32 ms·

Coming changes to Apple's App Store

271 points by jontayesp 10y ago

uptown 10y ago
"Part of that energy has been channeled into figuring out how to sell developers on subscription services, and not only that, but how to keep them keeping on with those subscriptions. Previously, only apps classified as news, cloud services, dating apps, or audio / video streaming apps could sell subscription content. Now it’s open to all product categories. For the first year of a subscription Apple will maintain its 70 / 30 revenue share; after one year, the new 85 percent / 15 percent revenue share will kick in (applied per subscriber). The new app subscription model will roll out to developers this fall, though if app makers have subscribers they’ve already retained for a year, the new revenue split starts June 13th." That's a big change.
- jontayesp 10y ago
  Also: "Apple is also going to start showing search ads for apps in its iOS App Store search results for the first time, something the company had previously resisted."
  - shostack 10y ago
    I'm frankly shocked it took them this long. They have the #1 digital real estate for such advertising, and the amount of money being spent on advertising apps (particularly on FB) is staggering. Unfortunately, from a user standpoint, this seems to be a disincentive to improve their horribly lacking search functionality.
jaxondu 10y ago
Interestingly Sketch app announced today they're changing to a subscription model soon. Sketch app abandoned Apple store last December. Looks like Sketch will be back to Mac App Store this fall. It is sad that Apple only took action now, after years of requests and complains by indie developers. Now that app boom is over, I doubt this App Store changes will have any impact.
- ingsoc79 10y ago
  A subscription model would definitely benefit specific types of apps (we make games and are excited at this possibility). The easy money's already been made in the App Store; with a million+ apps it's a visibility issue. No amount of changes to the App Store will remove the problem of there being a dozen apps that already solve the problem that your app solves. That said, a subscription model with a reduced cut could improve monetization prospects for a lot of developers, indie especially.
  - exstudent2 10y ago
    > That said, a subscription model with a reduced cut could improve monetization prospects for a lot of developers, indie especially. Only if users except the model. I for one, will be removing any of my apps that move to a subscription model. I have no interest in renting the software on my phone.
- wlesieutre 10y ago
  Oh damn it. Sketch 3 owner, this is news to me. As a hobbyist, their subscription price will almost certainly not be worth it. The reason I quit Adobe and bought Sketch was to support software that I could actually buy. Not this "Good deal for professionals, even cheaper for students, fuck anybody who just wants to use a decent art program every couple of months" model. I'll see what I can track down on details, but I'm preemptively very disappointed about this. EDIT: Sketch is _NOT_ switching to a subscription model. Sketch is breaking from the "paid major, free minor" upgrade schedule, and going to "rolling releases, $99 buys the app and a year of upgrades." Personally I think that's a fair system. It frees them from having to plan new features around the major/minor release schedule, but you can still buy the software and just keep using it. My biggest concern is going to be OS compatibility. With OS X on a yearly upgrade treadmill, if there are any compatibility issues (and there almost always are), then the Sketch upgrade is effectively not optional. That's not so different from how it is now, except there have only been two major upgrades since the original release (September 2010), so you'll be buying OS compatibility fixes more than twice as often. So I still don't love it. https://blog.sketchapp.com/versioning-licensing-and-sketch-4-0-8ad98783e9ba https://blog.sketchapp.com/versioning-licensing-and-sketch-4...
codecamper 10y ago
Why not just A/B test trials & see how they do? Apple could be missing out on a sizable amount of revenue.
canistr 10y ago
I wonder if this will further reinforce the notion of the "Dunbar's number of apps". In the sense that on a country-by-country basis, the disposable income of people could become the limiting factor affecting how many apps that users install. If the supposed cognitive load of people for using apps is around 26-27, then is there an economic load that says that people will max at say--- $60/month--- in total app subscriptions in the US? And this number could change drastically for users in other countries based on fluctuating dollar values.
palakchokshi 10y ago
There are so many problems with the AppStore that need to be fixed and I hope atleast some are with these additions to the AppStore. 1. Fix app discovery 2. Fix app search before putting search ads. e.g. if your app name has a symbol in it searching by app name will NOT return your app in the search results. 3. App review times can be further reduced by automating the review process 4. Try it before you buy it option 5. Better UX
- pault 10y ago
  Why would they fix product search when they can charge you to advertise your app in the search results instead?
  - palakchokshi 10y ago
    same reason Google does it?
jaxondu 10y ago
Apple has put up a "What’s New in Subscriptions" site with a "Coming Soon" label: https://developer.apple.com/app-store/subscriptions/whats-new/ https://developer.apple.com/app-store/subscriptions/whats-ne... Also for Search Ads (Coming this fall): https://developer.apple.com/app-store/search-ads/ https://developer.apple.com/app-store/search-ads/
bitL 10y ago
How to kill your platform 101: Subscriptions
AndrewKemendo 10y ago
All I know is that their review process has gotten WAY faster and better over the last month, as in 24 hour review which has been awesome. Have other people noticed this? I wonder if they added capacity or dropped review quality - so far we haven't seen a drop in quality and they are able to catch problems at about the same rate.
- jontayesp 10y ago
  From the article: "Finally, Schiller says that the App Store has been speeding up app review times — to the point where 50 percent of submitted apps are now reviewed in 24 hours, and 90 percent are reviewed within 48 hours."
- ingsoc79 10y ago
  We've been seeing this too, with some apps being approved in <24 hours. Originally thought it was a fluke (it's happened a couple times over the past several years), but now it appears to be a regular occurrence. Now if we could see a similar factor improvement in TestFlight beta review times...
  - c1sc0 10y ago
    They are pretty fast. Submitted two External TestFlight apps this week & they had sub-6h review times
- Jerry2 10y ago
  That change happened because App Store's management was transferred from Eddy Cue over to Phil Schiller. While Eddy Cue was completely deaf to developers' complaints and needs, Schiller seems to be giving a damn and he's trying to improve things. They now employ ML/algorithmic means to test submitted apps and catch simple rejection issues. I'm also pretty sure that if you have a pretty good record of submissions & approvals, they spend less time scrutinizing your app. And if you're just issuing fixes or simple changes, they don't spend any time "human testing" at all. PS: I've come to a conclusion that whatever Cue runs, it is shit or turns to shit quickly. He's in charge of all the Apple services and they're a complete mess. I hope Cue retires or just transfers his responsibilities to someone who cares about them.
surds 10y ago
Subscription model for all apps... I don't see a reason to subscribe for apps that are one-time pay and periodic long term use. There is a fine line here that developers will have to be cautious not to cross. A lot of apps have no reason to be subscription model, but the prospect of recurring revenue is too tempting. Edit: On the other hand, this is totally awesome for services and products that already offer subscriptions on other platforms or on the web, like online streaming, education, and as someone mentioned here, tools like Sketch.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- joezydeco 10y ago
