Small and quick poll regarding Poweramp (and Equalizer) development

[maxmp]

Just want to know the active community thoughts on the Poweramp player and equalizer future development.

One note: even if additional paid services/subscriptions/patronage are introduced, these will be optional. The one-time purchase option stays, and your Full Version/Premium status stays on the same terms.

[Bencherished]

Poweramp should get major updates, but when it comes to subscription, I am not a fan. We have been getting updates and improvements for years now, and most of us appreciate it. 

If there is a major update coming to the app which will require additional payment, I will suggest it goes like this: If after the major update, Poweramp will cost $8, then the $8 should be for the full version unlocker without any in-app purchase, just like it has been. 

For those that have the full version, the amount they paid for the full version should be subtracted from the current $8, then pay the balance if they want to continue using the app. I am against monthly or yearly subscription. 

And it will make no sense to purchase full version unlocker, just to see another in-app purchase. 

Bencherished. 

[MotleyG]

1 hour ago, Bencherished said:

Poweramp should get major updates, but when it comes to subscription, I am not a fan. We have been getting updates and improvements for years now, and most of us appreciate it. 

If there is a major update coming to the app which will require additional payment, I will suggest it goes like this: If after the major update, Poweramp will cost $8, then the $8 should be for the full version unlocker without any in-app purchase, just like it has been. 

For those that have the full version, the amount they paid for the full version should be subtracted from the current $8, then pay the balance if they want to continue using the app. I am against monthly or yearly subscription. 

And it will make no sense to purchase full version unlocker, just to see another in-app purchase. 

Bencherished. 

In-app purchase does not have to be a subscription. It can be one-time fee as well. So if adding on a major update for lyrics can be a $5 fee, hi-res $5, esoteric/niche format supprt $3, etc.

Edit:

I am in support of the idea of a one-time fee for significant additions only. The existing platform should continue to operate and be supported as-is.

The recently added lyrics support is a prime example of an add-on that could have been optional, as I for one had absolutely no need for it. Others wished for it, so the additional development of this should have been over and above what the initial app cost. FWIW - I felt this feature development time was at the expense of other sound quality improvements that would have been of more value to Poweramp, but that is my personal opinion.

I would much rather have the app continue to do what it does best, play music files as best possible. Poweramp is what every premium player should strive to be. Yet there are a few other apps that excel at high res support that Poweramp does not. I fully realize PA did not have this support when I purchased it so I don't demand that it gets developed. But I would be willing to make the in-app purchase for this additional support if/when it may become available.

The same may be applied for those seeking network file access, etc.

Edited July 24 by MotleyG
clarification of my thoughts regarding fee-based add-on structure

[Bencherished]

3 hours ago, MotleyG said:

In-app purchase does not have to be a subscription. It can be one-time fee as well. So if adding on a major update for lyrics can be a $5 fee, hi-res $5, esoteric/niche format supprt $3, etc.

I am in support of the idea of a one-time fee for significant additions only. The existing platform should continue to operate and be supported as-is.

The recently added lyrics support is a prime example of an add-on that could have been optional, as I for one had absolutely no need for it.

I agree with you that in-app purchase should be a one time thing, but splitting cost for additional features will be cost effective, it will put so many people off, believe me, many have stayed with this app because of the one-time purchase and Steady update without additional cost, that's why you are seeing more users coming over, by the time you introduce multiple payment, bad reviews will start purring in, the app will be abandoned, we don't want that.

Increase the price for full version for new customers and little one-time fee for the old.

It's true that there are some features that we don't use, like the support for lyrics viewing, but sometimes one just have to try it out, so imagine paying for things like that, let any feature be, as long as there is an option to turn it off and it does not affect the smooth operation of the application. 

Bencherished. 

[MotleyG]

I look at it more like a hardware device. At some point for new features you have to buy an upgrade. Computers, phones, cars, stereo systems, almost any technology requires a new device eventually to get the latest wiz-bang. This comes with a cost. Consider that Poweramp is already a very low cost solution with long term enjoyment benefits, why shouldn’t there be a path for Max to attach at some point to recover ongoing development costs?

[andrewilley]

I think it only takes a glance at the Frequently Requested Features list that I started a while ago (and that's just the common stuff, so really the tip of the iceberg) to realize that there are a ton of things people would like to see in Poweramp in the future beyond simple bug fixes and Android compatibility maintenance releases.

