19 ms·

Mac App Store: The Subtle Exodus

335 points by milen 12y ago

api 12y ago
I can only hope. App stores are a horrible thing for developers-- you are utterly beholden to the app store and a rule change could destroy your business. They're also a horrible thing in the long run for all of us, since they lead us down a path toward a computing ecosystem where true universal computing is prohibited to ordinary users and only signed code will run. The convenience factor is real, but it could be addressed by a better app installation and upgrade model. Apple is already way ahead there by encouraging all components of most apps to live in their .app "folder-file." What if the OS had baked-in support for update feeds from the app's developer? The security factor though is a bit of a tragedy. Open desktop OSes have serious security issues around the installation of software. Instead of solving those issues in a way that does not degrade capability or restrict freedom, OS vendors have decided that it's easier and cheaper to sidestep them by just using the app store model and forcing all code to be signed. Your OS is no more secure... they're just limiting what can run on it. It's part security theater and part just punting on the problem. Maybe if the app store model fails on the high end we'll get real solutions to these problems.
- jtokoph 12y ago
  It's unfortunate that the Mac App Store most likely won't fail in it's current state. There are too many people that don't realize that they are purchasing the outdated or degraded experiences and are perfectly happy.
  - api 12y ago
    Funny... I both like and hate the app store. I like it when the apps I want are there, mostly because they install with one click and update automatically and I don't have to worry about it. But I hate it as a developer. I've found that such conflicting feelings come up when I'm dealing with a poor solution to a nevertheless real set of problems. I think app stores in general are that -- they are a freedom-restricting, tax-extracting, capability-limiting solution to a set of problems around security, software package management, and quality control that could be solved much more intelligently.
  - milen 12y ago
    What's quite interesting is that a few years ago, when you bought from the MAS, you assumed you will always be able to install the software and it will be kept up to date. Nowadays, the unfortunately reality is the opposite - it's very likely the MAS version is seriously lagging behind. What's worse, as you say, is that there's absolutely no indication that some of those apps have been abandoned (apart from the very old Last Update date). The vast majority of consumers will just buy the software and not go researching whether the app they're acquiring has been left collecting dust. And at the end, both consumers and developers lose out.
- milen 12y ago
  There's a lot of whispering going on behind the scenes and some developers have had enough (and I guess more to come in the future). The only way to have your voice heard would be to leave the MAS. If Apple wanted, it could easily resolve all issues very quickly. Unfortunately, I have no reason to believe it will happen. You're quite right that the convenience is part of the big pull of the MAS. But as you say, this can be implemented separately. If you can get the critical mass with some major players behind it, it can become a standard in no time. The security issues related to sandboxing are not insurmountable, either. We can have both sandboxed apps that have wider accesses so that we don't restrict the freedom of users.
- dubya 12y ago
  It's not just signing, there's sandboxing too. Some apps have avoided the app store or have somewhat less-capable app store versions because of the sandboxing. I'd actually love if they could get the Flash plug-in into the app store, especially if it was a crippled version that could only play video or games, just to get rid of Adobe's updater.
  - api 12y ago
    Sandboxing is a good idea, but also done poorly on every platform I'm familiar with. What I want as a user: I want to be able to see -- for each app -- exactly what permissions it requests and what permissions I have given it. I want them to be in plain language, presented in a way that is comprehensible to non-technical people but also to developers / power users. I want to be able to toggle permissions that are not required. (Obviously if an app requires a permission I don't want to give it, I have to just uninstall it.) I also want to be able to see exactly what each app is doing. What it's talking to on the network would be high on that list, along with what files it's accessing or trying to access, etc. Obviously any privacy-invasive feature like location information is very high on such a list of things I want visibility into. There could be "permission motifs" or "templates" to make things easier to understand. For example, a "productivity app" template might only give file access to Documents and network access to a limited set of endpoints and iCloud. A "peer to peer networking app" though might require promiscuous network access. A "hardware interface" might require kernel module permission (which would have a warning to the effect that this confers full administrative rights, because it does). A "VPN" might require the ability to open virtual network (tun) ports. And so on... The app should be required to include descriptive text explaining why it needs each requested permission. Finally, as a user I want some kind of summary display that shows the cumulative "exposed surface area" of my machine. What permissions have I granted where? I also want convenient installs and uninstalls. By default I want automatic (secure, signature checked) updates, but I want the ability to turn that off if I desire. I want to be able to manage which certificates or CAs are trusted to install apps -- which would include self-signed apps. (Self-signed is superior to unsigned in every way, since it allows secure updates once I approve the self-signature.) What I want as a developer: I want to be able to request permissions that are as deep as are necessary to provide the functionality my users want. In a few cases (network stuff, virtualization, certain kinds of hardware support) this may even require a kernel module, but most of the time nothing that far-reaching is needed. The thing is -- desktops/laptops are "power" machines. You do need to be able to do powerful and OS-extending things on them. But I want a security model where I can say precisely which apps I trust with those kinds of permissions. I don't want grant-by-default and I don't want total prohibition. Microsoft actually tried to deliver something like that a few times, but failed. IMHO their failure is completely in execution. They offered a terrible UI and user experience where you kept getting pestered with security-related popups that didn't actually explain what was going on. If this was done well it could be quite revolutionary.
