but you pay for the distribution / tools / OS etc is a common sentiment I see here. No, the yearly fee should pay for that, and the user for the OS. And anyways, what if I don't want to, why cant I distribute it myself?
> but you pay for the distribution / tools / OS etc is a common sentiment I see here. No, the yearly fee should pay for that, and the user for the OS. And anyways, what if I don't want to, why cant I distribute it myself?
And if you choose to distribute your apps yourself? Apple still requires you to pay the $100 a year Apple tax, otherwise macOS will treat your app as if it is radioactive[1], leaving users to think that your app is either broken or malicious.
Apple has gone one step further, and now macOS on ARM Macs requires signed binaries, and it will not run unsigned ones[1][2].
I just want to be able to run and distribute my own apps. It’s ridiculous and just plain criminal that this is not possible. Apple does not own my device and does not get to dictate what I do with it. Phones are so locked down that they are a real threat to personal computing and software engineering. The day where apple stops indies from publishing apps is near.
This is where antitrust attention needs to be laser focused.
Our freedoms are at stake, and this should be our rallying point.
The iPhone is a general purpose computer (email, photos, dating, payments, reminders, docs, web, games, etc.) and computer manufacturers should not be allowed to control the only means to run software on computers they sell.
This is less drastic than breaking the company up into constituent parts. But honestly we ought to also be asking ourselves why a computer manufacturer gets to be a film studio and distribution chain.
I do believe that once I buy a device it's mine. I have jailbroken iPhones and an iPod Touch before, they were my devices and I did as I saw fit.
On the other hand I don't feel I have the right to dictate to anyone else what sort of products they may or may not sell, or how they work, beyond health and safety, accessibility, etc. I don't see that I have a right to tell Nintendo that they must write software to support side loading games for my Switch for example, or demand via government regulation that Sony can't charge a fee for developers to create games for the Playstation. As long as I know up front what the features and services are that come with my purchase, I have a free choice whether to accept them or not.
In particular, I certainly don't think I have the right to tell other members of the public that they should not have the option to buy those products on those terms if they wish. What right do I have to interfere in the product design of popular products, used by millions of people that are perfectly happy with them? Especially if that will force the company involved to change it's business practices and charging structure in ways those customers would not be happy with.
[edit: I missed that the parent comment was scoped to iPhone, rather than the OP story about Macs.]
You can distribute [macOS] apps directly to customers.
From Apple's site:
"While the Mac App Store is the safest place for users to get software for their Mac, you may choose to distribute your Mac apps in other ways. Gatekeeper on macOS helps protect users from downloading and installing malicious software by checking for a Developer ID certificate. Make sure to test your apps with the latest version of macOS and sign your apps, plug-ins, or installer packages to let Gatekeeper know they’re safe to install.
You can also give users even more confidence in your apps by submitting them to Apple to be notarized."
> I just want to be able to run and distribute my own apps
A niggle and not contradicting your main point.
You can run and distribute you own app. You can even share it with a few hundred people (maybe a couple thousand?).
What you can't do is distribute it in the App Store or effectively sell it outside the App Store.
Again, more a niggle and not disputing your point.
> The day where apple stops indies from publishing apps is near.
This point I will dispute. Apple isn't going to stop Indies from publishing apps. Apple loves developers (though sometimes they show it poorly) and knows they are the life-blood of the platform.
Users don’t care about indie crap as long as they get their Facegram and Instabook.
The harsh truth is that indie devs need access to Apple’s users, not the other way around.
And so you have to play by the policies that attracted those users to Apple in the first place, which includes the App Store with all its glorious kinks.
This absolutely improves the situation for a lot of indie developers, but praising Apple for it is short-term thinking. It's a strategic move, and it's not cynical to recognize that.
it isn't. By making a small concession here, apple prevented the law of society from opening up the walled garden (which is the bestest outcome for all, except for apple).
A corporation only under take actions that it stands to benefit from - it has zero ounce of altruism, even if what it did seem altruistic.
HN users and Twitter users might both be developers but they're very different types of people that have very different views of the world of computing.
To brush it off as "cynicism" is ignoring the full picture.
Right, the app store is an issue for users not developers already invested in Apple's platform. That's probably a PR goal for Apple, to turn users and developers for other platforms into one group and iOS developers into another group.
