6 ms·

The 30% cut would have been reasonable after all this time if the platforms were doing anything useful with the money. Instead, we got: - Store APIs that to t

The 30% cut would have been reasonable after all this time if the platforms were doing anything useful with the money. Instead, we got: - Store APIs that to this day are stupidly complex to get right in all cases, making you wonder why it’s so hard - No support for very common, decades-old pricing schemes like “free demo, then buy” (except through convoluted means) - Stagnant app store designs (esp. Mac, for YEARS) - Absolutely terrible search - Stupid same-apps-on-list-every-week “categories” - A strong preference to reward obvious overpriced scams/gambling games, etc. instead of rewarding development of apps that are hard

Marsymars 8y ago
On top of the terrible search, they also show ads. Which, if search was good, would be explicitly worse than actual search results.
- throwaway34241 8y ago
  This. This is why how Steam operates is 10x better than the mobile app stores. A 30% fee for getting your app in front of the users who might buy it is one thing. Steam isn't perfect, but they've set up their economic model where they are rewarded for doing this, which is good for both developers and users. This involves personal recommendations, maybe third party curation features, search etc. If you have an ad-based model, there's less of a reason improve those other systems, since the store might be able to extract 75% of the value created if you get developers bidding against each other to buy visibility. But it sucks for everyone except the app store owner.
  - TylerE 8y ago
    Steam has been sliding rapidly into hell for years. So much crap/asset flips.
kristofferR 8y ago
The iOS App Store design is pretty awesome actually. It got a total design revamp last year in iOS 11 [1], and it's coming to macOS Mojave in a couple of months, so to claim the design is stagnant is incorrect. It's fluid, and has great use of typography, spacing and colors. I don't see how it is criticize the design of it, the design is the best part. The missing features (like demo versions not being possible) etc and bad policies are the issues, not the design. An annoying thing with the new design is that the Today content only is saved for a week, past articles and selections gets lost (archiving the editorial content would actually be a smart website idea, if you disregard the copyright issues), ideally it should be indefinitely scrollable. Edit: It's frustrating that people don't bother explaining what is wrong with the design of the App Store instead of just downvoting me. [1] https://www.apple.com/ios/app-store/ https://www.apple.com/ios/app-store/
- chooseaname 8y ago
  I didn't (and won't) vote on your comment, however I think the down votes are due to the fact that you praised the App store while saying something negative about the Play store. Even HN is not without it's fanboys.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- jarjoura 8y ago
  Have you actually found any new apps to download through Apple's new News style storefront? Just a cursory ping around my office has resulted in only 1 person installing an app through it. It's quite frankly an obnoxious, Apple has to control everything, replacement for all of the other various startups who were creating marketing channels for developers to reach new users.
- CaptSpify 8y ago
  I'm sorry, but I could not disagree more. I've only used the store once, and it was just awful. The search was crap, the recommended apps were crap, the way the data was presented is horrible, etc. I didn't downvote you, but it seems obvious to me that their tools and design were not intended with UX in mind, but profits.
ksec 8y ago
>Absolutely terrible search We have much more powerful CPU, In-Memory DB and SSD, Searching within a comparatively small dataset that is the App Store is a solved problem more than a decade ago and much more so now. Instead we got a appalling App Store search. It could simply mean one thing, Apple just doesn't care.
- forty 8y ago
  Why would they care, you don't have a choice. BTW,why is Google having issues with its store in Europe and not Apple? At least you can install an alternative store on Android which is strictly better for the consumer.
  - ksec 8y ago
    >Why would they care, you don't have a choice. I wouldn't have complain if it was from any other companies. But it is Apple, they need to be better. Why do they need to do it? Steve gave an answer long ago, "Because we give a Damn!"
- p1necone 8y ago
  Note: I only have experience with android, I don't know what state the ios store is in. My gut feeling based on how search and navigation is structured in the play store (a few broad categories, no option for sorting, seemingly arbitrary "algorithmic" surfacing of apps) is that crippling navigation in this way is probably better for their bottom line (in the short term at least) and for gathering ad revenue. It mirrors the way a lot of social media apps are displaying seemingly randomly ordered content mixed with ads (facebook, snapchat for a while but they seem to have given you back the ability to know you've seen all your friends stories for now). From an end user perspective it's awful, but I assume whatever metrics they're using tell them it's a great idea.
  - e_proxus 8y ago