grimtrigger 12y ago
Its hard for me to imagine ever selling an app for a lump sum single payment. Software development is an iterative process and there needs to be a payment system reflecting that.
- onion2k 12y ago
  We managed with the 'lump sum and free patches to iterate' model for a very long time... It worked quite well.
  - joshstrange 12y ago
    You could similarly argue we used the waterflow project management style for a very long time and it worked "well".
- patio11 12y ago
  It's doable, though it has much to anti-recommend it from the developer's perspective. (I've sold 10k copies of my first software product. Guaranteed revenue for November as of November 1st: zero.) But for the runaway success of the iPhone App Store model software-sold-like-shirts would probably be in even wider retreat than it already is. (The competitive models include "$X upfront plus 20% yearly for maintenance", "$X upfront plus an upgrade cycle which strongly encourages you buy a new version for 50% of X every 18 ~ 24 months", and, of course, SaaS. The popularization of the SaaS billing model is one of the biggest things that happened for software in decades, because it lets you sell $4,000 software to someone with $200 of willingness/capability to spend.)
- freehunter 12y ago
  There is a payment system reflecting that. This year you release version 1 or the 2014 version. Next year you release version 2 or the 2015 version with new features for an additional cost. That's how it always works.
  - drivingmenuts 12y ago
    Just don't promise "Free Upgrades 4 Lyfe" and then have to walk it back.
benaiah 12y ago
> As a consequence, developers producing high quality apps reduce their prices significantly to levels that consumers can afford to take a gamble on. I wonder if this is Apple's entire point in taking this stance. The cheaper, more numerous, and better the apps, the more attractive the platform, and Apple may be betting that developers will just put up with it, at least on iOS, due to their massive market share. The MAS system might be the way it is simply to keep in ideological step with the iOS App Store. That's the only explanation I can come up with for their bizarre behavior WRT the MAS.
- jessep 12y ago
  my feeling is that the author is saying that "cheaper, more numerous and better" are like CAP, you can't have all three. so currently, there's cheaper, more numerous, and worse.
- milen 12y ago
  jessep is right - you cannot have a large amount of cheap and high quality software. Note that there are some very large difference between the software on iOS and Mac. On mobile system, the vast majority of apps are more akin to small consumables - like having a can of coke or a cup of coffee. On the Mac, you have much more complex software, that can take years (and even decades) to develop. This software requires serious investment of resources and time. If the ecosystem cannot support it, it won't exist. You're right that the iOS store is designed to encourage a lot of choice at low prices - that's what sells iPhones. This might be okay for consumables but a non-starter for professional software that exists on the Mac.
  - melling 12y ago
    A lot of cheap abundant software doesn't help Apple in the long run. More expensive sophisticated apps would create a more useful platform, especially if the only existed on iOS. The easy stuff is easy to port or rewrite for other platforms.
