5 ms·

How long have you been using the iOS app store for? IMO App prices now are lower than they were when the app store first opened in iPhoneOS 2, and way lower tha

by ihuman 8y ago

How long have you been using the iOS app store for? IMO App prices now are lower than they were when the app store first opened in iPhoneOS 2, and way lower than they were before the iPhone. I remember simple games for Palm OS costing at about $20 [0] . Nowadays that game would either be <=$5, or free to play. [0] https://web.archive.org/web/20040418012411/http://astraware.com:80/palm/featured/bejeweled?skucode=0011-009-0009 https://web.archive.org/web/20040418012411/http://astraware....

lbacaj 8y ago
I have had an iPhone since the first one and access to the App Store since they introduced it in the 3G. I completely agree that prices on Apps have come down but that is just what happens when a new market is created. Supply and demand has to set in. Developers are guessing what people will pay at first and if they find they can sell millions more if they just drop the price to 99c then they might just do that. In my opinion the Apple App Store has had very little to do with those prices coming down. While I do admit the App Store was incredibly innovative and has ushered in an era of new ways for developers to create/distribute/monetize this stuff it is hard to deny that if there was any competing way to load Apps that the 30% fee Apple collects would stand... not to mention the many practices that developers (and consumers) disagree with that Apple regularly does such banning apps that may compete with their products or somehow upset them. Edit: I don’t want to come off as overly negative here, I love Apple and their products. I am simply arguing that a little competition here would do consumers good.
- sbuk 8y ago
  How would it do consumers good?
myhf 8y ago
Price of "Angry Birds" in 2009: $0.99 one-time Price of the same "Angry Birds" in 2018: $0 to install, $1.99 per 80 gems, no way to disable in-app ads or purchases. Free-to-play is an increase in price.
- prewett 8y ago
  Even if it is an increase in price (debatable), that doesn't mean that Apple's distribution monopoly is responsible. I expect that prices on Android have done the same thing, and Google doesn't even monopolize the distribution there.
  - zimpenfish 8y ago
    The exact same thing has happened in the AAA games market (see EA, Activision, or Jim Sterling's many videos on the topic) which is provably nothing to do with "Apple's distribution monopoly".
- GordonS 8y ago
  I really despise the move from transparent, one-time pricing, to opaque IAP.
  - ghaff 8y ago
    I agree. Unfortunately the complaint is mostly about hating a market dominated by people who increasingly won't pay anything for goods that aren't actually welded in place but will grudgingly fork over money in the form of eyeballs (i.e. ads) and "tricks" (in-app purchases, hidden fees, etc.). Personally, I'd mostly prefer honest up-front pricing (though subscriptions make sense for some things) but the market mostly doesn't want that.
AnthonyMouse 8y ago
> IMO App prices now are lower than they were when the app store first opened in iPhoneOS 2 This provides no basis for comparison because the App Store has been the only way to install apps on iOS that whole time, so that changing can't have been the difference. Moreover, the market they're monopolizing isn't the market for apps, it's the market for app distribution. So the relevant price isn't the price of apps, it's Apple's 30%. Which is obviously higher than in markets where there isn't a single-party distribution monopoly, e.g. payment processing is typically ~3%, various packaging systems like apt are free (or user can download binary from website as on Windows), and the binary hosting cost per user is negligible. There is also a tying argument. App Store ties payment processing, distribution and curation together when the buyer might want different providers for each.
- RKearney 8y ago
  > This provides no basis for comparison because the App Store has been the only way to install apps on iOS This has never been the case. You’ve always been able to side load apps that are either signed by an Enterprise code signing cert (used to be $300/yr), or your own developer code signing certificate ($99/yr). The former allowed for redistribution outside of the App Store.
  - AnthonyMouse 8y ago
    Neither of those methods permits the general public to install the app.
    - askafriend 8y ago
      Good, imo.
      - binomialxenon 8y ago
        Okay, I used to be an iOS user, I'm not rich, and blowing $99 per year to sign apps is a lot of money for something that should be free. What if I'm just a normal techie who wants to use software that Apple doesn't like? Sure, bury sideloading in the settings or make it only able to be activated from a computer, but charging that much money for the privilege of loading software is ridiculous.