    This is spot on. The only incentive the app stores have is to optimize search for results that will likely yield the best income, i.e. suggest apps that a certain user is most likely to pay for (or buy micro transactions in). The whole thing is just one gigantic F2P platform in disguise, if you want to be cynical.
ppeetteerr 8y ago
They are doing a ton that is useful: - Taking care of payment processing - Storing the user's credit card information - Providing a ton of pricing options - Providing analytics and crash monitoring tools - Providing deployment tools - Providing development tools (push notifications, regular updates to their platforms, market segmentation, beta releases, etc) - Providing distribution - Creating a market place for the demand I'm not saying that 30% is the right amount but to say that the stores are doing nothing useful is a bold disregard for the service they are providing.
- foepys 8y ago
  It isn't as easy as you are making it out here, it's a chicken egg problem, really. OS vendors need to provide tools to developers or else there will be no apps. No apps means less users which means no customers to sell hardware/ads to. Microsoft failed to establish a healthy developer community and had to close the whole smartphone department because nobody wanted their phones. Windows Phone was a very good operating system and had very high quality hardware but because the apps were missing, people bought Android and iOS. But without the app stores and tools, developers won't get their apps to their customers.
- ksec 8y ago
  At the scale Apple operate None of what you stated above is worth anywhere near 10%, let alone 30%. And for the last few points, they are covered by the Hardware cost which in Apple case cover the software as well. ( Where Windows and Android are covered by other means ) And I don't think you are actually disagreeing with your parents at all. Because all the services they provided and as you have listed are now considered as standard. That is like accepting credit cards and cashiers in Retail stores. They are not providing enough useful valued ON TOP of the standard expected.
  - throwawaymath 8y ago
    How can you argue that it's not worth "anywhere near 10%, let alone 30%" if there are so many firms willing to pay it? The idea of the fees is not to cover the costs of doing business, it's to turn a (ideally significant) profit. It sounds like your expectation is that a company would not charge as much as the market will accept for a unique product. How much it costs to simply handle e.g. payment processing has relatively little to do with it.
tehlike 8y ago
Free demo then buy is called iap. It exists.
- snarf21 8y ago
  The parent's point is that could be handled at the store level. With IAP, you have to decide to split your game and write a bunch of code to do A or do B. Apple could put a time (absolute or use) lock on a game and have it just not open after unless the user buys it. The game is exactly the same during the demo period and after purchase.
  - SamReidHughes 8y ago
    The app developer would rather do that in the app, they could get a better conversion rate.
throwawaymath 8y ago
In my opinion the 30% fee is reasonable because it provides access to Apple's user base. It's not as though they're specifically obligated to earmark that money to improve the app store itself. The things you're complaining about are valid criticisms, but I don't think the have anything to do with whether or not the fee is appropriate. In return for 30%, Apple develops and maintains a centralized software distribution channel. It takes care of end to end payment processing, deployment and updates. If you don't believe 30% is reasonable in return for access to that market, you can choose not to develop for that market. But words like "reasonable" imply some obligation on the part of the company. Why would a company not charge a premium for access to a lucrative distribution channel? Clearly many firms are happy to trade 30% of sales in return for access to that market. From my perspective the issues you've outlined are orthogonal to whether or not Apple's fees are "reasonable."
- stale2002 8y ago
  > If you don't believe 30% is reasonable in return for access to that market, you can choose not to develop for that market Well, the counter to this is that it is not Apple's userbase. Apple doesn't own those phones. Consumers do, because those consumers paid for them. The alternative isn't "don't build for this market". The alternative is doing exactly what these companies are doing, and building their own marketplace/appstore/distributing on their own website like Fortnite does. People have the right to install whatever they want of phones that they own.
  - throwawaymath 8y ago
    I think this is more complex than what you've said in your last sentence. Theoretically you can literally run whatever software you'd like on hardware you've purchased. But I don't think operating system developers targeting that hardware have an intrinsic obligation to sanction arbitrary software installation.
- ocdtrekkie 8y ago
  There's a term that exists specifically to define things like "provides access to Apple's user base". It's called "rent-seeking".
taylodl 8y ago
This. No one would have a problem paying 30% if the store was actually providing some value. Instead, we get no ability to demo. We get no ability to version - I'll continue supporting you for free for version X, but I'll cut you a deal for version Y if you already own version X. No, they make it convoluted for both the consumers and the developers. It just sucks all the way around. And we pay 30% for this mess.

