4 ms·

As someone who's an Apple user and will soon be an iOS developer, I'm all for a curated App Store (I actually think Apple should reject more apps! Some apps hav

As someone who's an Apple user and will soon be an iOS developer, I'm all for a curated App Store (I actually think Apple should reject more apps! Some apps have been rejected unfairly, and I think they should change their policies slightly to include them), and I'm 100% for this 1-party payment. My only gripe is the 30% cut. Why not make that 15%, or 10%? It would make things sooooo easier for everyone. That %20 is so negligible (for Apple) that I'm sure it falls within error margin... 30% is just too much for a lot of developers/companies.

jamornh 14y ago
I'm recalling this from memory, but if I remember correctly, Apple's argument for the 30% charge when they first launched the app store is that traditionally you'd have to publish through a telco, and telcos used to charge way more than 50% of the revenue in order to place your application through their portal. Not sure how true that is but now, because of Apple, 30% seems to be the new standard.
- laumars 14y ago
  > " Apple's argument for the 30% charge when they first launched the app store is that traditionally you'd have to publish through a telco, and telcos used to charge way more than 50% of the revenue in order to place your application through their portal." That logic doesn't work though because phone and PDA apps have been available to download from 3rd party websites since even before 3G. You could set up a download portal for Windows Mobile or whatever OS the "dumb phones" from Sony Erricson's K-series featured using free hosting if you really wanted to. Granted it wouldn't be a centralised repository like Linux distro's feature (which are also free), but it certainly wouldn't have cost you >50% of your budget. Apple do this sort crap all the time, they deliberately merge vaguely related statistics to promote whatever prejudice they're trying to peddle at that time (eg classing their notebooks as tablets when talking about their dominance on the mobile space. Or including iPod figures when talking about the dominance of the iPhones). Smart phones, feature phones and PDAs have been around a long time before the iPhone; central software repositories have also been around a long time before the Apple App Store; and there's never been a precedence to take >50% (nor even a 30%) cut from transactions and nor has setting up independent 3rd party portals cost that much either. Plus lets not forget that Apple also charge developers for the privilege of developing software (even just for your own personal iOS device) via their developers subscription (note I said subscription; not a one off payment) and (if I'm not mistaken) again for just adding your application to the App Store.
  - dbaupp 14y ago
    > That logic doesn't work though because phone and PDA apps have been available to download from 3rd party websites since even before 3G. You could set up a download portal for Windows Mobile or whatever OS the "dumb phones" from Sony Erricson's K-series featured using free hosting if you really wanted to. Granted it wouldn't be a centralised repository like Linux distro's feature (which are also free), but it certainly wouldn't have cost you >50% of your budget. Using a 3rd party website (or your own), you are unlikely to get the exposure of an app store or a telco portal.
    - laumars 14y ago
      "Using a 3rd party website (or your own), you are unlikely to get the exposure of an app store or a telco portal." I don't agree with that either as most app store-published applications get next to no exposure anyway. That privilege is reserved for a very few that either pay for promotion or go viral. So you're back to the old model of users either searching for a specific application to suit their needs (search engines existed before app stores) or "word of mouth" (which these days include forums / blogs and all of those existed prior to app stores as well). There is this misconception among some (and I'm by no means saying that you're under the same illusion) that developers only need to upload to Apples App Store or Google Play and they'll see thousands of downloads and "PROFIT" (to quote a meme). The reality is the vast majority of apps do not make any money and uploading to central repositories does not mean people will stumble across your application or game. And what's more, anything you do upload is not only subject to the same limitations of users stumbling upon your product as before, but with the influx of new developers sold on this rose-tinted vision, you're now competing with significantly more software than ever before. So just the additional signal-to-noise ratio alone makes it harder than ever to make your application visible. So I really don't believe the notion that app stores increase exposure for the average developer. Where app stores excel is making content easier to find and install for the average user; one search interface with inbuilt download and install functions. That's a huge step up from Googling from your PC, downloading then either manually copying the .jar to your phone or installing an EXE locally on your PC with your handset connected via activesync. However I wouldn't say that user convenience guarantees developer visibility.

jamornh 14y ago

I'm recalling this from memory, but if I remember correctly, Apple's argument for the 30% charge when they first launched the app store is that traditionally you'd have to publish through a telco, and telcos used to charge way more than 50% of the revenue in order to place your application through their portal. Not sure how true that is but now, because of Apple, 30% seems to be the new standard.

laumars 14y ago
> " Apple's argument for the 30% charge when they first launched the app store is that traditionally you'd have to publish through a telco, and telcos used to charge way more than 50% of the revenue in order to place your application through their portal." That logic doesn't work though because phone and PDA apps have been available to download from 3rd party websites since even before 3G. You could set up a download portal for Windows Mobile or whatever OS the "dumb phones" from Sony Erricson's K-series featured using free hosting if you really wanted to. Granted it wouldn't be a centralised repository like Linux distro's feature (which are also free), but it certainly wouldn't have cost you >50% of your budget. Apple do this sort crap all the time, they deliberately merge vaguely related statistics to promote whatever prejudice they're trying to peddle at that time (eg classing their notebooks as tablets when talking about their dominance on the mobile space. Or including iPod figures when talking about the dominance of the iPhones). Smart phones, feature phones and PDAs have been around a long time before the iPhone; central software repositories have also been around a long time before the Apple App Store; and there's never been a precedence to take >50% (nor even a 30%) cut from transactions and nor has setting up independent 3rd party portals cost that much either. Plus lets not forget that Apple also charge developers for the privilege of developing software (even just for your own personal iOS device) via their developers subscription (note I said subscription; not a one off payment) and (if I'm not mistaken) again for just adding your application to the App Store.
- dbaupp 14y ago
  > That logic doesn't work though because phone and PDA apps have been available to download from 3rd party websites since even before 3G. You could set up a download portal for Windows Mobile or whatever OS the "dumb phones" from Sony Erricson's K-series featured using free hosting if you really wanted to. Granted it wouldn't be a centralised repository like Linux distro's feature (which are also free), but it certainly wouldn't have cost you >50% of your budget. Using a 3rd party website (or your own), you are unlikely to get the exposure of an app store or a telco portal.
  - laumars 14y ago
    "Using a 3rd party website (or your own), you are unlikely to get the exposure of an app store or a telco portal." I don't agree with that either as most app store-published applications get next to no exposure anyway. That privilege is reserved for a very few that either pay for promotion or go viral. So you're back to the old model of users either searching for a specific application to suit their needs (search engines existed before app stores) or "word of mouth" (which these days include forums / blogs and all of those existed prior to app stores as well). There is this misconception among some (and I'm by no means saying that you're under the same illusion) that developers only need to upload to Apples App Store or Google Play and they'll see thousands of downloads and "PROFIT" (to quote a meme). The reality is the vast majority of apps do not make any money and uploading to central repositories does not mean people will stumble across your application or game. And what's more, anything you do upload is not only subject to the same limitations of users stumbling upon your product as before, but with the influx of new developers sold on this rose-tinted vision, you're now competing with significantly more software than ever before. So just the additional signal-to-noise ratio alone makes it harder than ever to make your application visible. So I really don't believe the notion that app stores increase exposure for the average developer. Where app stores excel is making content easier to find and install for the average user; one search interface with inbuilt download and install functions. That's a huge step up from Googling from your PC, downloading then either manually copying the .jar to your phone or installing an EXE locally on your PC with your handset connected via activesync. However I wouldn't say that user convenience guarantees developer visibility.