  - michaelt 12y ago
    If Apple could persuade Adobe to sell Photoshop for $0.99 it would be good for Mac adoption. Then once Adobe goes out of business, Apple could buy the Photoshop IP at a knock-down price, make it Mac-only, and give it away with the OS.
serve_yay 12y ago
There are problems with the iOS app store, but the Mac one is really a disaster. It's kind of shameful actually.
ianseyer 12y ago
> The Mac App Store is simply the most convenient way to purchase and download software, bar none. to quote the great Alfredo Kojima, Gustavo Niemeyer and Michael Vogt, "lol"
- cvburgess 12y ago
  I don't see the humor. When I bought a new mac recently, i logged into the mac app store with my apple ID and instantly had all of my apps on my new computer within 5 minutes. Over 20 apps licensed and installed in 20 minutes! In contrast, it took me the better part of a few hours to download and license Sublime Text and remember the URLs for all of the other software, let alone find and check the license keys. What could be easier?
  - Anderkent 12y ago
    Not having to create a separate login for the store ('appleID' or whatever it's called), for one. Not having to manually switch back and forth between regions for reasons I still don't understand. I'm on a mac but basically never use the app store anymore, because it's such a pain.
    - cvburgess 12y ago
      The average user has an iTunes account and doesn't switch countries on a regular basis. For the average user, the mac app store is dead simple and easy to use.
      - ianseyer 12y ago
        Then Apple should stop pretending.
  - slantyyz 12y ago
    Steam is just as easy. It does take longer than 5m, but that's because the files for the games tend to be huge. The problem with Steam is that it has been somewhat typecast as a store for games only, and that Valve doesn't seem to make a lot of effort to get other types of apps in there.
tbrock 12y ago
I wonder if anyone voting this up has ever thought about what it takes to put something on the shelves of a traditional store. I think developers in general should thank their lucky stars that any of this exists.
- Lord_Zero 12y ago
  Thats antiquated. Software besides console games are rarely purchased on shelves in stores anymore. Any software you can buy from the store can usually be purchased right off the developers site. In fact who says "Man I really need a new copy of XYZ, maybe ill run up to BestBuy and see if they have it..." Yes its nice for developers that this distribution channel even exists, but its hurting devs and customers more than helping them.
- saturdaysaint 12y ago
  Shelves?
- baconner 12y ago
  Devs can be aware that it's easier than ever to distribute software while simultaneously knowing that app store channels could be much better. There's nothing contradictory there. Working with an app store like a physical store is a business partnership. We can and should advocate for terms and capabilities with partners that will help our businesses and our customers. This idea that devs should take it or leave it and not say why publicly doesn't make sense to me.
- chc 12y ago
  This sounds suspiciously like "Don't complain that the bread is moldy. Some children in Africa don't even HAVE moldy bread."
- brandonmenc 12y ago
  False dilemma. Besides, this article is constructive - offering suggestions to improving the App Store. It's not simply a bitch fest.
- mikeash 12y ago
  If it could be so much worse, surely it's wise to fight against those who would roll it back?
neillimaye 12y ago
Interesting...
duaneb 12y ago
I agree with most of the points (pricing on the app store is the worst pricing model of any I've ever used), but I like that the apps are sandboxed. If an app requires functionality outside the sandbox, I'm happy to purchase and install a (signed) version straight off the browser.
- dmix 12y ago
  Agreed, sandboxing is important. I don't mind vetting a company externally of the App Store if they intend to run outside of a sandbox.
mstolpm 12y ago
While I agree with a lot of points regarding the weaknesses of the MAS, I doubt there is an exodus in sight. Two reasons: normal users and EU tax laws. 1. I know a lot of Mac users that use the MAS as the only (!) source for their software (even Scrivener and other software has come to the MAS that before was only sold through the developer website). These are "normal" users that are not developers or hardcore nerds. And they never see any problems with sandboxing (they don't even know what this is). But - and that is the beauty of the MAS for normal users: Apple has their payment info on file, allows easy browsing the catalog, easy installation, easy payment and easy canceling of the order just in case. In addition: iTunes gift cards that are sold with a discount. 2. With the new VAT laws in the EU starting 2015, it will be a pain it the ass for small developers to sell software and services through their website on their own - at least for developers in the EU. Of course, developers of business-related software for developers might see advantages selling on their own. But an exodus?