Perhaps that’s because Twitter people are less well-versed in technology and its business models? This move is clearly moving towards a low local maximum.
We've been seeing these blog posts for over a decade and this doesn't offer anything particularly new.
It would be nice to see one that actually offered constructive and workable legal solutions other than "make iPhones general computing devices" even though the concept has no meaning in law and would bleed into other industries.
And what would be so bad about this exactly? The comparison is oft made with closed stores for gaming consoles; but I don't see why regulating console manufacturers to require side-loading or third-party stores would be such a bad thing. There's no law of the universe which dictates that their business model be per-unit loss-leaders for game revenue splits.
I think this is one area where legal theory is not up to date with how society interacts with technology.
For example, I strongly believe that Internet should be considered something akin to a utility, because it's such an integral part of our lives. If an ISP were allowed to filter the internet however it pleased, it could have a substantial impact on our personal freedom.
Same goes for smartphones. Given that there's only two realistic choices, the Apple/Google duopoly means there are real restrictions on what kinds of apps/services you're allowed to access. Yes Google allows you to sideload apps, but if you use the same arguments about "they built the platform, they can charge/restrict whatever they want" that people use for Apple, what happens if Google takes that away and you're left with no real choice?
I would have a hard time defining a legal principle of which industries are so critical that they deserve regulation, but I would say there's definitely an argument for applying it to smartphones, and less for something like game consoles. Ultimately it comes down to political discussions to decide what is worthy of regulation; over time, we've decided that things like transportation, finance, communications, food, medicine, and so forth require regulation, while other areas are very loosely regulated if at all.
Agreed. People that ask Apple to let iPhone to be completely open has no idea that their entire business model is based on vertical integration. Pretty much the opposite of completely open
My point was to collect the arguments in one place (to clarify my own thinking), and that we need to establish that legal definition already. We've run the "unregulated app stores" experiment for long enough, now it's time to do the work of defining these things and regulating them properly.
I'm interested in the bleed into other industries though, and would love some examples. It's important that laws be general enough not to be too targeted against particular actors but also to avoid side effects that adversely affect others in the process.
> General computing platforms should be protected from such predatory practices by manufacturers through strong government regulations.
I find it much more plausible that any regulations will end up entrenching market incumbents and closing off potential avenues for disruption. In other words, this can only make the situation worse or keep it somewhat the same, it won't make it better.
> Stifling innovation isn't good for anyone, and as more and more people become software developers, this really just hurts the small guys ... Indie developers need protection from monopolistic and anti-competitive practices from larger players in the market through strong government regulation, not a discount on their first $1m in sales.
Indie developers aren't the only stakeholders here, platform users are as well and any regulation will need to take into account their needs and interests. In purely numerical terms, the latter group outnumbers the indies by 100x or more. Realistically speaking, whose needs will any regulation give more precedence?
The top concern amongst tech users today is security, whether its security of personal data or a more diffuse sense of security concerning the integrity of public discourse conducted online. It's very hard to imagine any kind of regulation protecting indie devs without also introducing regulations on the distribution process itself, in order to protect end users in these two areas. The only thing harder to disrupt than a commercially dominant player is a commercially dominant player ensconced in a complex regulatory regime. This is not a reality that indie developers or myself (personally), particularly like, but it's the reality we have. Ignoring it won't make it go away.
I cannot disagree with a single word in that article.
I would also go further and mandate that all general purpose computing devices should be forced to have an unlocked (or easily unlockable) boot loader so you can easily acquire full control over your device and even install competing OSes.
I think most people forget that Apple is paying the merchant processing fees on all of these transactions. On a $0.99 sale typical rates are 3% + $0.30. I’m quite certain Apple doesn’t pay full rate, but it’s entirely probable that they lose money on smaller transactions.
They have soft costs for app review and distribution but I can’t imagine they are significant whatsoever relative to merchant fees.
This is a fantastic loss leader to build marketshare and nurture app growth. They will probably have a lot of fledgling devs plow that incremental money right back into ads in a ‘virtuous’ cycle.
Thing is none of this would be up to guess work if we had competition enabled.
