4 ms·

Are you kidding? Being able to sell on more than one store is a massive advantage. Besides the obvious lower risks and lower fees, you can also benefit from bet

by bogwog 6y ago

Are you kidding? Being able to sell on more than one store is a massive advantage. Besides the obvious lower risks and lower fees, you can also benefit from better exposure and discovery (two things that are terrible on the app store and google play) especially in niche stores.

zepto 6y ago
Being forced to sell on multiple stores and comply with multiple sets of store rules just to access the same set of consumers is a massive disadvantage. There will be greater risks. It’s conceivable that fees will be a little lower, but this will only benefit larger developers who can absorb the increased costs of dealing with all the stores. It will be nothing but destructive for smaller developers.
- Apocryphon 6y ago
  This is scaremongering. Android has alternative app stores and most apps don't bother releasing to them. iOS would not fragment overnight into dozens of app stores if it was to become open. Likely the majority of apps would still target the App Store, with a handful of major competing stores. These competitors would be incentivized to attract developers, otherwise they would end up with the same lack of apps that killed alternative smartphone operating systems. Not to mention, there would be some degree of standardization of store rules across these platforms, because that's how industries with multiple players tend to function. You're describing an entirely extreme position without any basis.
  - nxc18 6y ago
    The basis for this belief is that Epic also sued Google Play for creating the existing conditions that you describe. Epic doesn't want to turn iOS into Android (which is bad enough on its own), they want to open the floodgates on Android, too.
    - Apocryphon 6y ago
      But I don't care about Epic, nor am I talking about them. I'm talking about the hypothetical scenario where Apple allows alternative app stores to exist. I'm not framing this under Epic's terms.
  - zepto 6y ago
    The handful of competitors would be multi-billion dollar corporations, e.g. Epic, Facebook, Google, Amazon, Microsoft. The incentive for developers is as always, customers. The stores would be incentivized to acquire customers. Developers would be forced to support any store that had more than a few percent of customers. Acquiring customers can be done without giving good terms to most developers. All you need is a small number of exclusives. Epic has their own content, and the others would be able for trivially bid foe the top apps. Facebook and Amazon would simply extend their existing iOS apps into becoming stores, and presumably Google could do this with Chrome for iOS, which they’d trivially market via search results. There is no reason these stores would need the long tail of apps as long as they had a few very popular ones, and that would reduce exposure for the long tail that did remain in the Apple store. Your point about standardization of store rules isn’t obvious - what industry do you think this compares with? There is no reason to think that this would do anything to democratize the industry, indeed it would be likely to have the opposite effect, of increasing barriers to entry for smaller developers. My position isn’t extreme in the least. It is the obvious extrapolation of the behaviors of current players. An extreme position would be the emergency of a utopia of developer centric stores all bending over themselves to make things better for the little guy.
    - Apocryphon 6y ago