- milen 12y ago
  Thanks for your feedback. 1. I totally agree with you on this point - the MAS is a fine store for something that costs $1-10 and maybe took only a few months to develop, maybe a hobby project. But building a serious business for apps that cost $30-50+ is much harder - it's possible but it won't be ideal (talk to the developers behind the apps in those categories). The point behind the article is that it doesn't have to be that way, the tools can be easily made available. 2. Only if you're the selling directly to customers (and even then it's not a massive deal as you can just signup for the VAT MOSS, which means you only deal with a single VAT entity, which you have to do if your sales exceed the VAT threshold). Furthermore, if you sell via a reseller, your sales lie outside the scope of VAT (as the sale is technically made by the reseller). For example, that's the case with FastSpring, as they're a US company and you will be receiving proceeds from them (assuming you're in the EU). FastSpring themselves handle all VAT related issues (they comply with all EU laws and will pay it out) - you don't have to lift a finger.
stdgy 12y ago
Has any team ever tried to put together a system equivalent to Steam for Desktop application distribution? I'm imagining a cross-platform(Well, for desktops) store that would make it easy for developers to release applications, distribute updates, distribute trials and manage payments using a number of different models(single purchase, upgrade discounts, weekly/monthly/yearly subscriptions, all kinds of things). It's upsetting that good software doesn't have a good way to be distributed and searched for in 2014. I feel like we, as developers, should be taking the initiative here, not sitting on our haunches hoping Apple and Microsoft give us something that works.
- gozmike 12y ago
  Yup, the guys at Paddle are: https://www.paddle.com/ https://www.paddle.com/
  - stdgy 12y ago
    Interesting, thanks. I'll have to check this out.
  - api 12y ago
    I was just thinking "wow, someone should build this." Going to go check that out yesterday. Thanks.
  - heychristian 12y ago
    https://www.paddle.com/sell https://www.paddle.com/sell for the developer solution. FD: I work at Paddle, and would be happy to answer any questions. It's exactly these types of headaches we're trying to solve for developers.
    - jdhendrickson 12y ago
      Any comment on the problems with the Macaw launch?
      - heychristian 12y ago
gozmike 12y ago
Interestingly this weekend at Cingleton, Rich Siegel announced that BBEdit was leaving the Mac App store... not for any one technical issue with it but for "sanity". Essentially, the app store dynamics add stress to the process of shipping mac software for most developers and they add this stress at the end of the release cycle when a developer is already at their most tense moment. Having deployed many products on Apple's stores, I can say that I completely relate to this and so did the crowd at Cingleton. I expect many other apps to follow suit...
dchuk 12y ago
I've complained about the lack of app trials via the mac/iOS app stores for years now. It would be SO EASY for them to incorporate this functionality for developers to allow, where I can try a full version of an app for a certain amount of time and then it would lock me out until I purchased it. Not having that feature has easily stopped me from giving at least 50% of apps I've found a shot simply because I don't want to make a blind purchase based on 5 screenshots.
- warfangle 12y ago
  That's a pretty great thing about the android market - you can 'return' an app for a full refund.
  - untog 12y ago
    Only within two hours, though.
    - gergles 12y ago
      15 minutes, now.
      - henrikgs 12y ago
        No, they changed it from 15 minutes to two hours.
      - dtech 12y ago
        They changed it to 2 hours last september.
  - veritas20 12y ago
    You can "return" an app with Apple as well
    - chipotle_coyote 12y ago
      Unless this is changed, you can only do that by going through Apple support and asking for a refund. Google Play has a mechanism for it, which makes it considerably more convenient. I'd personally give priority to upgrade pricing and trials, but I'd still like to see Google Play's approach implemented by Apple here.
credo 12y ago
I agree with all four points mentioned by the writer, IMO of those four reasons, the biggest problem is the absence of "paid upgrades" Not being able to charge for updates is a problem that affects almost every single paid app (assuming the app is supported across multiple versions and major updates) in all the app stores. This is an unsustainable proposition for most developers. At a recent Seattle Xcoders meeting in Redmond, our speaker spoke about how he had given up his indie business and had now switched to contracting (disclosure: I run this meeting and had asked the speaker to speak). At the meeting, I noted that Apple made its profits through hardware and they could therefore afford to make their software free. Similarly, Google is an ads company and so they don't need to charge for their software. However, the dominance of these companies means that most users/consumers expect all their software to be free (and the small minority that downloads paid apps wants upgrades to be free). It is going to be an uphill battle for any "software" company to survive in the future. IMO that applies primarily to indie devs (I'm one myself) who sell apps in the app stores, but the problem also extends to large companies like Microsoft.