Marsymars 8y ago

On top of the terrible search, they also show ads. Which, if search was good, would be explicitly worse than actual search results.

throwaway34241 8y ago
This. This is why how Steam operates is 10x better than the mobile app stores. A 30% fee for getting your app in front of the users who might buy it is one thing. Steam isn't perfect, but they've set up their economic model where they are rewarded for doing this, which is good for both developers and users. This involves personal recommendations, maybe third party curation features, search etc. If you have an ad-based model, there's less of a reason improve those other systems, since the store might be able to extract 75% of the value created if you get developers bidding against each other to buy visibility. But it sucks for everyone except the app store owner.
- TylerE 8y ago
  Steam has been sliding rapidly into hell for years. So much crap/asset flips.

kristofferR 8y ago

The iOS App Store design is pretty awesome actually. It got a total design revamp last year in iOS 11 [1], and it's coming to macOS Mojave in a couple of months, so to claim the design is stagnant is incorrect. It's fluid, and has great use of typography, spacing and colors. I don't see how it is criticize the design of it, the design is the best part. The missing features (like demo versions not being possible) etc and bad policies are the issues, not the design. An annoying thing with the new design is that the Today content only is saved for a week, past articles and selections gets lost (archiving the editorial content would actually be a smart website idea, if you disregard the copyright issues), ideally it should be indefinitely scrollable. Edit: It's frustrating that people don't bother explaining what is wrong with the design of the App Store instead of just downvoting me. [1] https://www.apple.com/ios/app-store/ https://www.apple.com/ios/app-store/

chooseaname 8y ago
I didn't (and won't) vote on your comment, however I think the down votes are due to the fact that you praised the App store while saying something negative about the Play store. Even HN is not without it's fanboys.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
jarjoura 8y ago
Have you actually found any new apps to download through Apple's new News style storefront? Just a cursory ping around my office has resulted in only 1 person installing an app through it. It's quite frankly an obnoxious, Apple has to control everything, replacement for all of the other various startups who were creating marketing channels for developers to reach new users.
CaptSpify 8y ago
I'm sorry, but I could not disagree more. I've only used the store once, and it was just awful. The search was crap, the recommended apps were crap, the way the data was presented is horrible, etc. I didn't downvote you, but it seems obvious to me that their tools and design were not intended with UX in mind, but profits.

ksec 8y ago

>Absolutely terrible search We have much more powerful CPU, In-Memory DB and SSD, Searching within a comparatively small dataset that is the App Store is a solved problem more than a decade ago and much more so now. Instead we got a appalling App Store search. It could simply mean one thing, Apple just doesn't care.

forty 8y ago
Why would they care, you don't have a choice. BTW,why is Google having issues with its store in Europe and not Apple? At least you can install an alternative store on Android which is strictly better for the consumer.
- ksec 8y ago
  >Why would they care, you don't have a choice. I wouldn't have complain if it was from any other companies. But it is Apple, they need to be better. Why do they need to do it? Steve gave an answer long ago, "Because we give a Damn!"
p1necone 8y ago
Note: I only have experience with android, I don't know what state the ios store is in. My gut feeling based on how search and navigation is structured in the play store (a few broad categories, no option for sorting, seemingly arbitrary "algorithmic" surfacing of apps) is that crippling navigation in this way is probably better for their bottom line (in the short term at least) and for gathering ad revenue. It mirrors the way a lot of social media apps are displaying seemingly randomly ordered content mixed with ads (facebook, snapchat for a while but they seem to have given you back the ability to know you've seen all your friends stories for now). From an end user perspective it's awful, but I assume whatever metrics they're using tell them it's a great idea.
- e_proxus 8y ago
  This is spot on. The only incentive the app stores have is to optimize search for results that will likely yield the best income, i.e. suggest apps that a certain user is most likely to pay for (or buy micro transactions in). The whole thing is just one gigantic F2P platform in disguise, if you want to be cynical.