by ihuman 8y ago

lbacaj 8y ago

I have had an iPhone since the first one and access to the App Store since they introduced it in the 3G. I completely agree that prices on Apps have come down but that is just what happens when a new market is created. Supply and demand has to set in. Developers are guessing what people will pay at first and if they find they can sell millions more if they just drop the price to 99c then they might just do that. In my opinion the Apple App Store has had very little to do with those prices coming down. While I do admit the App Store was incredibly innovative and has ushered in an era of new ways for developers to create/distribute/monetize this stuff it is hard to deny that if there was any competing way to load Apps that the 30% fee Apple collects would stand... not to mention the many practices that developers (and consumers) disagree with that Apple regularly does such banning apps that may compete with their products or somehow upset them. Edit: I don’t want to come off as overly negative here, I love Apple and their products. I am simply arguing that a little competition here would do consumers good.

sbuk 8y ago
How would it do consumers good?

myhf 8y ago

Price of "Angry Birds" in 2009: $0.99 one-time Price of the same "Angry Birds" in 2018: $0 to install, $1.99 per 80 gems, no way to disable in-app ads or purchases. Free-to-play is an increase in price.

prewett 8y ago
Even if it is an increase in price (debatable), that doesn't mean that Apple's distribution monopoly is responsible. I expect that prices on Android have done the same thing, and Google doesn't even monopolize the distribution there.
- zimpenfish 8y ago
  The exact same thing has happened in the AAA games market (see EA, Activision, or Jim Sterling's many videos on the topic) which is provably nothing to do with "Apple's distribution monopoly".
GordonS 8y ago
I really despise the move from transparent, one-time pricing, to opaque IAP.
- ghaff 8y ago
  I agree. Unfortunately the complaint is mostly about hating a market dominated by people who increasingly won't pay anything for goods that aren't actually welded in place but will grudgingly fork over money in the form of eyeballs (i.e. ads) and "tricks" (in-app purchases, hidden fees, etc.). Personally, I'd mostly prefer honest up-front pricing (though subscriptions make sense for some things) but the market mostly doesn't want that.

AnthonyMouse 8y ago

> IMO App prices now are lower than they were when the app store first opened in iPhoneOS 2 This provides no basis for comparison because the App Store has been the only way to install apps on iOS that whole time, so that changing can't have been the difference. Moreover, the market they're monopolizing isn't the market for apps, it's the market for app distribution. So the relevant price isn't the price of apps, it's Apple's 30%. Which is obviously higher than in markets where there isn't a single-party distribution monopoly, e.g. payment processing is typically ~3%, various packaging systems like apt are free (or user can download binary from website as on Windows), and the binary hosting cost per user is negligible. There is also a tying argument. App Store ties payment processing, distribution and curation together when the buyer might want different providers for each.

RKearney 8y ago
> This provides no basis for comparison because the App Store has been the only way to install apps on iOS This has never been the case. You’ve always been able to side load apps that are either signed by an Enterprise code signing cert (used to be $300/yr), or your own developer code signing certificate ($99/yr). The former allowed for redistribution outside of the App Store.
- AnthonyMouse 8y ago
  Neither of those methods permits the general public to install the app.
  - askafriend 8y ago
    Good, imo.
    - binomialxenon 8y ago
      Okay, I used to be an iOS user, I'm not rich, and blowing $99 per year to sign apps is a lot of money for something that should be free. What if I'm just a normal techie who wants to use software that Apple doesn't like? Sure, bury sideloading in the settings or make it only able to be activated from a computer, but charging that much money for the privilege of loading software is ridiculous.