- M4v3R 12y ago
  Maybe I'm missing something, but couldn't you use In-app Purchases for "paid upgrades"? As in, release the update for free, but have an additional in-app purchase to unlock the new functionality? Of course that wouldn't work for all upgrades (like a whole-app rewrite or interface revamp, etc.), but for some cases I imagine that could work. This would also solve the problem of no free trial (release the app for free and then add in-app purchase to unlock the full functionality). These are of course only workarounds, and I would greatly appreciate if Apple would come up with a complete solution for these problems.
  - smackfu 12y ago
    This is what some developers do, but as you say, it limits what you can add. A new discrete feature, yes. A replacement feature, not really. And it means you need to support the unpaid code path forever.
  - deleted 12y ago
    [deleted]
ommunist 12y ago
Unfortunately, Apple is always right and in this case you cannot even help yourself, like Apple hardware consumers do in Apple discussion forums. This is indeed soft and smoky dead end for many businesses.
nsxwolf 12y ago
Mac App Store is a software updater for OS X and Apple branded applications. Don't buy games on the MAS when you could be buying them on Steam instead. Buy other software directly from the developer's website so you can be confident you're getting the software they intended you to have, and won't get burned by the MAS no upgrades policy.
- Shivetya 12y ago
  the difference being that games I download from the app store don't require the App store to run. I have games not launch from Steam because it could not connect and the game was locked. Not all games do that, but some do not have offline modes. I really don't understand your logic of avoiding Apple's App Store but supporting Steams version. They both have problems, odd restrictions, and the like. I do not care for Steam installing all the games I get from them into a subfolder unlike how other Mac apps are bundled. It makes it very difficult to find all of the games content
- fuzzywalrus 12y ago
  I'd argue that games are the best use case for the Mac App Store, Steam as others have pointed out has the cost of the Steam application. For casual gamers, the Mac App Store is more than vibrant and has the same update management that Steam has, and its decoupled from a parent application. Games rarely have upgrade pricing, almost never need extensive permissions, and while quick updates can be necessary, the necessity of upgrades aren't as crucial as a productivity/professional application where one's livelihood may be tied to the updates.
- muyuu 12y ago
  Yep, and I for one am very happy that they failed to make MAS the standard. I wouldn't like the practices that run rampant in their iOS platform to take over Mac, which I still use on the side.
bvogelzang 12y ago
This article does a great job hitting on a lot of the pain points for developers in the MAS. While not all of these are experienced by every developer all of them hold some weight. I've had a real tough time dealing with sandboxing especially. In my app HD Cleaner (https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/hd-cleaner/id836769549?mt=12 https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/hd-cleaner/id836769549?mt=12), users need to "open" their user folder in order for the application to get the proper access to files. Unfortunately this is a large hurdle for some users because they have no idea WHY they have to choose their user folder. This has lead to confusion as well as some bad reviews. The app could be a lot more efficient and convenient if these rules weren't in place. Despite this I think it's great Apple is taking security seriously. I just wish there was a better way.
coldcode 12y ago
As much as I support Apple and have been since 1979, including being an early Mac developer in 1985 and even working there in the horrible mid-90's, the major problem is that Tim and Jony don't care (and Steve didn't either for that matter) about developers enough to do anything more than what works for Apple. Whether the people in charge have no budget or don't care or are hamstrung by politics, nothing will change until and if the top people start to care. Apple makes so much money even with all the crap we have to put up with as developers they clearly have no reason to change and sadly I don't expect them to. You don't tell the world's most valuable company how to run their business. It didn't work for people telling Microsoft in the 90's or Apple today. Sorry for the brutal truth but it is what it is.
- linguafranca 12y ago
  Completely true. Kind of makes me want to look more seriously into making apps for Microsoft platforms. That said, Mac owners are generally far more likely to go out and look for new apps to buy. Whereas Windows users will find an app that does the job, and keep using that app forever (and recommend it to friends/family). So even though there are way more Windows users, it seems more likely to make a living as an indie Mac dev than an indie Windows dev.
