6 ms·

Wait, you need to ask Apple to have your app featured? This is a really insightful post, but at the same time, I don't even want to bother with all the Do's an

by WA 11y ago

Wait, you need to ask Apple to have your app featured? This is a really insightful post, but at the same time, I don't even want to bother with all the Do's and Don'ts. See, I don't develop games. I have a total niche app product and Apple does exactly zero things for me and still wants 30%. I even drive the people to the app store through my website. Exposure? No. Payment handling? Could do this myself. New users? Not really. Luckily, my web app makes 10x more money than the stupid app.

clamprecht 11y ago
What is your app?
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
- WA 11y ago
  Sorry, I won't give the actual name. It's a B2C app in the health section and requires quite a bit of knowledge by its users. So, this basically disqualifies it as ever being featured, because the users need to be a bit more sophisticated than average joe browsing the category page in the App Store.
  - paulpauper 11y ago
    med school app?
  - alawrence 11y ago
    Any tips on following a similar path to creating profitable apps?
qzervaas 11y ago
The post is almost entirely true for non-games too. I have a successful app and these are the exact things Apple want. Also, like he said, don't complain, just deal with it. Saying they do nothing for you isn't entirely true, or you wouldn't have an app on the App Store.
- WA 11y ago
  I have an app in the App Store, mostly because my users want one. It does make a bit of money, but development has stalled and is somewhat subsidized by my SaaS. If there was only the app and not the website, it would not be economically feasible. I'm not complaining, but stating that I'm not happy with how things go. The only reason why it's "acceptable" to give Apple 30% is because they're the only game in town. If I gave another third party 30%, they surely had to bring a bit more to the table than what Apple is offering me (in my specific situation with a niche app). If everybody shuts up, nothing will ever change – although expressing dissatisfaction probably won't change much either I guess.
  - jacalata 11y ago
    If you had only the website and not an app, would that be economically feasible?
jkirsteins 11y ago
> Apple does exactly zero things for me and still wants 30% It gives you access to its customers. That's not a bad deal for many.
- WA 11y ago
  No, as I said before: I actually bring most customers myself. Most buys happen because they find my website through Google first and then decide to buy the app. See sibling posting: Users need some kind of sophistication to use it successfully.
  - tamana 11y ago
    Can you still your service on your website, and publish a free companion app in the app store?
rogerbinns 11y ago
> ... Apple does exactly zero things for me and still wants 30% ... I'll bite. The Romans, err I mean Apple have done nothing, except at least these: * Maintains a user database including authentication, plus all the support costs (lost password support is very high) * Payment handling (you dismiss it, but no one does it for free) including keeping up with tax authorities and legal systems in much of the world * Almost unlimited (re)downloads for users to a reasonable number of devices. Bandwidth is cheap but not free. * Backup and restore for application data. (You may not use it, but that functionality is available to apps without extra fees.) * A curated walled garden including a review process. I'm sure your app is fine, but Apple keeping the dregs out and avoiding the place turning into a cesspool means users can be more confident about the apps and that halo effect helps all apps in the store. * Mechanisms to extend your app such as IAP, and an advertising solution etc * Access to a large user base, with reasonably fair rules that everyone has play by * They make all the above work together The case can be made that the benefits used vary by app, but in aggregate it isn't an unreasonable amount for them to charge. It is worth noting that competitors haven't done anything substantially different.
- aianus 11y ago
  > It is worth noting that competitors haven't done anything substantially different. I can download an .apk directly from a developer if Google doesn't want to host it on the app store. I've done this, for example, with the Betfair app. That's a pretty huge difference.
  - rogerbinns 11y ago
    You are talking about a difference in platforms, not in stores and services they provide. Pretty much all the app stores on all the platforms charge 30%. They also offer substantially the same services.
- WA 11y ago
  Yes, you're right generally speaking. But I'm just pointing out that for me(!) with a niche app(!) it doesn't work out and I need nothing of the stuff you mentioned. Payments? PayPal and Stripe are reasonably priced and compete with each other. This makes prices reasonable. Maybe I can make my point more clear by saying what I expect from Apple: Let me publish an app and don't tell me how to run my business. I want to put up an app in store that uses external payments. Apple doesn't want this. Well, kind of, sort of. The App Store Guidelines section 11 are pretty clear on what Apple expects: Don't charge people outside of the App Store, because we want a share of that pie. And if you do, we ain't gonna like it. We might approve your app, we might not. We might change our mind, too. Depends on how explicit you're selling your stuff. And for a long time, it was simply not possible to offer apps that are paid for outside the App Store. And now, it's still very vague. You have to offer an app that also works without requiring a paid account. Anyways, thanks for the input. I take this discussion to reconsider my position and think of a way how I can make this work. I must admit that Apple changed the rules over the recent months a bit. It's maybe a bit more flexible now.