  What do app developers do now when everyone has 1.0 and you want to release a 2.0 version with more features and not just bugfixes? Do users still expect the upgrade for free?
  - AlexandrB 10y ago
    No, Apple should have added upgrade pricing years ago and I would gladly pay for upgrades that way. The fact that they still haven't added upgrades and are instead pushing for a subscription model rubs me the wrong way.
  - zkirill 10y ago
    Yes, at least in my experience. There are many who expect updates and new features because they have already invested so much of their time into your free app.
    - pc86 10y ago
      You can make the argument that a certain price point justifies free upgrades within a certain period of time or to a certain level (e.g. buy 1.x and get free up to all 2.n versions), but "I spend a lot of time in your app" is not a valid reason to get more of it for free.
  - 10y ago
rosalinekarr 10y ago
> For the first year of a subscription Apple will maintain its 70 / 30 revenue share; after one year, the new 85 percent / 15 percent revenue share will kick in (applied per subscriber). This is the exact opposite of what Apple should do. App startups in their first year need all the revenue they can get. After the first year, most of those companies have either reached profitability or gone out of business. This policy is going to mean more revenue for the large, established app companies, like Instagram or Snapchat, and less revenue for any potential usurpers. They're effectively suppressing innovation and locking in any monopolies they've helped to build.
- oddevan 10y ago
  I think Apple is attempting to reward services and startups that are focused on long-term value for their users. If I create a subscription app, I want to get to that 85/15 split. So that means I need to build my business such that I'm around in a year to collect on that split and I'm providing a good enough service after a year that people stay subscribed. In other words, I think Apple is intentionally discouraging companies that are so focused on the short game they may not be around in a year.
zkirill 10y ago
Our business management app is free to use on iOS but we charge a monthly subscription to use the web client and that has been working pretty well. With these coming changes I wonder if it would make sense to start charging monthly subscription for Pro features on iOS and how users will react to that.
embiggen 10y ago
What a terribly written article. Just give me the TL;DR already please!
- ssharp 10y ago
  The giant graph showing the old revenue scheme vs. the new one was particularly unnecessary.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
AlexandrB 10y ago
As someone who buys a lot of apps this is very disappointing. Things that would make me buy MORE apps (demos, upgrade pricing, better support) are still not in the app store, meanwhile the one pricing model I detest (subscriptions) is being added. I suspect I'll be buying far fewer apps if there's a mass movement from a purchase model to a subscription model among app developers. I'm perfectly happy to pay $20-30 for an app (even a simple app) if it provides value and I'm happy to pay for major upgrades or additional content/features, but I won't pay $20-30 a year just to maintain the ability to launch an app on an ongoing basis. In addition, after years of terrible search in the app store, coupling search improvements with search-based ads is just a kick in the shins.
- eridius 10y ago
  > Things that would make me buy MORE apps (demos, … It's been pretty much proven that demos actually sell fewer apps than no demos, at least at the price levels seen in the App Store (once you get up to several hundred dollars or higher, then presumably things change). Even at the $60 price point of AAA console games, demos have been proven to hurt sales (which is why you never seen demos of AAA console games anymore).
  - benologist 10y ago
    Demos are getting a bit redundant when we're trending towards being able to autonomously refund apps/games we don't like. Google Play purchases have a 2 hour window to refund any app you buy, Valve give refunds no questions asked in some circumstances, after the EU and AU asked a lot of questions. AU recently ruled it illegal to refuse refunds with requirements like trying to fix crashing games or not refunding functioning titles.
- dapearce 10y ago
  What about $0.99/mo, or even $0.49/mo? My initial reaction is the same as yours, but I could see myself agreeing to $0.99/mo for some of the apps I paid $2 or $3 for. Still relatively cheap for me but would dramatically increase income for the developer.
matt2000 10y ago
One interesting side effect of this might be that reasonably priced single-payment apps might seem desirable again. If a lot of apps switch to a $0.99/month subscription, then even a $4.99 one time payment might seem ok, whereas right now it would considered expensive by most users.
- soylentcola 10y ago
  One recent example on the Android side (don't use iOS very often) was an app that regularly publishes curated watch faces for Android Wear. There are literally thousands of free, user generated ones out there and I can make my own without too much trouble but I liked quite a few of the ones on this app. Additionally, they allow designers to submit their own watch faces and share the revenue which I thought was cool. It helps combat the glut of "brand" knockoffs that fill many of the free/user-generated sites. Originally, they offered a "pro" version that gave you access to all current and future watch faces for a subscription fee. I was not very keen on this because, like so many, I tend to forget to cancel these things when I stop using them. I mentioned this in an app review and so did many others. We requested a one-time IAP for the "Pro" version and soon after, the developer did just this. So I paid $10 and every week or so I check out the new watch faces available for download. I like that some of the money goes to the platform and some to the designers. I like that the designs are high quality and don't include any knockoffs or blatant copyright infringement. And I like that I could just buy the full app after trying out the free options. I've done the same with similar light-verion/paid-upgrade apps but this was the first one I'd run across that offered both a subscription or a one-time purchase.
overcast 10y ago
Am I the only one exhausted by "apps"? I've gone as far as to limit myself to only two pages worth on my phone, without folders. I feel like most apps could just be the mobile/responsive versions of the existing site. Maintaining separate interfaces always leads to inconsistencies.
- sotojuan 10y ago
  If Apple supported the latest standards in mobile Safari, you could write web apps that work offline and have push notifications like on Android. That's not in Apple's interest though.
  - rimantas 10y ago
    Latest standards are getting rid of that "work offline". Not to mention that it never really worked.
    - sotojuan 10y ago
      ? I'm talking about ServiceWorker.
  - overcast 10y ago
    Serious question, why do we need apps that work offline? Finding it hard to imagine what you can do on a computer theses days without an internet connection, besides maybe an old single player game devoid of any patches.
    - sotojuan 10y ago
      It's not so much that you can use it offline (though that's one benefit) but rather that it caches your assets so if there's very, very slow connection you can still use and read content. If it's something that requires the Internet to work, it can show a "no connection available" message but it still load, similar to a native app. The goal is to avoid the "white screen of death" you get when a web app won't load. Here's the canonical example: http://www.pocketjavascript.com/blog/2015/11/23/introducing-pokedex-org http://www.pocketjavascript.com/blog/2015/11/23/introducing-...
sagivo 10y ago