  - linguafranca 12y ago
    (Disclaimer: that last part was told to me as advice by a lone indie dev who makes about $189,000 per year off his lone Mac app and puts nearly all of the revenue in savings. So I have a bit of trust in that advice.)
    - 72deluxe 12y ago
      Wowsers, what app is that?
      - jawngee 12y ago
        My one sole app in MAS pays my rent and some bills every month with absolutely zero marketing or advertising on my part.
wy 12y ago
Don't blame on Mac App Store, blame on the market instead. In case of survival, change your business model as well as monetization approaches.
- wy 12y ago
  Can anyone explain the reason of "Down-vote/Negative" points?
  - josephlord 12y ago
    You responded to a well argued post about how Apple could moderately tweak the market to make things better for all sides of the market and your response was "blame the market" and "change your business model" which is what people are doing by leaving the store. I suspect the down votes were because you added little to the discussion, educated no one (with that particular post) and people thought it deserved to be pushed down the page.
tree_of_item 12y ago
Software is a service industry, not a product industry. Expect to see more software in the style of http://chrome.blogspot.com/2014/09/adobe-joins-chromebook-party-starting.html http://chrome.blogspot.com/2014/09/adobe-joins-chromebook-pa... or http://aws.amazon.com/appstream/ http://aws.amazon.com/appstream/ or even http://www.playstation.com/en-us/explore/psnow http://www.playstation.com/en-us/explore/psnow in the future. This developer is upset about the difficulty of securing a continuing revenue stream. This is exactly the problem addressed by streaming software to users instead of just giving it to them. What this developer really wants to do is _rent_ their program: when users stop paying, they stop having the software as well.
- archagon 12y ago
  Software "is" not anything. It's what we make of it. Many users and developers are staunchly opposed to a software service industry. Personally, if my only option is ever to make products that require subscriptions and continuous upkeep to use, I'd probably go work in another field altogether.
  - ninjaplease 12y ago
    Saying something like that makes me believe that you must work deep within the bowels of an entrenched corporation, insulated from revenue needs. Anyone who has ever had to pay employees, sacrifice time from other projects to do unplanned-for maintenance, or scrounge around for tedious grunt work during a slow season would never say something so ridiculous. I bet you also swore you'd move to Canada if Bush/Obama got elected.
    - archagon 12y ago
      I should have clarified: by "continuous upkeep", I don't mean patches and feature updates; I mean the type of perpetual update model you see in things like Creative Cloud and Facebook games. I make software because I enjoy it, and the type of software that I enjoy making either takes the form of one-off entertainment (games), or tools that expand your range of abilities (apps, mainly non-networked). If I couldn't hope to make money off these anymore, I'd probably lose my creative drive. (I am also a one-man developer. A corporation would obviously have different priorities.) This is basically the Chromebook version of the future, and it's why I support Apple's native-first model over the alternatives. If I buy a hammer, I want to own it, not have it streamed to me over crappy H264.
heychristian 12y ago
I'm the CEO of Paddle (https://www.paddle.com/sell https://www.paddle.com/sell), we're essentially trying to solve this exact problem for OS X developers, by providing App Store functionality, and more, for those selling outside the MAS (IAPs, Analytics, Payments, Trials, Activations/ Licensing). The lack of trial versions aside (which is still a huge problem), one of the primary issues with the MAS is the flat-out exclusion of certain categories of application. For example, system utilities are almost totally banned from the MAS, and the system tools/ utilities that are currently available in the Mac App Store tend to just be slimmed down versions of their non-MAS counterparts with lots of functionality removed. I speak to hundreds of OS X developers every week, and the sentiment around the MAS is gradually changing. Typically we're hearing developers just referring to the MAS as a marketing channel these days, due to the restrictions enforced on them. We see a lot of data around MAS vs. Non-MAS sales, and reasons for developers switching, so if anyone has any questions about this space, I'd be happy to answer.
- milen 12y ago
  When I was researching what we can use for payments, I stumbled upon Paddle and it looked exactly like what I wanted - looks very well done. I have two questions for you: 1) Who is the vendor of record? This is relevant to handling VAT and it means either you have to do it or the business selling the software. 2) I couldn't find any information on what countries are supported, payment methods for receiving royalties, etc. Thanks.