If you could offer "Pay with Stripe" alongside "Pay with Apple" and eliminate the forced price equality you would quickly see the user preference and value of Apple infrastructure/security/convenience.
Apple wouldn't be paying anything remotely like that rate - if they are, everybody involved in negotiating it needs to be fired. You're off by several orders of magnitude, therefore your conclusions based on the wrongly assumed cost structure are baseless.
I'd really like to know how much all the people whinging think it would cost to offer the following to developers. Crunch your numbers and show your work:
1. A development platform that includes the toolchains and emulators for all the variations of the Apple hardware/OS environments (including the ability to distribute test versions to a restricted audience)
2. A secure platform for taking payments, including all chargeback risk, local consumer taxation requirements (VAT etc) worldwide.
3. A secure platform for in-app purchases, subscriptions, DRM on content (leave aside the arguments for/against)
4. Mechanisms for secure distribution to employee BYOD of employer specific applications, including capabilities to remove them from departing employees
5. A marketplace with search and discovery (however imperfect) that also provides for customer reviews, screenshots etc
Currently all of that (barring the MDM of point 4) costs a developer:
First of all, that $100 a year should cover all of what you just listed.
It costs Apple approximately $100 million to run the store. If the ~20 million developers are chipping in $100/yr, Apple is looking at $2 billion in fees just from developers. You can further take the costs of developing a secure platform just from the sales of iOS devices. (Its not like the iPhone is useful without the AppStore).
Apple is one of the most successful companies in the world worth over $2 trillion. They would be just fine dropping the fees from 30% (now 15%) to a more standard 2% for a basic transaction fee.
This is entirely ignoring the value third party developers bring to Apple's platforms. I'd argue Apple has hugely benefited from a robust selection of third party apps available via the App Store, and the quality and diversity of apps on that store has been a core part of the value proposition for their hardware.
Exactly. In many other markets, the retailer takes a full half of the sales prices. For instance, my parents are professional sculptors, and standard gallery commissions are 40-50%.
This is a strawman argument. To see why, lets compare with Facebook.
How much money does it cost to develop API servers to deal with apps which use Facebook sign in?
How much money does it cost to run those API servers in a performant manner?
How much money does it cost to make sure that those servers are secure?
How much does Facebook charge? 0.
I could keep going (or find many other examples), but the point is that the justification of a price based on the seeming cost to the provider isnt relevant.
The issue for me here is that I should be able to run the apps that I want on hardware that I have purchased. Imagine if you buy a TV and then all of a sudden, the Netflix app is removed from the TV because Netflix didnt pay the tv manufacturer AFTER you've already purchased it.
If I make $0 a year I should be able to put the app on my phone without having to pay as well. And not just for 7 days and have to resign it every 7 days.
I am an gadget fan. I wouldn’t be caught dead with an Android or a Windows thingy in my hand.
Also a small dev. Here is the thing. Apple offers no revenue promise when I publish my app on iOS. If I don’t figure out how to market my app, it will just sit there and rot.
But as soon as someone buys my app, I have to pay 15% to Apple. What for?
It did NOT help me get my customer. If my app gets featured then may be I ll pay for the purchase bump. But what if I don’t want to be featured if it’s not worth the cut.
I am paying plain and simple because Apple has the key to my customers phone. Where I come from, that shit is called extortion.
I don’t get why people use the argument that they couldn’t possibly need the revenue from the App Store to keep it running. It isn’t a non profit business. What about all the money they spend on the hardware research and so many many other things. Some initiatives fund others and stock holders are very happy to see a profit.
I keep seeing critics, who may also be developers, arguing with developers on why they should be unhappy. The truth is, there are enough happy developers and customers to show that there is a healthy ecosystem. If there wasn’t then it would leave a gaping hole for a competitor.
I’m happy to pay for apps and happy to pay my cut for selling apps on the platform.
There are benefits to having a closed ecosystem just as there are to an open one. There are trade offs. I’m not sure why anyone complains about the Play store charging similar fees when you can distribute apps on android in other ways. If that is so much better for developers and Apple doesn’t earn their cut then I would expect to see a mass exodus to Android development.
I personally prefer developing for iOS and Mac. I don’t mind their fees. I find the customers to be very happy. I appreciate alternative perspectives but the tone of all of these articles complaining about Apple making money off of the ecosystem they created is so off putting to me.