the +15% more after a year is a joke. like this article mentioned - the majority of the apps are games, games after a year are usually forgotten and they make most of the revenue on their first year on the market. about subscriptions - i don't see any reason a developer would share the subscriptions revenue with apple while they sale it for free and make in-app subscriptions.
pkamb 10y ago
Are these changes coming to the Mac App Store?
- grayprog 10y ago
  Yes. Gruber confirmed and there is a place on the site where OS X is mentioned.
lips 10y ago
This won't substantially change anything, given the existing power-law type distribution of app-store earnings. When the ~app~ store debuted, I called it the K-Martization of software. This is just Apple expanding into Rent-A-Center.
JustSomeNobody 10y ago
Wait until most apps have switched to subscription, sell yours for a one time price, profit from those users who hate subscriptions. Maybe not sustainable, but hopefully keep you in the black until the next project.
1_2__3 10y ago
Apple wants a subscription service because then they can hobble the developers AND the users to prevent them from ever leaving.
- djrogers 10y ago
  App subscriptions would likely lead to more cross platform portability - if I'm paying $1/mo for your app, I won't care if it's on iOS this month and Windows Mobile next month, but if I paid $10 for your app, I don't want to repurchase it on a new platform.
have_faith 10y ago
I detest subscriptions of all kinds. I don't want to manage them. I don't want to figure out how much I'm paying out per month across all types of subscriptions. I don't want a service to manage it for me, I just don't want the cognitive overhead. I don't want to remember the terms of each subscription, how long it takes to cancel (if and when I can get through to someone to cancel it). Or the fact that I lose access to something when I stop paying. I don't want to forget to cancel it only to find I'm bound to another 6 months. Etc, etc. I could go on. I also strongly dislike that they know that x% of users after signing up will barely use the service and it's essentially free money. I know this is why they do it, and I won't support companies for trying to take advantage of users.
post_break 10y ago
Death by a thousand cuts. All those apps that charge to turn off the ads? Suddenly you pay yearly for that. iAP to unlock those extra levels/features/etc, better pay the tax man because those will now be yearly. Apps will no longer be "upgraded" from 1.0 to 2.0 where you have to pay for the new version. No, you pay that yearly fee whether you like it or not. Sorry this isn't going to turn out well and I might just have to switch back to android where there are things like 2 hour to 48 hour return policies.
- allsystemsgo 10y ago
  Or, you just stop using the app as the subscription isn't worth your while.
- st3v3r 10y ago
  Odds are many of these things will find their way over to the Google Play store as well.
- NEDM64 10y ago
  Ignorant comment, I bet you already use Android. Apple gives 14 DAYS of refund policy, and Google just copied Apple model. Have fun with your LG.
  - post_break 10y ago
    I have an iPhone 6s. Can you show me where Apple says out right that they will refund an application before 14 days? I'm not being snarky, I just haven't seen that written before.
Emma11 10y ago
Apple is also going to start showing search ads for apps in its iOS App Store search results for the first time, something the company had previously resisted. "We’ve thought about how to carefully do it in a way that, first and foremost, customers will be happy with," Schiller says, adding that he believes the ad auction system in App Store search will be "fair to developers, and fair for indie developers, too." Brace for the shitstorm My comment on reddit:https://www.reddit.com/r/apple/comments/4n62ny/app_store_20/ https://www.reddit.com/r/apple/comments/4n62ny/app_store_20/
DavideNL 10y ago
I wonder if the ad-blocker works on those ads... :)
cloudjacker 10y ago
They need to make cancelling subscriptions easier
- djrogers 10y ago
  it's like 3 clicks to find your entire list of subscriptions and once you're there it's 2 clicks to turn off automatic renewal. Plus TFA said they're making it even easier, so what exactly is your complaint?
  - cloudjacker 10y ago
    on your phone? how? last I tried it involved going to iTunes on a desktop
    - djrogers 10y ago
      In settings go to App Store, tap your account, then tap subscriptions.
johansch 10y ago
I guess these are the kind of innovations we can look forward to while Cook is running Apple. :/
- xufi 10y ago
  I have to say I agree. I didn't even think they would think of modeling the store this way, though granted what they've done with Itunes/Apple Music I guess it isnt that surprising. Pretty disappoined
- rimantas 10y ago
  You can always switch to Android or Windows Phone if you like their innovations better.
adrianhon 10y ago
Almost exactly one year ago, we switched Zombies, Run! - a fitness game - from being a paid app ($4-8) to a free-to-play app with subscriptions ($4/month, $20/year). Unsurprisingly, I'm delighted by this announcement, because it rewards apps like ours that provide long-term value and entertainment for our users. Clearly a subscription model isn't for many apps - probably most apps. But it was right for us, as we've been maintaining and improving Zombies, Run! for over four years now, and every week we add new content. With a subscription model, we only get paid if people decide we're good enough to commit to over a long period of time. Since we're about helping people exercise, I think that's fair enough.
- coroutines 10y ago
  People fear that the subscription model is an easy grab for continued revenue. I do think that Zombies, Run! is an example of an app that justifiably fits the subscription model. The continued added content makes that make sense. (I am a fan!) I just hope subscription doesn't become the norm - I'd hate to see a calculator on a subscription model.
  - adrianhon 10y ago
    Yep, it works a lot better for some apps than others. To be fair, a calculator app doesn't need (as much) long term development or maintenance so I think a single payment is fine for both dev and customer there. In light of this news, I wrote up a short post about how we made Zombies, Run! a subscriptions success: https://medium.com/@adrianhon/how-we-made-an-app-store-subscription-success-25f4ea75500f#.mw4x9qghe https://medium.com/@adrianhon/how-we-made-an-app-store-subsc...
  - camillomiller 10y ago
    They won't, don't worry. It will be a great option for small devs to get a sustained income, a good incentive to keep working on an app that otherwise could be neglected after the first few months. Also, Apple announce that there would be more than 200 price tiers for subscriptions. We'll have to see when it's all live but I suspect there could be subscription lower than the 99 cent baseline. At least I hope so
localhost3000 10y ago
As an indie developer my single biggest gripe with the app store (after the obviously asinine review process) is the resetting of visible app reviews any time an app is updated. This is an incredibly expensive tax on shipping app updates which creates a strong disincentive to not incrementally improve your product and a strong incentive for sleazy developers to buy fake reviews when they do ship an update. I detest this part of the app store. DETEST.
- djrogers 10y ago
  The other option is for a single bug in a single release to stay in your app reviews in perpetuity. Why would you want that, rather than give prospective customers the option to look at current vs old reviews? Also, I would quibble with your description of it as 'resetting of visible app reviews' as the old reviews are still visible, they're just one tap away...
  - kybernetyk 10y ago