      > Developers would be forced to support any store that had more than a few percent of customers. Look at the Amazon Appstore for Android and you'll see an anemic limited app marketplace that while subpar, doesn't seem to be doing anything particularly nefarious to consumers nor developers alike. And it's precisely anemic and limited because it contains far fewer apps than the Play Store. We have the entire Android ecosystem to use as a case study to see why competing iOS app stores wouldn't be a threat to either to the App Store's prominence nor to the livelihoods of developers. > Acquiring customers can be done without giving good terms to most developers. All you need is a small number of exclusives. Which does not obviate the ability of the vast majority of non-FANMG affiliated developers to stay on the App Store as they please, or only join the specific app stores that they wish to live on out of desire and not necessity. > There is no reason these stores would need the long tail of apps as long as they had a few very popular ones, and that would reduce exposure for the long tail that did remain in the Apple store. You seem to be operating under the misunderstanding that the existence of alternative app stores creates lock-in. > Your point about standardization of store rules isn’t obvious - what industry do you think this compares with? I'm saying any industry that involves multiple players will see the standardization of norms and operating conventions, much like how UX patterns across different apps standardizes over time. (Take the adoption of the "hamburger button" to mean menu back in the '10s). If there are multiple entrants into the app store space, standard business practices will arise as a new and exciting place for entrepreneurs is created. > There is no reason to think that this would do anything to democratize the industry, indeed it would be likely to have the opposite effect, of increasing barriers to entry for smaller developers. And there's no reason to think that the existing situation is any more democratic than the hypothetical you're spinning. > It is the obvious extrapolation of the behaviors of current players. And is it being borne out on Android? There's no Facebook nor Microsoft Play store there. There doesn't even seem to be interest in that direction. Yes, comparing the iOS and Android ecosystems (especially in the service of delineating a hypothetical open iOS ecosystem) is imprecise, but it's useful for the sake of this discussion. > An extreme position would be the emergency of a utopia of developer centric stores all bending over themselves to make things better for the little guy. Which isn't what I'm arguing for, either. I think there's the potential for that. Certainly more than in the status quo.
- bogwog 6y ago
  There is so much wrong with everything you're saying, but I am not going to spend the time to point it all out, especially since you seem to have thoroughly convinced yourself that these assumptions are true. But I'll just point this out: > sell on multiple stores and comply with multiple sets of store rules just to access the same set of consumers is a massive disadvantage. The only way this might be a problem is if all of the 1 billion+ iOS users were your customers, because then maybe some of them might decide to stop using the appstore completely, and maybe that'd happen instantly over night. Then maybe you'd have to publish your app on a second store (which would mean selling your app for a second time to those users who decided to leave the app store and never look back). But regardless, if you have 1 billion customers, supporting a second or third for 40th store is not going to incur any significant costs. In fact, it might even lower them as most competing stores would likely distribute to both Android and iOS at the same time (Google Play would undoubtedly start selling iOS apps). Plus there will 100% be third party services for managing store pages across all the stores out there for a nominal fee (or even for free).
  - zepto 6y ago
    This makes no sense. If you are a new app developer and there was just one additional store, which had just 15% of user attention, you’d have to support it or lose 15% of potential revenue. This is more than likely as Facebook would almost certainly start selling apps directly through the feed.

