4 ms·

Outright removing and/or rejecting non-exclusive apps is a recipe for a huge backlash, but I could see maybe giving better terms for exclusive apps - maybe only

by kylec 16y ago

Outright removing and/or rejecting non-exclusive apps is a recipe for a huge backlash, but I could see maybe giving better terms for exclusive apps - maybe only taking 20% instead of 30% of the sale. I'm sure there are a fair number of app developers that would jump at the chance to sign an exclusivity agreement if it led to higher profits.

Dn_Ab 16y ago
I don't know if that is necessarily ideal for Apple or any of the other platforms for that matter. What is to stop the next platform from offering 19%, 20% or even 25% non exclusive cut and 15% Exclusive? Competing over the percent of profits taken per app could start a chain reaction race to the bottom that ultimately reduces profits for all platform makers and moves it into the hands of the developers. Which is a good result for developers but not so ideal for the platform makers. So they may all choose to not steer things in that direction for as long as possible. Also I may be missing something but I don't think reducing margins is typical Apple. They have no problem charging you more with the backing that the experience you get will be top quality and polish compared to the competition. No matter that you are user, developer or publisher.That is their leverage. Their brand is associated with quality, heck given their image of vigorously (note use of vigour v rigour) curated excellence, exclusivity might even be a positive signal to consumers and some developers. These two points make it so I would actually be more surprised by a reduced percentage trade for exclusivity than outright requirement of exclusivity.
- kylec 16y ago
  I don't think it's as simple as comparing the percentages - the App Store generates much more revenue than the Android market and other, similar stores on other platforms. As it stands now, the decision of whether or not to port a successful iOS app to other platforms is based on whether or not the revenue generated is worth the time and money to do the port. However, if there's an exclusivity deal in place, you also have to factor in lost earnings from the iOS version as well. However, you're right that it's not a typical Apple move to reduce the margins, but nevertheless I think it would be a very effective strategy for keeping high-quality, high-revenue apps exclusive to the iOS platform.
  - Dn_Ab 16y ago
    You're right and make an excellent point. But the other platforms are also going to have to work on increasing the revenue per app for the developer or obsolete themselves. So the current state of affairs might only hold for a few years or so. As well, there are a whole host of factors considered when a developer chooses platforms and while I don't know about how people weigh decisions, its possible that this number could come to irrationally? dominate considerations. So platforms competing over that number will have unpredictable, possibly undesirable effects to the outcome of the current equation for the leader at first and then everyone else. Just considering the other side, but I do agree with your above point.

by kylec 16y ago

Dn_Ab 16y ago

I don't know if that is necessarily ideal for Apple or any of the other platforms for that matter. What is to stop the next platform from offering 19%, 20% or even 25% non exclusive cut and 15% Exclusive? Competing over the percent of profits taken per app could start a chain reaction race to the bottom that ultimately reduces profits for all platform makers and moves it into the hands of the developers. Which is a good result for developers but not so ideal for the platform makers. So they may all choose to not steer things in that direction for as long as possible. Also I may be missing something but I don't think reducing margins is typical Apple. They have no problem charging you more with the backing that the experience you get will be top quality and polish compared to the competition. No matter that you are user, developer or publisher.That is their leverage. Their brand is associated with quality, heck given their image of vigorously (note use of vigour v rigour) curated excellence, exclusivity might even be a positive signal to consumers and some developers. These two points make it so I would actually be more surprised by a reduced percentage trade for exclusivity than outright requirement of exclusivity.

kylec 16y ago
I don't think it's as simple as comparing the percentages - the App Store generates much more revenue than the Android market and other, similar stores on other platforms. As it stands now, the decision of whether or not to port a successful iOS app to other platforms is based on whether or not the revenue generated is worth the time and money to do the port. However, if there's an exclusivity deal in place, you also have to factor in lost earnings from the iOS version as well. However, you're right that it's not a typical Apple move to reduce the margins, but nevertheless I think it would be a very effective strategy for keeping high-quality, high-revenue apps exclusive to the iOS platform.
- Dn_Ab 16y ago
  You're right and make an excellent point. But the other platforms are also going to have to work on increasing the revenue per app for the developer or obsolete themselves. So the current state of affairs might only hold for a few years or so. As well, there are a whole host of factors considered when a developer chooses platforms and while I don't know about how people weigh decisions, its possible that this number could come to irrationally? dominate considerations. So platforms competing over that number will have unpredictable, possibly undesirable effects to the outcome of the current equation for the leader at first and then everyone else. Just considering the other side, but I do agree with your above point.