    In a high volume market like the iOS app store this behavior might be OK. It shouldn't take too long to get back a few reviews to display a N stars rating. (Just guessing, have no iOS apps in the store). But in a low volume market like the Mac App Store it takes anywhere from a few weeks to months to get 5 reviews after an update. (Or even years in non US stores). I made the experience that updating a well reviewed Mac app leads to a drop in sales until you get back to at least 5 ratings. (You need at least 5 ratings to display the average rating in search results and category lists in the Mac App Store). This is a big incentive to keep updates back until it is really necessary to release them.
    - chillacy 10y ago
      Yup. For that reason I've stopped releasing often and now have a beta program independent of the app store that people can opt into from the app itself.
  - pbarnes_1 10y ago
    You don't understand. Every bug fix release resets your stars + ratings. No stars = no downloads. Simple as that. They need an option when releasing a build: reset reviews (major release) or leave reviews intact (minor release).
nfriedly 10y ago
I won't say that I really like the idea of search ads, but I think it will be better than the current situation because it should at least reduce the amount of money that's currently spent on illegitimately gaming the search results.
archagon 10y ago
Bleh, subscriptions. I'm fine with them if your app is offering features that require use of your servers, but it seems many indie developers are interested instead in charging for the "privilege" of running local code on your device (as with Photoshop). I'll pass.
- djrogers 10y ago
  How about the 'privilege' of getting new features? Major app updates? Ongoing tech support and bug fixes? One could argue that those should be included in the purchase price, but today's app store economy often doesn't allow that.
  - archagon 10y ago
    You're right — users shouldn't expect their apps to get major updates for free. But this is a PR problem, solvable by other means. As a user, I'm OK with it. I've been using Adobe CS 5 for the past 3 years and it's still working great. Were there an upgrade path where I could pay some cash and get the latest version, I would probably do so. Unfortunately, Adobe has decided that they're not the company for me, and so I've been happily moving on to alternatives like Pixelmator and Affinity Designer. From what I've seen in the response to Text Expander's subscription pricing and other similar business model changes, I think many others feel the same as I do: that above all else, the software running on their local machine must continue to work without having to pay a bloody tax. A text expander is not a "service", nor is a password manager, nor is an audio looper or a to-do lister. To suggest otherwise would be disingenuous. Of course, we don't know what's going to happen in response to this change yet, but statements like Gruber's "win-win-win"[1] and Brent Simmons' request for clarification[2] indicate to me that indie developers will be more than happy to adopt this model with their decidedly non-service software. [1]: http://daringfireball.net/2016/06/the_new_app_store http://daringfireball.net/2016/06/the_new_app_store [2]: http://inessential.com/2016/06/08/seeking_clarification http://inessential.com/2016/06/08/seeking_clarification
  - dingaling 10y ago
    Those should be addressed by app store mechanisms for charging for upgrades. Then those who want them can pay and those who don't can ignore them. I seldom accept any upgrades and keep old versions of apps backed-up in case I rashly do click 'yes'. I know I'm not unique; if an app works, why tempt fate by upgrading it? Unfortunately with this subscription model everyone will have to pay regardless of whether they want those new features.
rodeoclown 10y ago
In my opinion, the two most important features as a developer for the App Store: 1. Rolling deploys - right now releasing on iOS is scary and big bang, combined with the review process it keeps devs up at night worrying. 2. AB Testing on images and copy - you can only update this on each (scary) release, so you can't learn what works quickly.
galistoca 10y ago
Unless there's a legitimate reason for subscription (if it's cloud based and deals with private content) the law of supply and demand will kick in, which means it will work for these particular types of apps but won't work for others because there's always going to be a competitor who will provide the same service for free.
abalone 10y ago
I wonder if Apple is taking more than a 50% haircut on this post year one. Credit card fees come out of their share and those could very well account for the bulk of the 15%. Even if Apple pays nothing in payment processor markup, there is a fixed minimum "interchange" cost that everyone has to pay (even Walmart). For "ecommerce" it's:[1] Credit: $0.10 + 1.8-2.4% Debit: $0.21 + 0.05% Those 10-21 cent minimums make a big dent in smaller transactions. For a monthly recurring charge of $1.99, already 6% of that goes to credit card interchange. That leaves a 9% gross margin for Apple (4% if debit). At $0.99, Apple's margin drops to 3% on credit, and they lose money on a debit card. Now, there is a "small ticket" interchange category that one would hope these transactions would qualify for. That's just $0.04 + 1.65%. But it says it requires a swipe, so I'm not sure. From a fraud risk standpoint Apple Pay should be treated better than a swipe, but I'm not sure if the rules have caught up yet. [1] https://usa.visa.com/dam/VCOM/download/merchants/Visa-USA-Interchange-Reimbursement-Fees-2015-April-18.pdf https://usa.visa.com/dam/VCOM/download/merchants/Visa-USA-In...
- adamselby 10y ago
  Doesn't Apple bundle multiple purchases? Assuming someone has more than $0.99 in purchases via any of Apple's stores they can save on card fees.
  - abalone 10y ago
    For individual purchases it's only over a period of a couple days or so. Not sure about subscriptions.
kybernetyk 10y ago
> All he will say about free trials and paid updates is that Apple "looks at everything. We evaluate what will be a better experience for the user, and we make choices based on that." How are free trials not a "better experience for the user"? I just don't understand Apple's paranoia when it comes to free trial versions.
cpeterso 10y ago
If a user doesn't renew their subscription in year 2, can they continue to use the "year 1 app" without receiving year 2 updates? Or does the year 1 app just go dark?
dcw303 10y ago
Apple's revisions to the App Store reinforce that they consider it a rival to the World Wide Web. Google cornered Web search. Reaction: As they own the walled garden, Apple completely control search within the App Store. Adwords owns Web Advertisitng. Reaction: Apple will launch paid search in the App Store. Companies like Netflix, Blizzard, and Salesforce have direct lines to their customer's wallets through subscriptions. Reaction: Apple will launch subscriptions in App Store and take a cut from their developers. I don't see any of this as a surprise. In fact, I see it as Apple playing to their own strengths. The web is too open a platform for Apple, and history has shown they don't succeed when they don't have control.
- NEDM64 10y ago
  Yes, the company that succeeds in the WWW is the company that has a monopoly in it.
chj 10y ago
Few customers realize that how much it costs to keep an app going: platform API and UI change will either break your app or uglify it. If the app is using external service, then the service API could change too and that causes a lot of work. New device models come, and you will need a lot of work in redesigning the user interface. Even if you are not adding new features, the cost is real to developers especially if the market for this app is small.
intrasight 10y ago
Reading this discussion, I've seen several comment on the "hassle of managing all those subscriptions". But wouldn't it be the case that the app store is going to do that for you, and give you both a single notification channel and a single point of management? Isn't that the whole purpose of managing the subscriptions through the app store instead of having customers visit your web site directly? Isn't that what Apple is getting %15 to perform?
tdaltonc 10y ago
This is a very un-apple way to announce major changes.

