4 ms·

I alone don't bring much to the table. But multiply it by thousands of developer and that "not much" starts to add up. Apple should want to encourage a vibrant

I alone don't bring much to the table. But multiply it by thousands of developer and that "not much" starts to add up. Apple should want to encourage a vibrant app ecosystem, no? Who knows how many cool or useful apps just never get made because the developers can't deal with the App Store.

philwelch 6y ago
Yeah, if it turns out that a standard rate of 25% would work out better for them than 30%, they should lower the rate to 25%. Is the current app ecosystem not vibrant enough? I think they’re doing fine as it is but it’s very literally not my business :)
simonh 6y ago
Oh come on, the App Store is overflowing with Apps. The amount of options on there is overwhelming. If anything there’s too much competition and too many apps, driving down the prices companies can charge for premium products due to oversupply. And don’t tell me that’s Apples fault as well, because the 30% on low prices makes businesses unsustainable. Which is it, does the 30% discourage companies from participating, or does the App Store 30% and all enable too much competition for premium apps. It can’t be both.
- toyg 6y ago
  The Appstore is like big-cable packages: a billion channels, and nothing to watch. 90% of those apps are shovelware and addiction machines, because that’s what the Apple-imposed model effectively incentives. It’s very likely that breaking up the appstore would change that, and we could get a software market closer to what we see in other segments, free to innovate and generating more winners.
  - philwelch 6y ago
    Or it could be that shovelware and addiction machines are exactly the most cost-effective form of phone apps regardless.
  - freeone3000 6y ago
    Have you seen literally any other software segment? This isn't just the app store, this is also the play store, webpages, windows store apps, playstation games, ... The most successful apps are the ones that make the most money: skinner box slot machines with a credit card system attached. Your idea that software should have things like "intrinsic quality" or "benefit to the user" is not as important as how much money it makes, and if you put more effort into mechanics or gameplay instead of additional monetization techniques, you're losing out.
    - toyg 6y ago
      Don’t put words in my mouth. Every sector has winners and losers, that’s not the point. The point is that free platforms allow people to ALSO build different stuff and redefine what we use machines for; the appstore does not. On the desktop, one can invent p2p or a new type of browser or a magic app that makes unicorns out of tcp packets. On the appstore, entire areas of development are forbidden, in order to guarantee a constant stream of cash to Apple and Google. On the desktop, if you make a life-changing app, you get competition. On the appstore, if you threaten Apple/Google dominance, you get banned. Appstores make a mockery of the free market; anybody who lived through the 80s/90s “wild west” of computing should see them for the obscene freedom-destroying schemes that they are.
      - simonh 6y ago
        The consumer market has had plenty of chances to buy into open platforms and choose phones with multiple stores and the ability to side load whatever they wanted. Those options have always been there from before the iPhone even. I was side loading apps on to my Palm Tungsten E. The fact is the App Store offers the best experience and the best apps. Side loading apps outside stores isn’t a viable business beyond very narrow niches, we’ve seen this happen. App stores offer a scale alternatives just can’t reach, which brings investment and therefore options in the consumer space that open platforms cannot match. We’ve been running the experiment for over a decade now and the results are in. App,Stores have crated staggeringly huge markets. That has enormous value for developers take that away, and how are customers and developers going to get connected? We’ve seen how that works out. The resulting markets aren’t 10 time smaller, or a 100 times smaller, they’re thousands of times smaller. I was going to say 30% is peanuts. It’s not, but I do think it’s a reasonable price.
- jakelazaroff 6y ago
  > Which is it, does the 30% discourage companies from participating, or does the App Store 30% and all enable too much competition for premium apps. It can’t be both. Why are you phrasing this like a gotcha? "Too much competition" is your argument here, not mine. I think it's the former: the 30% discourages people (not necessarily companies) from participating.
  - Spivak 6y ago
    But simultaneously the App Store is overflowing with apps made by solo devs and small teams. I'm sure you can find someone it discourages but en masse sharecropping on Apple's farm for most people seems to be good business.
    - AnthonyMouse 6y ago
      It's all different markets. There are some apps which cost only $10,000 to develop but there is demand from a billion users at a price of $1. Those markets would still be saturated with apps even if Apple kept 99% of the money. Then there are apps which cost more to develop but have demand from a smaller number of users. There the 30% can easily be the difference between viability and not. More than that, it takes 30% of the revenue away from the developer, so even if the app exists, the developer has fewer resources to improve it, so it's not as good. Or then that market can't support as many developers and the customer is deprived of the benefits of competition.
      - wolco 6y ago
        Perhaps that app doesn't deserve to live. If the 30% forces you out you were pretty close to losing money regardless.
        jakelazaroff 6y ago
        If you can't afford to lose basically a third of your income, you were pretty close to losing money?
      - 6y ago
drivingmenuts 6y ago
And if you had the potential to bring in as much business as Amazon, as an individual, you probably get preferential treatment. But those thousands of developers operate under thousands of brands in regards to the App Store, not one brand, like Amazon does. An app like Prime Video brings in millions immediately, enough to guarantee a volume discount, while an individual could just wind up being a drain on Apple’s time and infrastructure for quite some time.