Which is why it is good that we simulate competition using legal battles against Apple, since otherwise they have no reason to improve things. Apple wouldn't had reduced their rates like this if not for Epic pressuring them, so the lawsuit against Apple made the world a better place since now Apple is a bit less rent seeking than before.
The only concern I have is Apple has incentive to promote higher take apps over lower take, so they benefit more from pushing the 30% take apps over the 15% take.
As long as we don't end up with a tiered App Store like XBOX Arcade or Steam Greenlight back in the day then all good. If the 15% apps become pushed less that is no fun.
There is some benefit to a standard price market, most stores are 30% [1]. Tencent MyApp was even 55% until 2019 [1]. Epic Games is 12% but they said they are profitable around 7%-8% [1][2]. Steam, Sony, Google, Apple, Microsoft, Amazon all 30%[1].
If everyone went to 15-20% across the board it would be better. I am concerned about tiering of the market and down the line lower take apps being less pushed.
If they had done the exact same thing they did today but settled on 10% instead of 15% I am extremely confident that the response from HN would have been the same.
Apple didn't lose much by reducing commission to 15%, when they are top heavy, anyways. Based on one of the articles (not sure about how trustable data was, though), while the new commission effects 98% of developers, the net revenue impact would be on the order of a percent or two.
>Developers should be free to choose the payment processing service that best serves their needs, whether that's Stripe or Paypal or Apple's built-in offering. Apple's payment processor should be chosen because it's better, not because you have no other choice.
I'd like to note though, that users also should be free to choose the processing service that best serves their needs, not because they have no other choice. I'd much prefer paying with Apple Pay instead of Paypal. If Apple ever allows developers to provide different payment processors, I hope they make it mandatory for developers to also include Apple Pay as one of the options (just like they did with Sign in with Apple).
I understand that 30% is big, and does have an impact on some business models, but it also acts to align the incentives of the platform-developer with those of the app developer. The fact that Apple makes a bunch of money off apps makes it beneficial for them to continue supporting the ecosystem, by providing APIs, functionality, and other support.
What surprises me most about Apple's model is why they don't offer better support to developers. It seems that iOS the 'rich users', whereas Android has the 'cheap users', so Apple doesn't even bother improving the developer experience.
There have been measurable improvements over years to things like app review times etc, significantly so in some cases.
Whether _any_ review process in a store the size of Apple's can justify taking 30% is not obvious to me. As size goes up, costs usually go down in a healthy market. The App Store is barely recognizable in scale vs launch day, but financial terms for developers have barely moved.
Cost of framework development is a fair point, and they do continue to add things like ARKit, the Swift language, and a million new submenus in Xcode ;)
But that's been true of all OSes for decades and doesn't make iOS specialized compared to macOS or any more deserving of 30% of every developer's gross profits.
I've been an Apple developer for decades, but the last few years have been exhausting and I'm ready for a break. So I'm switching 100% to Linux development.
For now that means contracting work for others, who are integrating Linux into their systems (embedded), but as soon as I start seeing a viable way to get paid to build Linux-only software for a mass market, I'll take it.
Personally, I think the old models work fine on Linux: shareware/freeware, donation-ware, simple/cheap licensing terms, etc.
I wonder what the SublimeText and Reaper guys get for their Linux builds? I'm sure it is not insignificant, but I'm not sure its significant...
[+] [-] dang|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] matsemann|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] heavyset_go|5 years ago|reply
And if you choose to distribute your apps yourself? Apple still requires you to pay the $100 a year Apple tax, otherwise macOS will treat your app as if it is radioactive[1], leaving users to think that your app is either broken or malicious.
Apple has gone one step further, and now macOS on ARM Macs requires signed binaries, and it will not run unsigned ones[1][2].
[1] https://lapcatsoftware.com/articles/unsigned.html
[2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25134352
[+] [-] pryelluw|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] echelon|5 years ago|reply
Our freedoms are at stake, and this should be our rallying point.
The iPhone is a general purpose computer (email, photos, dating, payments, reminders, docs, web, games, etc.) and computer manufacturers should not be allowed to control the only means to run software on computers they sell.