271 points by jontayesp 10y ago

"Part of that energy has been channeled into figuring out how to sell developers on subscription services, and not only that, but how to keep them keeping on with those subscriptions. Previously, only apps classified as news, cloud services, dating apps, or audio / video streaming apps could sell subscription content. Now it’s open to all product categories. For the first year of a subscription Apple will maintain its 70 / 30 revenue share; after one year, the new 85 percent / 15 percent revenue share will kick in (applied per subscriber). The new app subscription model will roll out to developers this fall, though if app makers have subscribers they’ve already retained for a year, the new revenue split starts June 13th." That's a big change.

jontayesp 10y ago
Also: "Apple is also going to start showing search ads for apps in its iOS App Store search results for the first time, something the company had previously resisted."
- shostack 10y ago
  I'm frankly shocked it took them this long. They have the #1 digital real estate for such advertising, and the amount of money being spent on advertising apps (particularly on FB) is staggering. Unfortunately, from a user standpoint, this seems to be a disincentive to improve their horribly lacking search functionality.

jaxondu 10y ago

Interestingly Sketch app announced today they're changing to a subscription model soon. Sketch app abandoned Apple store last December. Looks like Sketch will be back to Mac App Store this fall. It is sad that Apple only took action now, after years of requests and complains by indie developers. Now that app boom is over, I doubt this App Store changes will have any impact.

ingsoc79 10y ago
A subscription model would definitely benefit specific types of apps (we make games and are excited at this possibility). The easy money's already been made in the App Store; with a million+ apps it's a visibility issue. No amount of changes to the App Store will remove the problem of there being a dozen apps that already solve the problem that your app solves. That said, a subscription model with a reduced cut could improve monetization prospects for a lot of developers, indie especially.
- exstudent2 10y ago
  > That said, a subscription model with a reduced cut could improve monetization prospects for a lot of developers, indie especially. Only if users except the model. I for one, will be removing any of my apps that move to a subscription model. I have no interest in renting the software on my phone.
wlesieutre 10y ago
Oh damn it. Sketch 3 owner, this is news to me. As a hobbyist, their subscription price will almost certainly not be worth it. The reason I quit Adobe and bought Sketch was to support software that I could actually buy. Not this "Good deal for professionals, even cheaper for students, fuck anybody who just wants to use a decent art program every couple of months" model. I'll see what I can track down on details, but I'm preemptively very disappointed about this. EDIT: Sketch is _NOT_ switching to a subscription model. Sketch is breaking from the "paid major, free minor" upgrade schedule, and going to "rolling releases, $99 buys the app and a year of upgrades." Personally I think that's a fair system. It frees them from having to plan new features around the major/minor release schedule, but you can still buy the software and just keep using it. My biggest concern is going to be OS compatibility. With OS X on a yearly upgrade treadmill, if there are any compatibility issues (and there almost always are), then the Sketch upgrade is effectively not optional. That's not so different from how it is now, except there have only been two major upgrades since the original release (September 2010), so you'll be buying OS compatibility fixes more than twice as often. So I still don't love it. https://blog.sketchapp.com/versioning-licensing-and-sketch-4-0-8ad98783e9ba https://blog.sketchapp.com/versioning-licensing-and-sketch-4...

codecamper 10y ago

Why not just A/B test trials & see how they do? Apple could be missing out on a sizable amount of revenue.

canistr 10y ago

I wonder if this will further reinforce the notion of the "Dunbar's number of apps". In the sense that on a country-by-country basis, the disposable income of people could become the limiting factor affecting how many apps that users install. If the supposed cognitive load of people for using apps is around 26-27, then is there an economic load that says that people will max at say--- $60/month--- in total app subscriptions in the US? And this number could change drastically for users in other countries based on fluctuating dollar values.

palakchokshi 10y ago

There are so many problems with the AppStore that need to be fixed and I hope atleast some are with these additions to the AppStore. 1. Fix app discovery 2. Fix app search before putting search ads. e.g. if your app name has a symbol in it searching by app name will NOT return your app in the search results. 3. App review times can be further reduced by automating the review process 4. Try it before you buy it option 5. Better UX

pault 10y ago
Why would they fix product search when they can charge you to advertise your app in the search results instead?
- palakchokshi 10y ago
  same reason Google does it?

jaxondu 10y ago

Apple has put up a "What’s New in Subscriptions" site with a "Coming Soon" label: https://developer.apple.com/app-store/subscriptions/whats-new/ https://developer.apple.com/app-store/subscriptions/whats-ne... Also for Search Ads (Coming this fall): https://developer.apple.com/app-store/search-ads/ https://developer.apple.com/app-store/search-ads/

bitL 10y ago

How to kill your platform 101: Subscriptions

AndrewKemendo 10y ago

All I know is that their review process has gotten WAY faster and better over the last month, as in 24 hour review which has been awesome. Have other people noticed this? I wonder if they added capacity or dropped review quality - so far we haven't seen a drop in quality and they are able to catch problems at about the same rate.

jontayesp 10y ago
From the article: "Finally, Schiller says that the App Store has been speeding up app review times — to the point where 50 percent of submitted apps are now reviewed in 24 hours, and 90 percent are reviewed within 48 hours."
ingsoc79 10y ago
We've been seeing this too, with some apps being approved in <24 hours. Originally thought it was a fluke (it's happened a couple times over the past several years), but now it appears to be a regular occurrence. Now if we could see a similar factor improvement in TestFlight beta review times...
- c1sc0 10y ago
  They are pretty fast. Submitted two External TestFlight apps this week & they had sub-6h review times
Jerry2 10y ago
That change happened because App Store's management was transferred from Eddy Cue over to Phil Schiller. While Eddy Cue was completely deaf to developers' complaints and needs, Schiller seems to be giving a damn and he's trying to improve things. They now employ ML/algorithmic means to test submitted apps and catch simple rejection issues. I'm also pretty sure that if you have a pretty good record of submissions & approvals, they spend less time scrutinizing your app. And if you're just issuing fixes or simple changes, they don't spend any time "human testing" at all. PS: I've come to a conclusion that whatever Cue runs, it is shit or turns to shit quickly. He's in charge of all the Apple services and they're a complete mess. I hope Cue retires or just transfers his responsibilities to someone who cares about them.

surds 10y ago

Subscription model for all apps... I don't see a reason to subscribe for apps that are one-time pay and periodic long term use. There is a fine line here that developers will have to be cautious not to cross. A lot of apps have no reason to be subscription model, but the prospect of recurring revenue is too tempting. Edit: On the other hand, this is totally awesome for services and products that already offer subscriptions on other platforms or on the web, like online streaming, education, and as someone mentioned here, tools like Sketch.

deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
joezydeco 10y ago
What do app developers do now when everyone has 1.0 and you want to release a 2.0 version with more features and not just bugfixes? Do users still expect the upgrade for free?
- AlexandrB 10y ago
  No, Apple should have added upgrade pricing years ago and I would gladly pay for upgrades that way. The fact that they still haven't added upgrades and are instead pushing for a subscription model rubs me the wrong way.
- zkirill 10y ago
  Yes, at least in my experience. There are many who expect updates and new features because they have already invested so much of their time into your free app.
  - pc86 10y ago
    You can make the argument that a certain price point justifies free upgrades within a certain period of time or to a certain level (e.g. buy 1.x and get free up to all 2.n versions), but "I spend a lot of time in your app" is not a valid reason to get more of it for free.
- 10y ago

rosalinekarr 10y ago

> For the first year of a subscription Apple will maintain its 70 / 30 revenue share; after one year, the new 85 percent / 15 percent revenue share will kick in (applied per subscriber). This is the exact opposite of what Apple should do. App startups in their first year need all the revenue they can get. After the first year, most of those companies have either reached profitability or gone out of business. This policy is going to mean more revenue for the large, established app companies, like Instagram or Snapchat, and less revenue for any potential usurpers. They're effectively suppressing innovation and locking in any monopolies they've helped to build.

oddevan 10y ago
I think Apple is attempting to reward services and startups that are focused on long-term value for their users. If I create a subscription app, I want to get to that 85/15 split. So that means I need to build my business such that I'm around in a year to collect on that split and I'm providing a good enough service after a year that people stay subscribed. In other words, I think Apple is intentionally discouraging companies that are so focused on the short game they may not be around in a year.

zkirill 10y ago

Our business management app is free to use on iOS but we charge a monthly subscription to use the web client and that has been working pretty well. With these coming changes I wonder if it would make sense to start charging monthly subscription for Pro features on iOS and how users will react to that.

embiggen 10y ago

What a terribly written article. Just give me the TL;DR already please!

ssharp 10y ago
The giant graph showing the old revenue scheme vs. the new one was particularly unnecessary.

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

AlexandrB 10y ago

As someone who buys a lot of apps this is very disappointing. Things that would make me buy MORE apps (demos, upgrade pricing, better support) are still not in the app store, meanwhile the one pricing model I detest (subscriptions) is being added. I suspect I'll be buying far fewer apps if there's a mass movement from a purchase model to a subscription model among app developers. I'm perfectly happy to pay $20-30 for an app (even a simple app) if it provides value and I'm happy to pay for major upgrades or additional content/features, but I won't pay $20-30 a year just to maintain the ability to launch an app on an ongoing basis. In addition, after years of terrible search in the app store, coupling search improvements with search-based ads is just a kick in the shins.

eridius 10y ago
> Things that would make me buy MORE apps (demos, … It's been pretty much proven that demos actually sell fewer apps than no demos, at least at the price levels seen in the App Store (once you get up to several hundred dollars or higher, then presumably things change). Even at the $60 price point of AAA console games, demos have been proven to hurt sales (which is why you never seen demos of AAA console games anymore).
- benologist 10y ago
  Demos are getting a bit redundant when we're trending towards being able to autonomously refund apps/games we don't like. Google Play purchases have a 2 hour window to refund any app you buy, Valve give refunds no questions asked in some circumstances, after the EU and AU asked a lot of questions. AU recently ruled it illegal to refuse refunds with requirements like trying to fix crashing games or not refunding functioning titles.
dapearce 10y ago
What about $0.99/mo, or even $0.49/mo? My initial reaction is the same as yours, but I could see myself agreeing to $0.99/mo for some of the apps I paid $2 or $3 for. Still relatively cheap for me but would dramatically increase income for the developer.

matt2000 10y ago

One interesting side effect of this might be that reasonably priced single-payment apps might seem desirable again. If a lot of apps switch to a $0.99/month subscription, then even a $4.99 one time payment might seem ok, whereas right now it would considered expensive by most users.

soylentcola 10y ago
One recent example on the Android side (don't use iOS very often) was an app that regularly publishes curated watch faces for Android Wear. There are literally thousands of free, user generated ones out there and I can make my own without too much trouble but I liked quite a few of the ones on this app. Additionally, they allow designers to submit their own watch faces and share the revenue which I thought was cool. It helps combat the glut of "brand" knockoffs that fill many of the free/user-generated sites. Originally, they offered a "pro" version that gave you access to all current and future watch faces for a subscription fee. I was not very keen on this because, like so many, I tend to forget to cancel these things when I stop using them. I mentioned this in an app review and so did many others. We requested a one-time IAP for the "Pro" version and soon after, the developer did just this. So I paid $10 and every week or so I check out the new watch faces available for download. I like that some of the money goes to the platform and some to the designers. I like that the designs are high quality and don't include any knockoffs or blatant copyright infringement. And I like that I could just buy the full app after trying out the free options. I've done the same with similar light-verion/paid-upgrade apps but this was the first one I'd run across that offered both a subscription or a one-time purchase.

overcast 10y ago

Am I the only one exhausted by "apps"? I've gone as far as to limit myself to only two pages worth on my phone, without folders. I feel like most apps could just be the mobile/responsive versions of the existing site. Maintaining separate interfaces always leads to inconsistencies.

sotojuan 10y ago
If Apple supported the latest standards in mobile Safari, you could write web apps that work offline and have push notifications like on Android. That's not in Apple's interest though.
- rimantas 10y ago
  Latest standards are getting rid of that "work offline". Not to mention that it never really worked.
  - sotojuan 10y ago
    ? I'm talking about ServiceWorker.
- overcast 10y ago
  Serious question, why do we need apps that work offline? Finding it hard to imagine what you can do on a computer theses days without an internet connection, besides maybe an old single player game devoid of any patches.
  - sotojuan 10y ago
    It's not so much that you can use it offline (though that's one benefit) but rather that it caches your assets so if there's very, very slow connection you can still use and read content. If it's something that requires the Internet to work, it can show a "no connection available" message but it still load, similar to a native app. The goal is to avoid the "white screen of death" you get when a web app won't load. Here's the canonical example: http://www.pocketjavascript.com/blog/2015/11/23/introducing-pokedex-org http://www.pocketjavascript.com/blog/2015/11/23/introducing-...

sagivo 10y ago

the +15% more after a year is a joke. like this article mentioned - the majority of the apps are games, games after a year are usually forgotten and they make most of the revenue on their first year on the market. about subscriptions - i don't see any reason a developer would share the subscriptions revenue with apple while they sale it for free and make in-app subscriptions.

pkamb 10y ago

Are these changes coming to the Mac App Store?

grayprog 10y ago
Yes. Gruber confirmed and there is a place on the site where OS X is mentioned.

lips 10y ago

This won't substantially change anything, given the existing power-law type distribution of app-store earnings. When the ~app~ store debuted, I called it the K-Martization of software. This is just Apple expanding into Rent-A-Center.