philwelch 6y ago

Yeah, if it turns out that a standard rate of 25% would work out better for them than 30%, they should lower the rate to 25%. Is the current app ecosystem not vibrant enough? I think they’re doing fine as it is but it’s very literally not my business :)

simonh 6y ago

Oh come on, the App Store is overflowing with Apps. The amount of options on there is overwhelming. If anything there’s too much competition and too many apps, driving down the prices companies can charge for premium products due to oversupply. And don’t tell me that’s Apples fault as well, because the 30% on low prices makes businesses unsustainable. Which is it, does the 30% discourage companies from participating, or does the App Store 30% and all enable too much competition for premium apps. It can’t be both.

toyg 6y ago
The Appstore is like big-cable packages: a billion channels, and nothing to watch. 90% of those apps are shovelware and addiction machines, because that’s what the Apple-imposed model effectively incentives. It’s very likely that breaking up the appstore would change that, and we could get a software market closer to what we see in other segments, free to innovate and generating more winners.
- philwelch 6y ago
  Or it could be that shovelware and addiction machines are exactly the most cost-effective form of phone apps regardless.
- freeone3000 6y ago
  Have you seen literally any other software segment? This isn't just the app store, this is also the play store, webpages, windows store apps, playstation games, ... The most successful apps are the ones that make the most money: skinner box slot machines with a credit card system attached. Your idea that software should have things like "intrinsic quality" or "benefit to the user" is not as important as how much money it makes, and if you put more effort into mechanics or gameplay instead of additional monetization techniques, you're losing out.
  - toyg 6y ago
    Don’t put words in my mouth. Every sector has winners and losers, that’s not the point. The point is that free platforms allow people to ALSO build different stuff and redefine what we use machines for; the appstore does not. On the desktop, one can invent p2p or a new type of browser or a magic app that makes unicorns out of tcp packets. On the appstore, entire areas of development are forbidden, in order to guarantee a constant stream of cash to Apple and Google. On the desktop, if you make a life-changing app, you get competition. On the appstore, if you threaten Apple/Google dominance, you get banned. Appstores make a mockery of the free market; anybody who lived through the 80s/90s “wild west” of computing should see them for the obscene freedom-destroying schemes that they are.
    - simonh 6y ago
      The consumer market has had plenty of chances to buy into open platforms and choose phones with multiple stores and the ability to side load whatever they wanted. Those options have always been there from before the iPhone even. I was side loading apps on to my Palm Tungsten E. The fact is the App Store offers the best experience and the best apps. Side loading apps outside stores isn’t a viable business beyond very narrow niches, we’ve seen this happen. App stores offer a scale alternatives just can’t reach, which brings investment and therefore options in the consumer space that open platforms cannot match. We’ve been running the experiment for over a decade now and the results are in. App,Stores have crated staggeringly huge markets. That has enormous value for developers take that away, and how are customers and developers going to get connected? We’ve seen how that works out. The resulting markets aren’t 10 time smaller, or a 100 times smaller, they’re thousands of times smaller. I was going to say 30% is peanuts. It’s not, but I do think it’s a reasonable price.
jakelazaroff 6y ago
> Which is it, does the 30% discourage companies from participating, or does the App Store 30% and all enable too much competition for premium apps. It can’t be both. Why are you phrasing this like a gotcha? "Too much competition" is your argument here, not mine. I think it's the former: the 30% discourages people (not necessarily companies) from participating.
- Spivak 6y ago
  But simultaneously the App Store is overflowing with apps made by solo devs and small teams. I'm sure you can find someone it discourages but en masse sharecropping on Apple's farm for most people seems to be good business.
  - AnthonyMouse 6y ago
    It's all different markets. There are some apps which cost only $10,000 to develop but there is demand from a billion users at a price of $1. Those markets would still be saturated with apps even if Apple kept 99% of the money. Then there are apps which cost more to develop but have demand from a smaller number of users. There the 30% can easily be the difference between viability and not. More than that, it takes 30% of the revenue away from the developer, so even if the app exists, the developer has fewer resources to improve it, so it's not as good. Or then that market can't support as many developers and the customer is deprived of the benefits of competition.
    - wolco 6y ago
      Perhaps that app doesn't deserve to live. If the 30% forces you out you were pretty close to losing money regardless.
      - jakelazaroff 6y ago
        If you can't afford to lose basically a third of your income, you were pretty close to losing money?
    - 6y ago

drivingmenuts 6y ago

And if you had the potential to bring in as much business as Amazon, as an individual, you probably get preferential treatment. But those thousands of developers operate under thousands of brands in regards to the App Store, not one brand, like Amazon does. An app like Prime Video brings in millions immediately, enough to guarantee a volume discount, while an individual could just wind up being a drain on Apple’s time and infrastructure for quite some time.