5 ms·

Two big changes here. One is allowing third-party app stores to exclusively offer their own apps (I guess removing the requirement that they accept other apps).

Two big changes here. One is allowing third-party app stores to exclusively offer their own apps (I guess removing the requirement that they accept other apps). And the second is allowing apps that meet certain requirements to be installed directly from the publisher’s website: > Apple's specific criteria, such as being a member of the Apple Developer Program for two continuous years or more and having an app with more than one million first installs on iOS in the EU in the prior year, and commit to ongoing requirements, such as publishing transparent data collection policies But as you can see you won’t be seeing indie apps distributed in this way. Though, to be fair, for most indies the App Store with the old rules is probably the best deal available to them.

lapcat 3y ago
> Though, to be fair, for most indies the App Store with the old rules is probably the best deal available to them. How do you figure? Given the choice, many indie Mac developers continue to distribute their software outside the Mac App Store.
- CubsFan1060 3y ago
  The core technology fee doesn't exist on the Mac.
  - lapcat 3y ago
    How is taking 15% or 30% of all revenue better than €0.50 per first annual install?
    - internetter 3y ago
      Because it means you need to be making more than $3.3-$1.5 per user per year to break even on this, which is difficult
      - lapcat 3y ago
        > Because it means you need to be making more than $3.3-$1.5 per user per year to break even on this, which is difficult Perhaps this is the case inside the App Store, but it's not the case outside the App Store, where indie apps tend to be higher priced and upfront paid. Moreover, keep in mind that the first million first annual installs have no CTF, and most indie devs will never even reach that point.
        internetter 3y ago
        > where indie apps tend to be higher priced and upfront paid If this is the case, this is an even worse deal, due to the annual install fee. If it was one time, it wouldn't be so bad.
        lapcat 3y ago
        "Moreover, keep in mind that the first million first annual installs have no CTF, and most indie devs will never even reach that point." Thus the CTF is mostly nonexistent for indie devs. In any case, though, it's only 5 euros for 10 years of installs, and many indie apps have paid upgrades (which don't exist in the App Store) at least once every 5 years.
        internetter 3y ago
        As an indie app developer myself, I don't want to have this reoccurring expense hanging over my head. As I incorporate, the 600$ in fixed yearly expenses is stressful enough.
        lapcat 3y ago
        "Good news" then: this is merely a hypothetical conversation, and Apple won't allow you to distribute from your website unless you already have over a million EU users.
        yusefnapora 3y ago
    - axxl 3y ago
      Because a revenue % is based on a financial transaction that guarantees you money where an install (which includes updates) does not.
    - CubsFan1060 3y ago
      If your app is ad-supported, you pay 0%. It also makes the freemium model viable. If you have an application that has in-app purchases, then people may download, play the free portion, and never pay you. If you have to pay $0.50 for that, then it may not go well. The 0.50 is probably much better if you're selling, say, a $10 app.
      - lapcat 3y ago
        > The 0.50 is probably much better if you're selling, say, a $10 app. That's precisely what indie devs outside the Mac App Store are doing. They don't have ad-supported apps. Most of them are upfront paid, perhaps with a time-limited demo. The business models that you're talking about are a product of the App Store race to the bottom.
    - mdekkers 3y ago
      > How is taking 15% or 30% of all revenue better than €0.50 per first annual install? I think for free apps that’s a bit of a big deal?
      - lapcat 3y ago
        Yes, of course, but again, this doesn't really apply to the indie developer situation: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39678917 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39678917
- joshstrange 3y ago
  On the Mac I would agree with you, on iOS I think the best option is probably old rules App Store due to the CTE alone. “Best deal available to them” != “best deal one could hope for”.

lapcat 3y ago

> Though, to be fair, for most indies the App Store with the old rules is probably the best deal available to them. How do you figure? Given the choice, many indie Mac developers continue to distribute their software outside the Mac App Store.

CubsFan1060 3y ago
The core technology fee doesn't exist on the Mac.
- lapcat 3y ago
  How is taking 15% or 30% of all revenue better than €0.50 per first annual install?
  - internetter 3y ago
    Because it means you need to be making more than $3.3-$1.5 per user per year to break even on this, which is difficult
    - lapcat 3y ago
      > Because it means you need to be making more than $3.3-$1.5 per user per year to break even on this, which is difficult Perhaps this is the case inside the App Store, but it's not the case outside the App Store, where indie apps tend to be higher priced and upfront paid. Moreover, keep in mind that the first million first annual installs have no CTF, and most indie devs will never even reach that point.
      - internetter 3y ago
        > where indie apps tend to be higher priced and upfront paid If this is the case, this is an even worse deal, due to the annual install fee. If it was one time, it wouldn't be so bad.
        lapcat 3y ago
        "Moreover, keep in mind that the first million first annual installs have no CTF, and most indie devs will never even reach that point." Thus the CTF is mostly nonexistent for indie devs. In any case, though, it's only 5 euros for 10 years of installs, and many indie apps have paid upgrades (which don't exist in the App Store) at least once every 5 years.
        internetter 3y ago
        As an indie app developer myself, I don't want to have this reoccurring expense hanging over my head. As I incorporate, the 600$ in fixed yearly expenses is stressful enough.
        lapcat 3y ago
        "Good news" then: this is merely a hypothetical conversation, and Apple won't allow you to distribute from your website unless you already have over a million EU users.
      - yusefnapora 3y ago
  - axxl 3y ago
    Because a revenue % is based on a financial transaction that guarantees you money where an install (which includes updates) does not.
  - CubsFan1060 3y ago
    If your app is ad-supported, you pay 0%. It also makes the freemium model viable. If you have an application that has in-app purchases, then people may download, play the free portion, and never pay you. If you have to pay $0.50 for that, then it may not go well. The 0.50 is probably much better if you're selling, say, a $10 app.
    - lapcat 3y ago
      > The 0.50 is probably much better if you're selling, say, a $10 app. That's precisely what indie devs outside the Mac App Store are doing. They don't have ad-supported apps. Most of them are upfront paid, perhaps with a time-limited demo. The business models that you're talking about are a product of the App Store race to the bottom.
  - mdekkers 3y ago
    > How is taking 15% or 30% of all revenue better than €0.50 per first annual install? I think for free apps that’s a bit of a big deal?
    - lapcat 3y ago
      Yes, of course, but again, this doesn't really apply to the indie developer situation: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39678917 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39678917
joshstrange 3y ago
On the Mac I would agree with you, on iOS I think the best option is probably old rules App Store due to the CTE alone. “Best deal available to them” != “best deal one could hope for”.