4 ms·

There is great risk in migrating your app to an app store that no one yet uses, even if you are amazon

by Aicy 4y ago

yjftsjthsd-h 4y ago
What's the risk? Assuming that it's not exclusive, that is
- enjo 4y ago
  Apple will make that decision for you. I'll bet anything they would require exclusivity for listing in their store (in the event they're forced to allow for third party installs).
Gigachad 4y ago
You can provide the app on both and make all IAPs 30% cheaper on the alt store. Most apps already make purchases 30% more on the app vs their web version.
- kibwen 4y ago
  If Apple doesn't provide services that are worth the cost of the 30% cut, then they deserve to lose that revenue.
  - ethanbond 4y ago
    Their argument is that that service is provided continuously by virtue of people having (and buying year after year) the handsets that you’re trying to install on. So this all comports: you’re free to make your own App Store and not get the 30% cut, but in exchange you will not have a billion device user base on day 1 to ship your apps to.
    - Gigachad 4y ago
      This is about as correct as saying people support everything the government does because they voted for them. But the reality is there aren’t that many choices and too many results are bundled in with one choice. Maybe apple makes the nicest hardware and someone buys for that reason but it doesn’t mean they support the App Store lock-in.
    - MereInterest 4y ago
      By the same argument, I could say that you're free to start your own gasoline station, but in exchange you will not be compatible with the Ford Gasoline Nozzle which may only be used with a 30% cut going to Ford. The market for applications is entirely separate from the market for hardware. By tying the two together, Apple is dipping into a revenue stream that they have no right to, just as Ford has no right to profits from sale of gasoline.
      - ethanbond 4y ago
        > the market for applications is entirely separate from the market for hardware. This seems like a matter of opinion, and one that Apple has disagreed with for decades as far as I can tell.
        MereInterest 4y ago
        Of course it's a matter of opinion. Practically all important questions are matters of opinion. Any preference you can possibly state about how the world should be is a matter of opinion. Whether the world is better for having eaten chocolate or vanilla ice cream is a matter of opunion. Whether a death is an accident to be ignored, a murder to be punished, or a heroic act to be praised is a matter of opinion. Any statement involving "should" or "ought" is a matter of opinion. So when you say that the lines between markets is a matter of opinion, of course it is. When you say that Apple has a different opinion on the matter, of course they do. Those were not in dispute, and so your comment on it being "a matter of opinion" is both true, and so widely applicable as to convey effectively no meaning. Instead, you could have responded with pointing out inconsistencies in the analogy given. You could have pointed out ongoing work done by Apple to justify the ongoing payments. These would have worked to shift the opinion on Apple's business practices, not merely to point out the general category of "matters of opinion".
        ethanbond 4y ago
        Well one inconsistency in the analogy is straightforward: the gasoline and the automobile are obviously two distinct markets as an accident of history, whereas the smartphone hardware and smartphone software markets are not obviously distinct, also as an accident of history. If you just assume the issue at hand resolves in your favor then it’s trivial to come up with analogs that appear in your favor! It just isn’t very convincing. Consider if 50%+ of people moving from horse and buggy to automobiles picked Ford and in order to support this new market creation Ford had to invest billions to create gas stations all over the country. It does not seem crazy at all that they would prevent other manufacturers from utilizing those gas stations, and that they’d take a cut from every gas station operator who chooses to service the giant market that Ford created.
- juve1996 4y ago
  Apple could just remove you then from the App Store if you offer it on a 3rd party app, which I'm assuming they will
  - Gigachad 4y ago
    Regulation that forces alt app stores to be allowed can just as easily make this retaliation illegal too.
    - juve1996 4y ago
      These regulations take years to create. Then the court challenges. More than enough time for the amount of revenue loss to a developer to matter. It isn't even retaliation anymore, they can say "well they can use their own app store, which is what they wanted anyway." Don't get your hopes up.
      - int_19h 4y ago
        Removing a competitor's apps in retaliation for them shipping their own app store sounds like exactly the kind of thing that existing anti-trust regulations would cover just fine, at least in EU.
at-fates-hands 4y ago
> even if you are amazon Or Microsoft. This is exactly what the case study looked like for Microsoft when they were producing phones and were just getting their app store up and running. People were hesitant because their app store didn't have all the apps they used like YouTune, Facebook and Twitter. The one classic example is how Google refused to allow MS to have a YouTube app in their store - that single app alone kept thousands of people from switching to the MS mobile platform which in turn contributed to their low market share and eventual collapse and MS killing off most of their mobile platform.