We also see occasional posts from people saying they'd love to be able to donate to help with future features, and/or pay for specific major features, but I'm not sure whether that would materialize into realistic funding. For example, people saying they'd happily pay extra for a dedicated high-res downloadable plugin (probably needing hardware drivers written) to provide USB DACs, etc. with bit-perfect playback. But how many would realistically pay enough to cover 6+ months of development time (and ongoing maintenance time) alongside the purchase of multiple development hardware items required for individual testing purposes (would need to have one of every device to be supported).

I know Max does not want to ask users to pay again for new Poweramp releases, still preferring the original model that once you've bought it you've got it for life, but we do need to recognize that this is a job for him and he has a family to support, and that recent events in Russia have increased his costs significantly as international restrictions have made it untenable to remain resident in Russia and continue providing a world-wide product.

I do wonder if advertising might be an option, but with with an option for an extra nominal monthly fee to remove it? Although the market might baulk at paying even a basic price for a product and then seeing advertising - but that does seem to be the model that streaming video services are working on now.

The two main competitors that people mention seem to be UAPP and Neutron, both of which are more expensive than Poweramp and which have a tiny fraction of the historical userbase that PA does. But of course a historical userbase does not pay Max's bills.

So I think there may be room for a base price increase for new purchases - after 10+ years at the price - maybe to $7.50 or $10 in line with other apps? And also room for some kind of ongoing 'supporter' donation system. Perhaps something that offered subscribers greater involvement in the direction and priorities for feature development. Or maybe giving earlier 'priority' access to new features - perhaps getting new feature developments 6-12 months earlier than general release? Non-subscribed users would see a "coming soon, or subscribe to use now" message next to new feature controls.

Just some thoughts anyway - mostly with my "user" hat on rather than as forum admin.

Andre

[MotleyG]

Another option would be to keep the existing Poweramp app as it is today, and maintain only bug and minor security updates. So current users keep exactly what they paid for.
 

Then release an all-new app that may or may not be based on the current engine and adds the enhancements that are planned. This could have a different base cost for purchase, or become a subscription model, or whatever option is chosen.

[Bencherished]

@MotleyG Are you my brother? I had same idea 

56 minutes ago, MotleyG said:

Then release an all-new app that may or may not be based on the current engine and adds the enhancements that are planned. This could have a different base cost for purchase.

But I also thought about the name (Brand) Poweramp, changing it to something different will also affect things. 

Bencherished. 

[MotleyG]

1 hour ago, Bencherished said:

@MotleyG Are you my brother? I had same idea 

But I also thought about the name (Brand) Poweramp, changing it to something different will also affect things. . 

👍

The name can be similar, like PowerampPro or PowerampPlus or PowerampUltra. If that is what is decided. At least keep Poweramp in the name so it would come in a search.

[Bencherished]

I think PowerampPlus with the symbol + at the front and on the icon.

Then another thing to consider is, how will these 3 separate apps get the needed attention to be in their best? 

If this update should be in Poweramp, incase the price of unlocker, but how to tax those that are inn? If you say donate, many will not, if we are asked to pay for extra features in the app, it will be double taxation which will defeat the purpose of full version unlocker, so for me, I am saying, abandon Poweramp and give me the +, gradually, the previous will go low.

Bencherished. 

[Мальчиш Плохиш]

Для меня лично, как яркого представителя люмпен-пролетариата, эти 20 баксов ударят по карману, это раз. Второе - я с удовольствием откажусь от 200 рублей в пользу Макса, но *** Гугл маркет решил, что у русскоязычных разработчиков теперь должна болеть голова насчет размещения в Русторе для того, чтобы соотечественники могли их отблагодарить! Лавров уже все за меня сказал в двух словах: "Неумные, женщина с конечной социальной ответственностью!"

Имхо, можно в дальнейшем рассмотреть появление отдельных модулей, как в JetAudio, но по приемлемой цене. 

[Google Translation, in case it helps]

For me personally, as a prominent representative of the lumpen proletariat, these 20 bucks will hit my pocket, this time. Secondly, I will gladly give up 200 rubles in favor of Max, but *** Google Market decided that Russian-speaking developers should now have a headache about placing in Rustor so that their compatriots can thank them! Lavrov has already said everything for me in a nutshell: "Stupid, a woman with ultimate social responsibility!"

IMHO, we can further consider the appearance of separate modules, as in JetAudio, but at an affordable price. 