by WA 11y ago

clamprecht 11y ago

What is your app?

deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
WA 11y ago
Sorry, I won't give the actual name. It's a B2C app in the health section and requires quite a bit of knowledge by its users. So, this basically disqualifies it as ever being featured, because the users need to be a bit more sophisticated than average joe browsing the category page in the App Store.
- paulpauper 11y ago
  med school app?
- alawrence 11y ago
  Any tips on following a similar path to creating profitable apps?

qzervaas 11y ago

The post is almost entirely true for non-games too. I have a successful app and these are the exact things Apple want. Also, like he said, don't complain, just deal with it. Saying they do nothing for you isn't entirely true, or you wouldn't have an app on the App Store.

WA 11y ago
I have an app in the App Store, mostly because my users want one. It does make a bit of money, but development has stalled and is somewhat subsidized by my SaaS. If there was only the app and not the website, it would not be economically feasible. I'm not complaining, but stating that I'm not happy with how things go. The only reason why it's "acceptable" to give Apple 30% is because they're the only game in town. If I gave another third party 30%, they surely had to bring a bit more to the table than what Apple is offering me (in my specific situation with a niche app). If everybody shuts up, nothing will ever change – although expressing dissatisfaction probably won't change much either I guess.
- jacalata 11y ago
  If you had only the website and not an app, would that be economically feasible?

jkirsteins 11y ago

> Apple does exactly zero things for me and still wants 30% It gives you access to its customers. That's not a bad deal for many.

WA 11y ago
No, as I said before: I actually bring most customers myself. Most buys happen because they find my website through Google first and then decide to buy the app. See sibling posting: Users need some kind of sophistication to use it successfully.
- tamana 11y ago
  Can you still your service on your website, and publish a free companion app in the app store?

rogerbinns 11y ago

> ... Apple does exactly zero things for me and still wants 30% ... I'll bite. The Romans, err I mean Apple have done nothing, except at least these: * Maintains a user database including authentication, plus all the support costs (lost password support is very high) * Payment handling (you dismiss it, but no one does it for free) including keeping up with tax authorities and legal systems in much of the world * Almost unlimited (re)downloads for users to a reasonable number of devices. Bandwidth is cheap but not free. * Backup and restore for application data. (You may not use it, but that functionality is available to apps without extra fees.) * A curated walled garden including a review process. I'm sure your app is fine, but Apple keeping the dregs out and avoiding the place turning into a cesspool means users can be more confident about the apps and that halo effect helps all apps in the store. * Mechanisms to extend your app such as IAP, and an advertising solution etc * Access to a large user base, with reasonably fair rules that everyone has play by * They make all the above work together The case can be made that the benefits used vary by app, but in aggregate it isn't an unreasonable amount for them to charge. It is worth noting that competitors haven't done anything substantially different.

aianus 11y ago
> It is worth noting that competitors haven't done anything substantially different. I can download an .apk directly from a developer if Google doesn't want to host it on the app store. I've done this, for example, with the Betfair app. That's a pretty huge difference.
- rogerbinns 11y ago
  You are talking about a difference in platforms, not in stores and services they provide. Pretty much all the app stores on all the platforms charge 30%. They also offer substantially the same services.
WA 11y ago
Yes, you're right generally speaking. But I'm just pointing out that for me(!) with a niche app(!) it doesn't work out and I need nothing of the stuff you mentioned. Payments? PayPal and Stripe are reasonably priced and compete with each other. This makes prices reasonable. Maybe I can make my point more clear by saying what I expect from Apple: Let me publish an app and don't tell me how to run my business. I want to put up an app in store that uses external payments. Apple doesn't want this. Well, kind of, sort of. The App Store Guidelines section 11 are pretty clear on what Apple expects: Don't charge people outside of the App Store, because we want a share of that pie. And if you do, we ain't gonna like it. We might approve your app, we might not. We might change our mind, too. Depends on how explicit you're selling your stuff. And for a long time, it was simply not possible to offer apps that are paid for outside the App Store. And now, it's still very vague. You have to offer an app that also works without requiring a paid account. Anyways, thanks for the input. I take this discussion to reconsider my position and think of a way how I can make this work. I must admit that Apple changed the rules over the recent months a bit. It's maybe a bit more flexible now.