With the launch of the Mac App Store recently, Pixelmator, amongst a few other existing Mac apps, went Mac App Store Only. This means that eventually (once the application reaches version 2.0) users that already bought it from their website will stop getting free updates through the app, and will need to ‘transition’ to the App Store version to upgrade to 2.0 and continue getting point-release updates.
Buying it on the App Store currently costs $29 (£17.99 in the UK), due to rise in around two months to $59 according to their Twitter feed, @pixelmator. If you already own the app, having purchased from their site or on disc over the last couple of years, you can’t get an App Store version for free, you have to pay.
Confusing the issue, some apps that people already own and which now have App Store versions show up as ‘Installed’ in the Store, even though the user did not buy the app from the Store. This leads some users to believe that their apps are going to be updated via the Store even though they didn’t buy them there, and, therefore, that it must be possible for people like Pixelmator to provide them with free updates too and that they are choosing not to for financial reasons.
This is due to a misunderstanding between the Store and the app you already own. Here comes the science bit: there’s a bit of code in the application that identifies it to the hard drive and which the Mac App Store searches for when it’s working out if you already have an app installed. Think of it as sort of like a nameplate outside your house. The App Store version of an app should have a different identifier to the same app bought elsewhere – even if they are otherwise identical. Where such apps are showing up as Installed, the developer hasn’t used the correct identifier in their App Store app.
Bottom line – unless you specifically buy an app in the App Store, even ones you already own, it will not update via the App Store. Apple will probably make this clearer soon, or require that developers fix their identifiers.
Back to Pixelmator. Some existing users are claiming they’re being made to pay twice to continue getting the latest version while new users that buy from the App Store are paying once and what’s more, getting it at half price. It does seem that way at first glance, but it’s not the case at all, and while the guys at Pixelmator have got a page up explaining why, a lot of people still don’t get it.
Here’s how Pixelmator isn’t ripping existing users off:
If you already have Pixelmator, you’ll continue to get free updates to your non-App Store version until 2.0. The release of 2.0 would have cost you an upgrade fee (probably around $39 but that’s a guess). Therefore, if the App Store did not exist, you would have had to ‘pay again’ to continue using the latest version of the app anyway.
If you ‘pay again’ now from the App Store, up until around March-ish, 2011, you’ll get the current version of Pixelmator for $29. Yes, you are paying a second time to receive exactly the same version of the app that you currently have and yes, this does seem like you’re being had, but because of the nature of the App Store update process, you’ll get 2.0 for free – remember, you’d have had to buy that upgrade anyway. You’re essentially buying your update to 2.0 several months in advance (no word on when it’s due out yet).
So, if you are an existing user of Pixelmator and don’t expect to want 2.0, don’t buy it again from the App Store and continue to get free updates to 1.x. If, however, you decide you do want to upgrade and you wait until it’s actually released, the only place to get it will be the App Store and it’ll be $59 again.
There’s no hiding the fact that brand new users can currently buy once and get it for $29, a whole $59 less than existing users will have paid, but that’s life, the market changes – look at it like this: they’ve not had the pleasure of using Pixelmator since it was launched, and if they’re not quick they’ll have to pay $59 anyway.
Compare Pixelmator’s approach with what’s happening with Coversutra 2 where the developer has also gone Mac App Store Only, but for her own reasons (which I sympathise with) has had to go back on her similar pledge to existing customers to provide free updates until 3.0 – she’s ceasing support for the non-App Store version, which will not receive the 2.5 update currently on sale on the Store. This means all current users that wish to continue to 3.0 will have to pay again, albeit only $5, but the principle of the promise made is under heavy attack. It’s a bit of a mess all round with the absolute worst examples on internet rage spewing forth all over her blog. Unpleasant for everyone.
Well, I hope Google picks this up and that even a few people giving Pixelmator a bad name on the social network will realise that, if anything, they’re probably saving a bit of cash on their eventual upgrade to 2.0 if they buy now.
UPDATE, January 11th, 2011:
I just want to add that I’ve seen a lot of calls for Pixelmator to give us some kind of development roadmap to version 2.0 so that existing users can gauge for themselves if the update is going to be worth the cash and hence worth buying now while it’s cheaper.