[maxmp]

@Мальчиш Плохиш if you paid, the Full Version unlocking stays, so you always get it unlocked to Full Version . The suggested subscription/patronage/etc. should be completely optional.

 

@Bencherished new app editions (v4, plus, etc.) doesn't work well on mobile platforms due to the app sandboxing, the new app loses all the settings, permissions, access to files, database, etc. and migration between new and old app can be very complicated if possible at all, nor to mention API hell and global settings like DVC or Resume on connection completely being broken in this scenario.

[ScarletNeko]

Please, anything but subscription/ad based stuff. Though I'm not a fan of the idea I do get it, and would rather buy it again at a higher price or pay a difference once, but subscription or ads will be the end.

I like the idea of separating things so we can get what we want (for example, the recent chain of updates dedicated to lyrics has absolutely no use for me but a lot of people seem to really like it), but depending on how it is pulled off it can be a dangerous path. To take care of all these separate parts, or making each of them some price are examples of bad things that would happen.

Once again, I would rather infinitely more to pay again or a difference for a higher price once, even if it includes things I dont use or make the app bigger, than anything subscription or ad based. I would be even more willing if it were an optional fee, as in, if we could choose between paying a difference or paying the new full price.

Edit to add: I recognize the situation might be different for certain things, particularly third party stuff, and in this case then theres not much that can be done, we can't control the third parties involved (for example if some brand requires some fee for api access or something). In this case it is understandable and it could (and should) be a totally independent in-app purchase thing or something, so users who want to use that specific service can use it. But other than that the previous apply, and it preferably should not interfere on other things such as self hosted alternatives for example.

Edited August 2 by ScarletNeko
Added further context for third parties

[andrewilley]

As Max said very clearly earlier, there are no plans to force existing users to pay anything extra. A Poweramp purchase will continue to allow you to use the app just as long as you want. Max himself has not suggested adverts, that was a throw-away comment of mine I think. Personally I'd find it hard to reconcile paying for an app and then also seeing adverts - but it does seem to be a business model that all the streaming video companies are adopting, with a basic subscription level with ads or a higher monthly fee to not see adverts.

I think the idea was more to provide an extra layer of support for enthusiasts of the project - in the same way for example that some podcasts are free to listen to, but you can become a subscriber via the "Patreon" service (https://www.patreon.com/) to show your support to the podcasters and in return get some extra perks such as early access to shows, more involvement with the show's production, bonus material, etc. I could see that model translating into the app world as buying the basic app for a set fee (including getting maintenance updates) but you could also pay an extra level to have more input into the decision-making process regarding the development cycle, exclusive earlier access to new features, etc.

One thing I definitely think could be done short-term though is to increase the base purchase price. I think it's been the broadly same for nearly 15 years, and what else can you buy today for the same price as 15 years ago? Many of the competing paid products are already more expensive than PA. 

Andre

[Blaze Emerson]

I agree that a single in-app purchase is preferable. However, dividing the cost for extra features might deter users and lead to negative outcomes. Many users value the current one-time purchase model and regular updates. Introducing multiple payments could result in bad reviews and user abandonment. A solution could be raising the full version price for new users and implementing a small one-time fee for existing users. Allowing features, even if unused, with the option to disable them without affecting performance is essential.

[bomber]

I would do an in app purchase to bypass the limitations of android so I can use my USB DAC with Poweramp in my car. It's so much more polished than the other two programs. I've bought all 3 and have used Poweramp exclusively since 2011 until I put my USB DAC in. I'm using a joying headunit with a SMSL D12 DAC. I'm relegated to using UAPP which is somewhat user friendly. I hate the controls and how it all works. Hopefully this gets lift off. I'd buy it in a heart beat.

[andrewilley]

@bomber You should be able to use the full version of Poweramp in a car, or installed on an Android head-unit, but you will need to provide it with internet access for initial validation of the licence. The same requirement would apply if it was an in-app purchase anyway. 

Andre

[bomber]

On 8/24/2023 at 4:56 AM, andrewilley said:

@bomber You should be able to use the full version of Poweramp in a car, or installed on an Android head-unit, but you will need to provide it with internet access for initial validation of the licence. The same requirement would apply if it was an in-app purchase anyway. 

Andre

I cant get my dac to work with Poweramp in my car. Thats why i use UAPP. Thats also why i would pay for the android limitation bypass for Poweramp . 

Ive tried everything and it just goes to active speakers. i enable USB DAC and it doesnt work.