ppeetteerr 8y ago

They are doing a ton that is useful: - Taking care of payment processing - Storing the user's credit card information - Providing a ton of pricing options - Providing analytics and crash monitoring tools - Providing deployment tools - Providing development tools (push notifications, regular updates to their platforms, market segmentation, beta releases, etc) - Providing distribution - Creating a market place for the demand I'm not saying that 30% is the right amount but to say that the stores are doing nothing useful is a bold disregard for the service they are providing.

foepys 8y ago
It isn't as easy as you are making it out here, it's a chicken egg problem, really. OS vendors need to provide tools to developers or else there will be no apps. No apps means less users which means no customers to sell hardware/ads to. Microsoft failed to establish a healthy developer community and had to close the whole smartphone department because nobody wanted their phones. Windows Phone was a very good operating system and had very high quality hardware but because the apps were missing, people bought Android and iOS. But without the app stores and tools, developers won't get their apps to their customers.
ksec 8y ago
At the scale Apple operate None of what you stated above is worth anywhere near 10%, let alone 30%. And for the last few points, they are covered by the Hardware cost which in Apple case cover the software as well. ( Where Windows and Android are covered by other means ) And I don't think you are actually disagreeing with your parents at all. Because all the services they provided and as you have listed are now considered as standard. That is like accepting credit cards and cashiers in Retail stores. They are not providing enough useful valued ON TOP of the standard expected.
- throwawaymath 8y ago
  How can you argue that it's not worth "anywhere near 10%, let alone 30%" if there are so many firms willing to pay it? The idea of the fees is not to cover the costs of doing business, it's to turn a (ideally significant) profit. It sounds like your expectation is that a company would not charge as much as the market will accept for a unique product. How much it costs to simply handle e.g. payment processing has relatively little to do with it.

tehlike 8y ago

Free demo then buy is called iap. It exists.

snarf21 8y ago
The parent's point is that could be handled at the store level. With IAP, you have to decide to split your game and write a bunch of code to do A or do B. Apple could put a time (absolute or use) lock on a game and have it just not open after unless the user buys it. The game is exactly the same during the demo period and after purchase.
- SamReidHughes 8y ago
  The app developer would rather do that in the app, they could get a better conversion rate.

throwawaymath 8y ago

In my opinion the 30% fee is reasonable because it provides access to Apple's user base. It's not as though they're specifically obligated to earmark that money to improve the app store itself. The things you're complaining about are valid criticisms, but I don't think the have anything to do with whether or not the fee is appropriate. In return for 30%, Apple develops and maintains a centralized software distribution channel. It takes care of end to end payment processing, deployment and updates. If you don't believe 30% is reasonable in return for access to that market, you can choose not to develop for that market. But words like "reasonable" imply some obligation on the part of the company. Why would a company not charge a premium for access to a lucrative distribution channel? Clearly many firms are happy to trade 30% of sales in return for access to that market. From my perspective the issues you've outlined are orthogonal to whether or not Apple's fees are "reasonable."

stale2002 8y ago
> If you don't believe 30% is reasonable in return for access to that market, you can choose not to develop for that market Well, the counter to this is that it is not Apple's userbase. Apple doesn't own those phones. Consumers do, because those consumers paid for them. The alternative isn't "don't build for this market". The alternative is doing exactly what these companies are doing, and building their own marketplace/appstore/distributing on their own website like Fortnite does. People have the right to install whatever they want of phones that they own.
- throwawaymath 8y ago
  I think this is more complex than what you've said in your last sentence. Theoretically you can literally run whatever software you'd like on hardware you've purchased. But I don't think operating system developers targeting that hardware have an intrinsic obligation to sanction arbitrary software installation.
ocdtrekkie 8y ago
There's a term that exists specifically to define things like "provides access to Apple's user base". It's called "rent-seeking".

taylodl 8y ago

This. No one would have a problem paying 30% if the store was actually providing some value. Instead, we get no ability to demo. We get no ability to version - I'll continue supporting you for free for version X, but I'll cut you a deal for version Y if you already own version X. No, they make it convoluted for both the consumers and the developers. It just sucks all the way around. And we pay 30% for this mess.