3 ms·

> Most stuff already is dirt-cheap on the App Store (and riddled with ads). Are we using the same App Store? Anything of worth is behind a $10 monthly subscrip

> Most stuff already is dirt-cheap on the App Store (and riddled with ads). Are we using the same App Store? Anything of worth is behind a $10 monthly subscription. Apple has intentionally made subscriptions the only viable commercial model on the App Store. Then they take 30% (with some exceptions). They forbid competition, so developers aren't free to distribute to iOS customers in any other way.

happymellon 2y ago
Your missing the $100 developer fee. Just Apple nickel and diming in every way possible. It's riddled with adverts because it's the only way to get revenue out of such a terrible system.
- dijit 2y ago
  "I hate apple" "I love valve" ... but they have exactly the same business model, and people genuinely promote valve as if they want it to be a monopoly. (though I am aware that it's not one now- first-party launchers are universally reviled by gamers).
  - jonhohle 2y ago
    Steam was not appreciated when it launched. It made a foothold as a requirement for HL2. Valve has done a good job making relatively painless over the last 20 years, but it was originally reviled.
    - fph 2y ago
      And didn't Apple also have 20 years time to make their app store better?
  - happymellon 2y ago
    > they have exactly the same business model I'm not sure how. Valve allow you to install whatever game store you want on the Steam Deck. They win custom by making a better experience than everyone else, Apple win because they have formed an environment where you have no other option. If Apple wanted the same business model, they would allow alternative storefronts, they wouldn't block updates if they decided they didn't like you anymore, and they wouldn't block you from even replacing the OS on the device you bought if you wanted to. In fact, I'm not entirely sure apart from running stores that they are the same thing at all.
Someone 2y ago
> Apple has intentionally made subscriptions the only viable commercial model on the App Store How do you think Apple has done that? They’ve always had the option for a one-time payment for apps, and those can be fairly high ($999,99 until December 2022 and $10,000 after that time, according to https://www.theverge.com/2022/12/6/23496734/apple-app-store-pricing-tiers-subscriptions-iap https://www.theverge.com/2022/12/6/23496734/apple-app-store-...) Even if Apple did that, I don’t see any evidence that was intentional. I think it’s more that the market has spoken, and said that “you can’t sell $100 apps on the App Store”. And even then, there are counterexamples. The only thing Apple may hav head to do with that is that it ‘gave’ zillions of developers visibility for their $0,99 apps on the App Store. That may have led users to think software should be cheap.
- Zak 2y ago
  A difficulty developers have cited is that it isn't possible to have paid major version upgrades while keeping the same identity (links, reviews, etc...) for an app.
- Gareth321 2y ago
  > How do you think Apple has done that? 1. They aggressively deprecate and modify endpoints. Microsoft maintains APIs for decades. Apple deprecates and modifies them with frequently little or no warning, necessitating expensive and time-consuming maintenance. This makes the one-time purchase unviable as a business model for developers. 2. Apple doesn't permit paid application upgrades (v2). Everything has to be done with IAP. This means developers can't abandon old versions and start selling and supporting new versions without losing all their SEO, affiliate links, marketing, branding, coupons, etc. 3. Apple doesn't facilitate wishlists, meaning sales are much less effective. 4. By disallowing competition, Apple ensures iPhone users are a captive audience. They can't purchase one-time software elsewhere. They have to accept the subscription to get the most value out of their phones. This is entirely by design. It's hardly "the market" speaking. There is nothing free about the "market" on iPhones.

happymellon 2y ago

Your missing the $100 developer fee. Just Apple nickel and diming in every way possible. It's riddled with adverts because it's the only way to get revenue out of such a terrible system.

dijit 2y ago
"I hate apple" "I love valve" ... but they have exactly the same business model, and people genuinely promote valve as if they want it to be a monopoly. (though I am aware that it's not one now- first-party launchers are universally reviled by gamers).
- jonhohle 2y ago
  Steam was not appreciated when it launched. It made a foothold as a requirement for HL2. Valve has done a good job making relatively painless over the last 20 years, but it was originally reviled.
  - fph 2y ago
    And didn't Apple also have 20 years time to make their app store better?
- happymellon 2y ago
  > they have exactly the same business model I'm not sure how. Valve allow you to install whatever game store you want on the Steam Deck. They win custom by making a better experience than everyone else, Apple win because they have formed an environment where you have no other option. If Apple wanted the same business model, they would allow alternative storefronts, they wouldn't block updates if they decided they didn't like you anymore, and they wouldn't block you from even replacing the OS on the device you bought if you wanted to. In fact, I'm not entirely sure apart from running stores that they are the same thing at all.

Someone 2y ago

> Apple has intentionally made subscriptions the only viable commercial model on the App Store How do you think Apple has done that? They’ve always had the option for a one-time payment for apps, and those can be fairly high ($999,99 until December 2022 and $10,000 after that time, according to https://www.theverge.com/2022/12/6/23496734/apple-app-store-pricing-tiers-subscriptions-iap https://www.theverge.com/2022/12/6/23496734/apple-app-store-...) Even if Apple did that, I don’t see any evidence that was intentional. I think it’s more that the market has spoken, and said that “you can’t sell $100 apps on the App Store”. And even then, there are counterexamples. The only thing Apple may hav head to do with that is that it ‘gave’ zillions of developers visibility for their $0,99 apps on the App Store. That may have led users to think software should be cheap.

Zak 2y ago
A difficulty developers have cited is that it isn't possible to have paid major version upgrades while keeping the same identity (links, reviews, etc...) for an app.
Gareth321 2y ago
> How do you think Apple has done that? 1. They aggressively deprecate and modify endpoints. Microsoft maintains APIs for decades. Apple deprecates and modifies them with frequently little or no warning, necessitating expensive and time-consuming maintenance. This makes the one-time purchase unviable as a business model for developers. 2. Apple doesn't permit paid application upgrades (v2). Everything has to be done with IAP. This means developers can't abandon old versions and start selling and supporting new versions without losing all their SEO, affiliate links, marketing, branding, coupons, etc. 3. Apple doesn't facilitate wishlists, meaning sales are much less effective. 4. By disallowing competition, Apple ensures iPhone users are a captive audience. They can't purchase one-time software elsewhere. They have to accept the subscription to get the most value out of their phones. This is entirely by design. It's hardly "the market" speaking. There is nothing free about the "market" on iPhones.