I’d echo those calls. If the Mac App Store didn’t exist I’d say a roadmap would be nice but by no means essential, but given the way this whole thing has had to go down, and given the understanding that Pixelmator seems to me to have about how their users feel, I think they should get something out there pronto that gives at least an idea of some of the major new features planned to be included.
I’d like to think that if they did that, the vast majority of this fuss would die away pretty quickly.
4 replies on “Pixelmator: they’re not ripping you off”
I found your article after a Google search and while I can see your point, as an existing Pixelmator user who paid $59 for the app, I feel it’s users like me who are being asked to subsidize the cheaper price for new users. Why should I have to purchase the app again just so someone else can buy it for $29? I won’t be upgrading, in fact if I purchase Pixelmator again it will be when another major update happens, as I can’t justify spending money on something I already own. I find the stance the Pixelmator team has taken on this issue to be disingenuous towards existing users – they could release the 2 update for us via their website, but they’ve chosen not to. Existing users have a right to feel shafted.
Hi Lachlan,
I tried to reply to you by email but you didn’t leave a useable email address.
I actually posted this article months ago, the first time they offered the discounted MAS version. It since rose to full price and has recently dropped again to give people another chance in advance of the imminent 2.0 upgrade.
As my blog states, you would have had to pay a fee for 2.0 regardless. It would likely have been in the $30 range. In the meantime, you have been receiving 1.x updates for free along with new customers who purchased from the Mac App Store.
Those new customers either paid $29 when the MAS version went live originally, or $59 because they missed that offer. The price has dropped back down again because 2.0 is imminent. Therefore this is your chance to get the MAS 1.x version of the app, which will become 2.0 for free when that’s released.
So, I really can’t see the problem. I certainly don’t understand what you mean about users like you subsidising everyone else. How does that work?
I’m sorry but I think they did what they had to in order to embrace the MAS. And at least they’ve continued to support all 1.x users via the website. You were never going to get a free copy of 2.0 anyway.
Hope you continue to enjoy Pixelmator whatever your decision!
What I mean, is when someone who purchased the app before the app store only decision gets told they have to purchase it again, even though they purchased the software in good faith previously, the extra $29 they have to pay is subsidizing the switch to the new business model for pixelmator. That person ends up paying $88 for the privilege, whereas a user who purchased the software later from the app store receives the same deal for $29. Pixelmator don’t really lose out in this case. They get a bunch of new users and they haven’t lost out. I think the app store model is flawed – what happens at the next major release? Do existing users find that they can pay another $29/$59 just like brand new users who come onboard at that time? I guess I’m used to software companies showing goodwill towards their users and maybe you can argue that the current $29 is just that. Maybe the software then is only really worth $29 every couple of years at major point upgrades and not $59 …
I understand there are no guarantees in life etc, but you have to feel for the person who just purchased the app prior to the app store only decision and then gets told they have to go purchase it again. I’m sure the Pixelmator team could refund a portion of their purchase price but there is no such offer on the table.
Hi,
I’m sorry but in terms of this whole ‘subsidised other users’ thing, I really don’t feel you have an argument here.
The prices change on products all the time. All companies have sales. If I buy something in a shop and a week later, a month later, a year later, it’s half the price in a sale, do I go writing to their CEO moaning about how it’s all so unfair and if you look at the maths it’s clear that me having agreed to pay the RRP six months ago when the market was different has subsidised a sale of the product and therefore that I am entitled to a portion of my money back? Of course not.
Remember, as a 1.x user, you would have had to pay again for an upgrade to 2.0. Please understand that. You would have had to pay extra regardless. New users buying in to the App Store version at it’s launch discounted price do not. I realise that’s annoying. But it’s just one of those things.
As for updates, the App Store provides free updates to apps. If a company wanted to launch a significantly updated version for a fee, they’d have to submit a new app to Apple. It’s been done before, the Tweetie app (which was bought by Twitter in the end) had a major update to 2.0 and rather than it be a free update, he released a new 2.0 app for a fee. So when you say you’ll wait for a major new version before considering spending more money on the app, what do you consider 2.0 to be? Remembering, yet again, that this major new version is one you would have had to pay for anyway as a 1.0 user.
In closing, may I suggest that if you or other users continue to feel hard done by you should take the complaint directly to Pixelmator in their forums? Much more likely to get a response you can actually do something with.
http://www.pixelmator.com/support/
Best wishes and thanks for stopping by.