This is less drastic than breaking the company up into constituent parts. But honestly we ought to also be asking ourselves why a computer manufacturer gets to be a film studio and distribution chain.
[+] [-] simonh|5 years ago|reply
On the other hand I don't feel I have the right to dictate to anyone else what sort of products they may or may not sell, or how they work, beyond health and safety, accessibility, etc. I don't see that I have a right to tell Nintendo that they must write software to support side loading games for my Switch for example, or demand via government regulation that Sony can't charge a fee for developers to create games for the Playstation. As long as I know up front what the features and services are that come with my purchase, I have a free choice whether to accept them or not.
In particular, I certainly don't think I have the right to tell other members of the public that they should not have the option to buy those products on those terms if they wish. What right do I have to interfere in the product design of popular products, used by millions of people that are perfectly happy with them? Especially if that will force the company involved to change it's business practices and charging structure in ways those customers would not be happy with.
[+] [-] robotresearcher|5 years ago|reply
You can distribute [macOS] apps directly to customers.
From Apple's site:
"While the Mac App Store is the safest place for users to get software for their Mac, you may choose to distribute your Mac apps in other ways. Gatekeeper on macOS helps protect users from downloading and installing malicious software by checking for a Developer ID certificate. Make sure to test your apps with the latest version of macOS and sign your apps, plug-ins, or installer packages to let Gatekeeper know they’re safe to install. You can also give users even more confidence in your apps by submitting them to Apple to be notarized."
https://developer.apple.com/macos/distribution/
[+] [-] ntsplnkv2|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] benbristow|5 years ago|reply
Sounds like they already do...
[+] [-] ogre_codes|5 years ago|reply
A niggle and not contradicting your main point.
You can run and distribute you own app. You can even share it with a few hundred people (maybe a couple thousand?).
What you can't do is distribute it in the App Store or effectively sell it outside the App Store.
Again, more a niggle and not disputing your point.
> The day where apple stops indies from publishing apps is near.
This point I will dispute. Apple isn't going to stop Indies from publishing apps. Apple loves developers (though sometimes they show it poorly) and knows they are the life-blood of the platform.
[+] [-] Razengan|5 years ago|reply
The harsh truth is that indie devs need access to Apple’s users, not the other way around.
And so you have to play by the policies that attracted those users to Apple in the first place, which includes the App Store with all its glorious kinks.
[+] [-] coronadisaster|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ogre_codes|5 years ago|reply
Meanwhile in my Twitter thread, every single Indie developer I follow is over the moon about it.
Whatever the end goal here, Apple is helping the smallest developers the most here.
And yes, there are a lot of places Apple can do better, but the cynicism around this is overblown.
[+] [-] lux|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] chii|5 years ago|reply
it isn't. By making a small concession here, apple prevented the law of society from opening up the walled garden (which is the bestest outcome for all, except for apple).
A corporation only under take actions that it stands to benefit from - it has zero ounce of altruism, even if what it did seem altruistic.
[+] [-] whywhywhywhy|5 years ago|reply
To brush it off as "cynicism" is ignoring the full picture.
[+] [-] swiley|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Siira|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] threeseed|5 years ago|reply
It would be nice to see one that actually offered constructive and workable legal solutions other than "make iPhones general computing devices" even though the concept has no meaning in law and would bleed into other industries.
[+] [-] lukifer|5 years ago|reply
And what would be so bad about this exactly? The comparison is oft made with closed stores for gaming consoles; but I don't see why regulating console manufacturers to require side-loading or third-party stores would be such a bad thing. There's no law of the universe which dictates that their business model be per-unit loss-leaders for game revenue splits.
[+] [-] e_y_|5 years ago|reply
For example, I strongly believe that Internet should be considered something akin to a utility, because it's such an integral part of our lives. If an ISP were allowed to filter the internet however it pleased, it could have a substantial impact on our personal freedom.
Same goes for smartphones. Given that there's only two realistic choices, the Apple/Google duopoly means there are real restrictions on what kinds of apps/services you're allowed to access. Yes Google allows you to sideload apps, but if you use the same arguments about "they built the platform, they can charge/restrict whatever they want" that people use for Apple, what happens if Google takes that away and you're left with no real choice?