by bogwog 6y ago

zepto 6y ago

Being forced to sell on multiple stores and comply with multiple sets of store rules just to access the same set of consumers is a massive disadvantage. There will be greater risks. It’s conceivable that fees will be a little lower, but this will only benefit larger developers who can absorb the increased costs of dealing with all the stores. It will be nothing but destructive for smaller developers.

Apocryphon 6y ago
This is scaremongering. Android has alternative app stores and most apps don't bother releasing to them. iOS would not fragment overnight into dozens of app stores if it was to become open. Likely the majority of apps would still target the App Store, with a handful of major competing stores. These competitors would be incentivized to attract developers, otherwise they would end up with the same lack of apps that killed alternative smartphone operating systems. Not to mention, there would be some degree of standardization of store rules across these platforms, because that's how industries with multiple players tend to function. You're describing an entirely extreme position without any basis.
- nxc18 6y ago
  The basis for this belief is that Epic also sued Google Play for creating the existing conditions that you describe. Epic doesn't want to turn iOS into Android (which is bad enough on its own), they want to open the floodgates on Android, too.
  - Apocryphon 6y ago
    But I don't care about Epic, nor am I talking about them. I'm talking about the hypothetical scenario where Apple allows alternative app stores to exist. I'm not framing this under Epic's terms.
- zepto 6y ago
  The handful of competitors would be multi-billion dollar corporations, e.g. Epic, Facebook, Google, Amazon, Microsoft. The incentive for developers is as always, customers. The stores would be incentivized to acquire customers. Developers would be forced to support any store that had more than a few percent of customers. Acquiring customers can be done without giving good terms to most developers. All you need is a small number of exclusives. Epic has their own content, and the others would be able for trivially bid foe the top apps. Facebook and Amazon would simply extend their existing iOS apps into becoming stores, and presumably Google could do this with Chrome for iOS, which they’d trivially market via search results. There is no reason these stores would need the long tail of apps as long as they had a few very popular ones, and that would reduce exposure for the long tail that did remain in the Apple store. Your point about standardization of store rules isn’t obvious - what industry do you think this compares with? There is no reason to think that this would do anything to democratize the industry, indeed it would be likely to have the opposite effect, of increasing barriers to entry for smaller developers. My position isn’t extreme in the least. It is the obvious extrapolation of the behaviors of current players. An extreme position would be the emergency of a utopia of developer centric stores all bending over themselves to make things better for the little guy.
  - Apocryphon 6y ago
    > Developers would be forced to support any store that had more than a few percent of customers. Look at the Amazon Appstore for Android and you'll see an anemic limited app marketplace that while subpar, doesn't seem to be doing anything particularly nefarious to consumers nor developers alike. And it's precisely anemic and limited because it contains far fewer apps than the Play Store. We have the entire Android ecosystem to use as a case study to see why competing iOS app stores wouldn't be a threat to either to the App Store's prominence nor to the livelihoods of developers. > Acquiring customers can be done without giving good terms to most developers. All you need is a small number of exclusives. Which does not obviate the ability of the vast majority of non-FANMG affiliated developers to stay on the App Store as they please, or only join the specific app stores that they wish to live on out of desire and not necessity. > There is no reason these stores would need the long tail of apps as long as they had a few very popular ones, and that would reduce exposure for the long tail that did remain in the Apple store. You seem to be operating under the misunderstanding that the existence of alternative app stores creates lock-in. > Your point about standardization of store rules isn’t obvious - what industry do you think this compares with? I'm saying any industry that involves multiple players will see the standardization of norms and operating conventions, much like how UX patterns across different apps standardizes over time. (Take the adoption of the "hamburger button" to mean menu back in the '10s). If there are multiple entrants into the app store space, standard business practices will arise as a new and exciting place for entrepreneurs is created. > There is no reason to think that this would do anything to democratize the industry, indeed it would be likely to have the opposite effect, of increasing barriers to entry for smaller developers. And there's no reason to think that the existing situation is any more democratic than the hypothetical you're spinning. > It is the obvious extrapolation of the behaviors of current players. And is it being borne out on Android? There's no Facebook nor Microsoft Play store there. There doesn't even seem to be interest in that direction. Yes, comparing the iOS and Android ecosystems (especially in the service of delineating a hypothetical open iOS ecosystem) is imprecise, but it's useful for the sake of this discussion. > An extreme position would be the emergency of a utopia of developer centric stores all bending over themselves to make things better for the little guy. Which isn't what I'm arguing for, either. I think there's the potential for that. Certainly more than in the status quo.
bogwog 6y ago
There is so much wrong with everything you're saying, but I am not going to spend the time to point it all out, especially since you seem to have thoroughly convinced yourself that these assumptions are true. But I'll just point this out: > sell on multiple stores and comply with multiple sets of store rules just to access the same set of consumers is a massive disadvantage. The only way this might be a problem is if all of the 1 billion+ iOS users were your customers, because then maybe some of them might decide to stop using the appstore completely, and maybe that'd happen instantly over night. Then maybe you'd have to publish your app on a second store (which would mean selling your app for a second time to those users who decided to leave the app store and never look back). But regardless, if you have 1 billion customers, supporting a second or third for 40th store is not going to incur any significant costs. In fact, it might even lower them as most competing stores would likely distribute to both Android and iOS at the same time (Google Play would undoubtedly start selling iOS apps). Plus there will 100% be third party services for managing store pages across all the stores out there for a nominal fee (or even for free).
- zepto 6y ago
  This makes no sense. If you are a new app developer and there was just one additional store, which had just 15% of user attention, you’d have to support it or lose 15% of potential revenue. This is more than likely as Facebook would almost certainly start selling apps directly through the feed.