There is great risk in migrating your app to an app store that no one yet uses, even if you are amazon

by Aicy 4y ago

There is great risk in migrating your app to an app store that no one yet uses, even if you are amazon

yjftsjthsd-h 4y ago

What's the risk? Assuming that it's not exclusive, that is

enjo 4y ago
Apple will make that decision for you. I'll bet anything they would require exclusivity for listing in their store (in the event they're forced to allow for third party installs).

Gigachad 4y ago

You can provide the app on both and make all IAPs 30% cheaper on the alt store. Most apps already make purchases 30% more on the app vs their web version.

kibwen 4y ago
If Apple doesn't provide services that are worth the cost of the 30% cut, then they deserve to lose that revenue.
- ethanbond 4y ago
  Their argument is that that service is provided continuously by virtue of people having (and buying year after year) the handsets that you’re trying to install on. So this all comports: you’re free to make your own App Store and not get the 30% cut, but in exchange you will not have a billion device user base on day 1 to ship your apps to.
  - Gigachad 4y ago
    This is about as correct as saying people support everything the government does because they voted for them. But the reality is there aren’t that many choices and too many results are bundled in with one choice. Maybe apple makes the nicest hardware and someone buys for that reason but it doesn’t mean they support the App Store lock-in.
  - MereInterest 4y ago
    By the same argument, I could say that you're free to start your own gasoline station, but in exchange you will not be compatible with the Ford Gasoline Nozzle which may only be used with a 30% cut going to Ford. The market for applications is entirely separate from the market for hardware. By tying the two together, Apple is dipping into a revenue stream that they have no right to, just as Ford has no right to profits from sale of gasoline.
    - ethanbond 4y ago
      > the market for applications is entirely separate from the market for hardware. This seems like a matter of opinion, and one that Apple has disagreed with for decades as far as I can tell.
      - MereInterest 4y ago
        Of course it's a matter of opinion. Practically all important questions are matters of opinion. Any preference you can possibly state about how the world should be is a matter of opinion. Whether the world is better for having eaten chocolate or vanilla ice cream is a matter of opunion. Whether a death is an accident to be ignored, a murder to be punished, or a heroic act to be praised is a matter of opinion. Any statement involving "should" or "ought" is a matter of opinion. So when you say that the lines between markets is a matter of opinion, of course it is. When you say that Apple has a different opinion on the matter, of course they do. Those were not in dispute, and so your comment on it being "a matter of opinion" is both true, and so widely applicable as to convey effectively no meaning. Instead, you could have responded with pointing out inconsistencies in the analogy given. You could have pointed out ongoing work done by Apple to justify the ongoing payments. These would have worked to shift the opinion on Apple's business practices, not merely to point out the general category of "matters of opinion".
        ethanbond 4y ago
        Well one inconsistency in the analogy is straightforward: the gasoline and the automobile are obviously two distinct markets as an accident of history, whereas the smartphone hardware and smartphone software markets are not obviously distinct, also as an accident of history. If you just assume the issue at hand resolves in your favor then it’s trivial to come up with analogs that appear in your favor! It just isn’t very convincing. Consider if 50%+ of people moving from horse and buggy to automobiles picked Ford and in order to support this new market creation Ford had to invest billions to create gas stations all over the country. It does not seem crazy at all that they would prevent other manufacturers from utilizing those gas stations, and that they’d take a cut from every gas station operator who chooses to service the giant market that Ford created.
juve1996 4y ago
Apple could just remove you then from the App Store if you offer it on a 3rd party app, which I'm assuming they will
- Gigachad 4y ago
  Regulation that forces alt app stores to be allowed can just as easily make this retaliation illegal too.
  - juve1996 4y ago
    These regulations take years to create. Then the court challenges. More than enough time for the amount of revenue loss to a developer to matter. It isn't even retaliation anymore, they can say "well they can use their own app store, which is what they wanted anyway." Don't get your hopes up.
    - int_19h 4y ago
      Removing a competitor's apps in retaliation for them shipping their own app store sounds like exactly the kind of thing that existing anti-trust regulations would cover just fine, at least in EU.

at-fates-hands 4y ago

> even if you are amazon Or Microsoft. This is exactly what the case study looked like for Microsoft when they were producing phones and were just getting their app store up and running. People were hesitant because their app store didn't have all the apps they used like YouTune, Facebook and Twitter. The one classic example is how Google refused to allow MS to have a YouTube app in their store - that single app alone kept thousands of people from switching to the MS mobile platform which in turn contributed to their low market share and eventual collapse and MS killing off most of their mobile platform.