JustSomeNobody 10y ago

Wait until most apps have switched to subscription, sell yours for a one time price, profit from those users who hate subscriptions. Maybe not sustainable, but hopefully keep you in the black until the next project.

1_2__3 10y ago

Apple wants a subscription service because then they can hobble the developers AND the users to prevent them from ever leaving.

djrogers 10y ago
App subscriptions would likely lead to more cross platform portability - if I'm paying $1/mo for your app, I won't care if it's on iOS this month and Windows Mobile next month, but if I paid $10 for your app, I don't want to repurchase it on a new platform.

have_faith 10y ago

I detest subscriptions of all kinds. I don't want to manage them. I don't want to figure out how much I'm paying out per month across all types of subscriptions. I don't want a service to manage it for me, I just don't want the cognitive overhead. I don't want to remember the terms of each subscription, how long it takes to cancel (if and when I can get through to someone to cancel it). Or the fact that I lose access to something when I stop paying. I don't want to forget to cancel it only to find I'm bound to another 6 months. Etc, etc. I could go on. I also strongly dislike that they know that x% of users after signing up will barely use the service and it's essentially free money. I know this is why they do it, and I won't support companies for trying to take advantage of users.

post_break 10y ago

Death by a thousand cuts. All those apps that charge to turn off the ads? Suddenly you pay yearly for that. iAP to unlock those extra levels/features/etc, better pay the tax man because those will now be yearly. Apps will no longer be "upgraded" from 1.0 to 2.0 where you have to pay for the new version. No, you pay that yearly fee whether you like it or not. Sorry this isn't going to turn out well and I might just have to switch back to android where there are things like 2 hour to 48 hour return policies.

allsystemsgo 10y ago
Or, you just stop using the app as the subscription isn't worth your while.
st3v3r 10y ago
Odds are many of these things will find their way over to the Google Play store as well.
NEDM64 10y ago
Ignorant comment, I bet you already use Android. Apple gives 14 DAYS of refund policy, and Google just copied Apple model. Have fun with your LG.
- post_break 10y ago
  I have an iPhone 6s. Can you show me where Apple says out right that they will refund an application before 14 days? I'm not being snarky, I just haven't seen that written before.

Emma11 10y ago

Apple is also going to start showing search ads for apps in its iOS App Store search results for the first time, something the company had previously resisted. "We’ve thought about how to carefully do it in a way that, first and foremost, customers will be happy with," Schiller says, adding that he believes the ad auction system in App Store search will be "fair to developers, and fair for indie developers, too." Brace for the shitstorm My comment on reddit:https://www.reddit.com/r/apple/comments/4n62ny/app_store_20/ https://www.reddit.com/r/apple/comments/4n62ny/app_store_20/

DavideNL 10y ago

I wonder if the ad-blocker works on those ads... :)

cloudjacker 10y ago

They need to make cancelling subscriptions easier

djrogers 10y ago
it's like 3 clicks to find your entire list of subscriptions and once you're there it's 2 clicks to turn off automatic renewal. Plus TFA said they're making it even easier, so what exactly is your complaint?
- cloudjacker 10y ago
  on your phone? how? last I tried it involved going to iTunes on a desktop
  - djrogers 10y ago
    In settings go to App Store, tap your account, then tap subscriptions.

johansch 10y ago

I guess these are the kind of innovations we can look forward to while Cook is running Apple. :/

xufi 10y ago
I have to say I agree. I didn't even think they would think of modeling the store this way, though granted what they've done with Itunes/Apple Music I guess it isnt that surprising. Pretty disappoined
rimantas 10y ago
You can always switch to Android or Windows Phone if you like their innovations better.

adrianhon 10y ago

Almost exactly one year ago, we switched Zombies, Run! - a fitness game - from being a paid app ($4-8) to a free-to-play app with subscriptions ($4/month, $20/year). Unsurprisingly, I'm delighted by this announcement, because it rewards apps like ours that provide long-term value and entertainment for our users. Clearly a subscription model isn't for many apps - probably most apps. But it was right for us, as we've been maintaining and improving Zombies, Run! for over four years now, and every week we add new content. With a subscription model, we only get paid if people decide we're good enough to commit to over a long period of time. Since we're about helping people exercise, I think that's fair enough.

coroutines 10y ago
People fear that the subscription model is an easy grab for continued revenue. I do think that Zombies, Run! is an example of an app that justifiably fits the subscription model. The continued added content makes that make sense. (I am a fan!) I just hope subscription doesn't become the norm - I'd hate to see a calculator on a subscription model.
- adrianhon 10y ago
  Yep, it works a lot better for some apps than others. To be fair, a calculator app doesn't need (as much) long term development or maintenance so I think a single payment is fine for both dev and customer there. In light of this news, I wrote up a short post about how we made Zombies, Run! a subscriptions success: https://medium.com/@adrianhon/how-we-made-an-app-store-subscription-success-25f4ea75500f#.mw4x9qghe https://medium.com/@adrianhon/how-we-made-an-app-store-subsc...
- camillomiller 10y ago
  They won't, don't worry. It will be a great option for small devs to get a sustained income, a good incentive to keep working on an app that otherwise could be neglected after the first few months. Also, Apple announce that there would be more than 200 price tiers for subscriptions. We'll have to see when it's all live but I suspect there could be subscription lower than the 99 cent baseline. At least I hope so

localhost3000 10y ago

As an indie developer my single biggest gripe with the app store (after the obviously asinine review process) is the resetting of visible app reviews any time an app is updated. This is an incredibly expensive tax on shipping app updates which creates a strong disincentive to not incrementally improve your product and a strong incentive for sleazy developers to buy fake reviews when they do ship an update. I detest this part of the app store. DETEST.

