolutely be a paid upgrade. At this point I've gotten years of invaluable use out of the Pedias, and would be happy to pay full price for them again. But please, no ransom model.

[FineWine]

I have added a third Financial option.
“Major Release”
You may change your vote

[DanThe]

ScottH.

Lately I have seen apps offer monthly, yearly (subscriptions) and Lifetime (one time). So maybe when Connor gets back, we might be able to get the best of both worlds. It's good that we can throw ideas around to generate momentum on this with the final decision from Conor himself.

Note that I was once not a fan of subscriptions but have come to realize for smaller independent developers, a version to version payment model depending on the time between them might not generate enough revenue.

Data is one of those things that can be infuriating if an app is sunset and that there is no replacement. If there is one, will an export from one be able to fully imported into that replacement? I use to use Collectorz apps and was lucky that 80% of my data was imported into the Bruji ones. To this day I haven't completely entered the remaining 20% which has to be done manually.

Just some food for thought.

[klausness]

Yes, the "data held for ransom" issue is what puts me firmly against subscriptions. I've spent many hours (probably adding up to weeks in total) entering in data, and I don't want the risk of losing all of that. Also, what happens if Conor decides to stop developing the Pedias? Does that mean that all subscriptions expire and everyone's data becomes inaccessible?

[demiadirac]

... and everyone's data becomes inaccessible?

Fortunately, this (at least) cannot happen. Since the pedias have an open architecture (one of their biggest assets) the data remains accessible even if the software should stop functioning.

[klausness]

... and everyone's data becomes inaccessible?

Fortunately, this (at least) cannot happen. Since the pedias have an open architecture (one of their biggest assets) the data remains accessible even if the software should stop functioning.

So how do I access this open architecture data? I know that I can export data from CDPedia, but the original data seems to be in a proprietary format file called Database.cdpd. Is this actually in some format that's readable by other applications (such as sqlite)? It doesn't appear to be a text-base format (like xml). If the application suddenly stops working, then I obviously wouldn't be able to export the data from CDPedia, so either I need to have had the foresight to export data before that happens or I need to be able to open the cdpd file with another application (unless I'm mistaken about where the data is actually stored).

[demiadirac]

... and everyone's data becomes inaccessible?

Fortunately, this (at least) cannot happen. Since the pedias have an open architecture (one of their biggest assets) the data remains accessible even if the software should stop functioning.

So how do I access this open architecture data? I know that I can export data from CDPedia, but the original data seems to be in a proprietary format file called Database.cdpd. Is this actually in some format that's readable by other applications (such as sqlite)? It doesn't appear to be a text-base format (like xml). If the application suddenly stops working, then I obviously wouldn't be able to export the data from CDPedia, so either I need to have had the foresight to export data before that happens or I need to be able to open the cdpd file with another application (unless I'm mistaken about where the data is actually stored).

Database.cdpd is in fact a sqlite database, you can access it with any sqlite editor of your choice.

[emmayashri]

I prefer to major release.

[klausness]

Fortunately, this (at least) cannot happen. Since the pedias have an open architecture (one of their biggest assets) the data remains accessible even if the software should stop functioning.

So how do I access this open architecture data? I know that I can export data from CDPedia, but the original data seems to be in a proprietary format file called Database.cdpd. Is this actually in some format that's readable by other applications (such as sqlite)? It doesn't appear to be a text-base format (like xml). If the application suddenly stops working, then I obviously wouldn't be able to export the data from CDPedia, so either I need to have had the foresight to export data before that happens or I need to be able to open the cdpd file with another application (unless I'm mistaken about where the data is actually stored).

Database.cdpd is in fact a sqlite database, you can access it with any sqlite editor of your choice.

OK, thanks. Good to know.