I would have a hard time defining a legal principle of which industries are so critical that they deserve regulation, but I would say there's definitely an argument for applying it to smartphones, and less for something like game consoles. Ultimately it comes down to political discussions to decide what is worthy of regulation; over time, we've decided that things like transportation, finance, communications, food, medicine, and so forth require regulation, while other areas are very loosely regulated if at all.
[+] [-] m3kw9|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] lux|5 years ago|reply
I'm interested in the bleed into other industries though, and would love some examples. It's important that laws be general enough not to be too targeted against particular actors but also to avoid side effects that adversely affect others in the process.
[+] [-] andrewjl|5 years ago|reply
I find it much more plausible that any regulations will end up entrenching market incumbents and closing off potential avenues for disruption. In other words, this can only make the situation worse or keep it somewhat the same, it won't make it better.
> Stifling innovation isn't good for anyone, and as more and more people become software developers, this really just hurts the small guys ... Indie developers need protection from monopolistic and anti-competitive practices from larger players in the market through strong government regulation, not a discount on their first $1m in sales.
Indie developers aren't the only stakeholders here, platform users are as well and any regulation will need to take into account their needs and interests. In purely numerical terms, the latter group outnumbers the indies by 100x or more. Realistically speaking, whose needs will any regulation give more precedence?
The top concern amongst tech users today is security, whether its security of personal data or a more diffuse sense of security concerning the integrity of public discourse conducted online. It's very hard to imagine any kind of regulation protecting indie devs without also introducing regulations on the distribution process itself, in order to protect end users in these two areas. The only thing harder to disrupt than a commercially dominant player is a commercially dominant player ensconced in a complex regulatory regime. This is not a reality that indie developers or myself (personally), particularly like, but it's the reality we have. Ignoring it won't make it go away.
[+] [-] Valkhyr|5 years ago|reply
I would also go further and mandate that all general purpose computing devices should be forced to have an unlocked (or easily unlockable) boot loader so you can easily acquire full control over your device and even install competing OSes.
[+] [-] reilly3000|5 years ago|reply
They have soft costs for app review and distribution but I can’t imagine they are significant whatsoever relative to merchant fees.
This is a fantastic loss leader to build marketshare and nurture app growth. They will probably have a lot of fledgling devs plow that incremental money right back into ads in a ‘virtuous’ cycle.
[+] [-] reader_mode|5 years ago|reply
If you could offer "Pay with Stripe" alongside "Pay with Apple" and eliminate the forced price equality you would quickly see the user preference and value of Apple infrastructure/security/convenience.
[+] [-] newhotelowner|5 years ago|reply
With apple's volume, I am sure that the merchant is a subsidiary of Apple. They probably only paying the interchange fees.
[+] [-] isthatsoup|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] rswail|5 years ago|reply
1. A development platform that includes the toolchains and emulators for all the variations of the Apple hardware/OS environments (including the ability to distribute test versions to a restricted audience)
2. A secure platform for taking payments, including all chargeback risk, local consumer taxation requirements (VAT etc) worldwide.
3. A secure platform for in-app purchases, subscriptions, DRM on content (leave aside the arguments for/against)
4. Mechanisms for secure distribution to employee BYOD of employer specific applications, including capabilities to remove them from departing employees
5. A marketplace with search and discovery (however imperfect) that also provides for customer reviews, screenshots etc
Currently all of that (barring the MDM of point 4) costs a developer:
* $100/year
* 30% of purchase/subscription/in-app revenue
[+] [-] headhuntermdk|5 years ago|reply
It costs Apple approximately $100 million to run the store. If the ~20 million developers are chipping in $100/yr, Apple is looking at $2 billion in fees just from developers. You can further take the costs of developing a secure platform just from the sales of iOS devices. (Its not like the iPhone is useful without the AppStore).
Apple is one of the most successful companies in the world worth over $2 trillion. They would be just fine dropping the fees from 30% (now 15%) to a more standard 2% for a basic transaction fee.
[+] [-] _frog|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] hcurtiss|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] chacham15|5 years ago|reply
How much money does it cost to develop API servers to deal with apps which use Facebook sign in?
How much money does it cost to run those API servers in a performant manner?
How much money does it cost to make sure that those servers are secure?
How much does Facebook charge? 0.