djrogers 10y ago
The other option is for a single bug in a single release to stay in your app reviews in perpetuity. Why would you want that, rather than give prospective customers the option to look at current vs old reviews? Also, I would quibble with your description of it as 'resetting of visible app reviews' as the old reviews are still visible, they're just one tap away...
- kybernetyk 10y ago
  In a high volume market like the iOS app store this behavior might be OK. It shouldn't take too long to get back a few reviews to display a N stars rating. (Just guessing, have no iOS apps in the store). But in a low volume market like the Mac App Store it takes anywhere from a few weeks to months to get 5 reviews after an update. (Or even years in non US stores). I made the experience that updating a well reviewed Mac app leads to a drop in sales until you get back to at least 5 ratings. (You need at least 5 ratings to display the average rating in search results and category lists in the Mac App Store). This is a big incentive to keep updates back until it is really necessary to release them.
  - chillacy 10y ago
    Yup. For that reason I've stopped releasing often and now have a beta program independent of the app store that people can opt into from the app itself.
- pbarnes_1 10y ago
  You don't understand. Every bug fix release resets your stars + ratings. No stars = no downloads. Simple as that. They need an option when releasing a build: reset reviews (major release) or leave reviews intact (minor release).

nfriedly 10y ago

I won't say that I really like the idea of search ads, but I think it will be better than the current situation because it should at least reduce the amount of money that's currently spent on illegitimately gaming the search results.

archagon 10y ago

Bleh, subscriptions. I'm fine with them if your app is offering features that require use of your servers, but it seems many indie developers are interested instead in charging for the "privilege" of running local code on your device (as with Photoshop). I'll pass.

djrogers 10y ago
How about the 'privilege' of getting new features? Major app updates? Ongoing tech support and bug fixes? One could argue that those should be included in the purchase price, but today's app store economy often doesn't allow that.
- archagon 10y ago
  You're right — users shouldn't expect their apps to get major updates for free. But this is a PR problem, solvable by other means. As a user, I'm OK with it. I've been using Adobe CS 5 for the past 3 years and it's still working great. Were there an upgrade path where I could pay some cash and get the latest version, I would probably do so. Unfortunately, Adobe has decided that they're not the company for me, and so I've been happily moving on to alternatives like Pixelmator and Affinity Designer. From what I've seen in the response to Text Expander's subscription pricing and other similar business model changes, I think many others feel the same as I do: that above all else, the software running on their local machine must continue to work without having to pay a bloody tax. A text expander is not a "service", nor is a password manager, nor is an audio looper or a to-do lister. To suggest otherwise would be disingenuous. Of course, we don't know what's going to happen in response to this change yet, but statements like Gruber's "win-win-win"[1] and Brent Simmons' request for clarification[2] indicate to me that indie developers will be more than happy to adopt this model with their decidedly non-service software. [1]: http://daringfireball.net/2016/06/the_new_app_store http://daringfireball.net/2016/06/the_new_app_store [2]: http://inessential.com/2016/06/08/seeking_clarification http://inessential.com/2016/06/08/seeking_clarification
- dingaling 10y ago
  Those should be addressed by app store mechanisms for charging for upgrades. Then those who want them can pay and those who don't can ignore them. I seldom accept any upgrades and keep old versions of apps backed-up in case I rashly do click 'yes'. I know I'm not unique; if an app works, why tempt fate by upgrading it? Unfortunately with this subscription model everyone will have to pay regardless of whether they want those new features.

rodeoclown 10y ago

In my opinion, the two most important features as a developer for the App Store: 1. Rolling deploys - right now releasing on iOS is scary and big bang, combined with the review process it keeps devs up at night worrying. 2. AB Testing on images and copy - you can only update this on each (scary) release, so you can't learn what works quickly.

galistoca 10y ago

Unless there's a legitimate reason for subscription (if it's cloud based and deals with private content) the law of supply and demand will kick in, which means it will work for these particular types of apps but won't work for others because there's always going to be a competitor who will provide the same service for free.

abalone 10y ago

I wonder if Apple is taking more than a 50% haircut on this post year one. Credit card fees come out of their share and those could very well account for the bulk of the 15%. Even if Apple pays nothing in payment processor markup, there is a fixed minimum "interchange" cost that everyone has to pay (even Walmart). For "ecommerce" it's:[1] Credit: $0.10 + 1.8-2.4% Debit: $0.21 + 0.05% Those 10-21 cent minimums make a big dent in smaller transactions. For a monthly recurring charge of $1.99, already 6% of that goes to credit card interchange. That leaves a 9% gross margin for Apple (4% if debit). At $0.99, Apple's margin drops to 3% on credit, and they lose money on a debit card. Now, there is a "small ticket" interchange category that one would hope these transactions would qualify for. That's just $0.04 + 1.65%. But it says it requires a swipe, so I'm not sure. From a fraud risk standpoint Apple Pay should be treated better than a swipe, but I'm not sure if the rules have caught up yet. [1] https://usa.visa.com/dam/VCOM/download/merchants/Visa-USA-Interchange-Reimbursement-Fees-2015-April-18.pdf https://usa.visa.com/dam/VCOM/download/merchants/Visa-USA-In...

adamselby 10y ago
Doesn't Apple bundle multiple purchases? Assuming someone has more than $0.99 in purchases via any of Apple's stores they can save on card fees.
- abalone 10y ago
  For individual purchases it's only over a period of a couple days or so. Not sure about subscriptions.

kybernetyk 10y ago

> All he will say about free trials and paid updates is that Apple "looks at everything. We evaluate what will be a better experience for the user, and we make choices based on that." How are free trials not a "better experience for the user"? I just don't understand Apple's paranoia when it comes to free trial versions.

cpeterso 10y ago

If a user doesn't renew their subscription in year 2, can they continue to use the "year 1 app" without receiving year 2 updates? Or does the year 1 app just go dark?

dcw303 10y ago

Apple's revisions to the App Store reinforce that they consider it a rival to the World Wide Web. Google cornered Web search. Reaction: As they own the walled garden, Apple completely control search within the App Store. Adwords owns Web Advertisitng. Reaction: Apple will launch paid search in the App Store. Companies like Netflix, Blizzard, and Salesforce have direct lines to their customer's wallets through subscriptions. Reaction: Apple will launch subscriptions in App Store and take a cut from their developers. I don't see any of this as a surprise. In fact, I see it as Apple playing to their own strengths. The web is too open a platform for Apple, and history has shown they don't succeed when they don't have control.

NEDM64 10y ago
Yes, the company that succeeds in the WWW is the company that has a monopoly in it.

chj 10y ago

Few customers realize that how much it costs to keep an app going: platform API and UI change will either break your app or uglify it. If the app is using external service, then the service API could change too and that causes a lot of work. New device models come, and you will need a lot of work in redesigning the user interface. Even if you are not adding new features, the cost is real to developers especially if the market for this app is small.

intrasight 10y ago

Reading this discussion, I've seen several comment on the "hassle of managing all those subscriptions". But wouldn't it be the case that the app store is going to do that for you, and give you both a single notification channel and a single point of management? Isn't that the whole purpose of managing the subscriptions through the app store instead of having customers visit your web site directly? Isn't that what Apple is getting %15 to perform?

tdaltonc 10y ago

This is a very un-apple way to announce major changes.