I could keep going (or find many other examples), but the point is that the justification of a price based on the seeming cost to the provider isnt relevant.
The issue for me here is that I should be able to run the apps that I want on hardware that I have purchased. Imagine if you buy a TV and then all of a sudden, the Netflix app is removed from the TV because Netflix didnt pay the tv manufacturer AFTER you've already purchased it.
[+] [-] post_break|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] blunderkid|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] todd3834|5 years ago|reply
I keep seeing critics, who may also be developers, arguing with developers on why they should be unhappy. The truth is, there are enough happy developers and customers to show that there is a healthy ecosystem. If there wasn’t then it would leave a gaping hole for a competitor.
I’m happy to pay for apps and happy to pay my cut for selling apps on the platform.
There are benefits to having a closed ecosystem just as there are to an open one. There are trade offs. I’m not sure why anyone complains about the Play store charging similar fees when you can distribute apps on android in other ways. If that is so much better for developers and Apple doesn’t earn their cut then I would expect to see a mass exodus to Android development.
I personally prefer developing for iOS and Mac. I don’t mind their fees. I find the customers to be very happy. I appreciate alternative perspectives but the tone of all of these articles complaining about Apple making money off of the ecosystem they created is so off putting to me.
[+] [-] username90|5 years ago|reply
Which is why it is good that we simulate competition using legal battles against Apple, since otherwise they have no reason to improve things. Apple wouldn't had reduced their rates like this if not for Epic pressuring them, so the lawsuit against Apple made the world a better place since now Apple is a bit less rent seeking than before.
[+] [-] drawkbox|5 years ago|reply
As long as we don't end up with a tiered App Store like XBOX Arcade or Steam Greenlight back in the day then all good. If the 15% apps become pushed less that is no fun.
There is some benefit to a standard price market, most stores are 30% [1]. Tencent MyApp was even 55% until 2019 [1]. Epic Games is 12% but they said they are profitable around 7%-8% [1][2]. Steam, Sony, Google, Apple, Microsoft, Amazon all 30%[1].
If everyone went to 15-20% across the board it would be better. I am concerned about tiering of the market and down the line lower take apps being less pushed.
[1] https://www.gamasutra.com/blogs/SimonCarless/20200903/369516...
[2] https://www.gamasutra.com/view/news/341249/Heres_why_the_Epi...
[+] [-] diebeforei485|5 years ago|reply
Apple has made these mistakes before (eg. the iBooks price collusion lawsuit).
[+] [-] granzymes|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] swiley|5 years ago|reply
Me not being able to recompile colloquy with a different push server and install it on my phone is the problem!
[+] [-] AlexandrB|5 years ago|reply
[1] https://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2018/12/01/steam-taking-sma...
[+] [-] tehlike|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] bugsur|5 years ago|reply
I'd like to note though, that users also should be free to choose the processing service that best serves their needs, not because they have no other choice. I'd much prefer paying with Apple Pay instead of Paypal. If Apple ever allows developers to provide different payment processors, I hope they make it mandatory for developers to also include Apple Pay as one of the options (just like they did with Sign in with Apple).
[+] [-] causality0|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] nickff|5 years ago|reply
What surprises me most about Apple's model is why they don't offer better support to developers. It seems that iOS the 'rich users', whereas Android has the 'cheap users', so Apple doesn't even bother improving the developer experience.
[+] [-] giobox|5 years ago|reply
Whether _any_ review process in a store the size of Apple's can justify taking 30% is not obvious to me. As size goes up, costs usually go down in a healthy market. The App Store is barely recognizable in scale vs launch day, but financial terms for developers have barely moved.
[+] [-] lux|5 years ago|reply
But that's been true of all OSes for decades and doesn't make iOS specialized compared to macOS or any more deserving of 30% of every developer's gross profits.
[+] [-] somesortofsystm|5 years ago|reply
For now that means contracting work for others, who are integrating Linux into their systems (embedded), but as soon as I start seeing a viable way to get paid to build Linux-only software for a mass market, I'll take it.
Personally, I think the old models work fine on Linux: shareware/freeware, donation-ware, simple/cheap licensing terms, etc.
I wonder what the SublimeText and Reaper guys get for their Linux builds? I'm sure it is not insignificant, but I'm not sure its significant...