  - heychristian 12y ago
    Thanks for the kind words. In response to your questions: 1). Paddle is the vendor/merchant of record. We handle all of the VAT/ sales tax liability on your behalf. Payouts you receive from us are a royalty payment, exactly as they are from Apple/ the MAS. (This is particularly relevant as of Jan 1st 2015 when the EU VAT regulations change, and become super complicated for indie devs). 2). We support most countries (all countries, with the exception of North Korea, Cuba etc.), allow payments from customers via Credit/Debit Card (Visa, Mastercard, Amex) and PayPal. Support payouts to merchants via PayPal, Local Wire (32 countries - List: http://padl.to/1qoAWNN http://padl.to/1qoAWNN) or International Wire (everywhere else).
Animats 12y ago
Mac developers, be grateful that Apple still allows you to sell applications for their platform that don't go through the "Mac App Store". Apple's general approach to applications on their platforms is "if it's profitable, it's ours". Try writing a competitor to iTunes. Apple wants to provide a good out-of-the-box experience. That means their devices come with what customers really need. Apple now views aftermarket apps the way Detroit views aftermarket car accessories. Mac App Store developers, you are in the same business as the company that makes the little tree-shaped air fresheners for cars. Deal with it.
- jp 12y ago
  Spotify, Lightroom and Skype replaces iTunes, iPhoto and Facetime for lots of people. Dropbox works better than iCloud when it comes to camera images.
jnem 12y ago
This is especially interesting for me because I am on the cusp of a technological coup in my own home. I've been a "PC" my whole life, and have somehow gotten away with never buying an Apple product, and never felt the lack. However, many of the reasons I avoided Apple in the past are now irrelevant, as all but Linux now attempt the same fascist business model (The rings/rules of Apple QA for software, and One store with which to rule them all). My go-to argument against Apple in the past was: "In order to get an application or piece of software into the Apple ecosystem, you have to go through Apple. Apple has a strict QA process, every app that gets into the store has to vetted by one of Apples legions of QA staff. This sounds good; we want quality apps. However, a great deal of Apple’s QA rules for acceptance aren’t just about app quality, but also nebulous ideas of morality and ethics. The problem with that is, when only one agency is in control of what is proper and what isn’t, we are left with a situation where one agency gets to control what you see, use, and by environmental influence—think. Now, imagine everyone exclusively owns an Apple product…” Ironically, this notion is very 1984, and my stance on it was a bit extremish to be sure, but hey, I’m a PC. Anyway, ever since Windows 8 and Windows Phone, it seems Microsoft has seen how completely Apple controls its own ecosystem, and wants a piece (complete with its own app ecosystem). Suddenly Babylon had arrived on my desktop. My initial thought was, “are we going to reach a situation where there are no more open platforms to develop for? Are we going to get to a point where software can only be deployed through stores run by the same folks who run my OS? Do I have to learn Linux?!” So, long ramble short, I’m thinking of joining the cult. A few years back I was given an iPad as a present. I initially resented it, labeling it a glorified TV-ala-Netflix device. I have since spent hundreds on app purchases. Is now a good time to put on my robes and worship at the altar of Jobs?
- robin_reala 12y ago
  I’m typing this on an Macbook in a house with just Macs and iDevices after getting back from work where everyone uses Macs, but honestly what’s wrong with just going down the Linux road? It’s politically better, hardware is as good as you want to buy and there’s no app store vetting (unless you install Steam).
  - jnem 12y ago
joesmo 12y ago
The last place I go to get apps for OS X is the MAS. If it's available outside of the store, I always prefer that. There is nothing compelling about the MAS and there never has been. It's ridiculous that I have to sign in to get free apps or OS updates. For OS updates and apps that offer no other way of installation, it's a concession I make grudgingly. Why should Apple be a middle-man in my software purchases/downloads while offering absolutely nothing over more traditional methods of installation, not even convenience?
- ninjaplease 12y ago
  You actually don't need to sign in or have an account to receive OS updates.
- lh7777 12y ago
  I find the simplicity nice: find an app I want to buy, click buy, and I've got it. Developer just pushed an upgrade? It installs automatically without my having to do anything.
  - mjcohen 12y ago
    And the developer doesn't get anything, no matter how much work developing the upgrade took.
    - lh7777 12y ago
      I agree that's a problem and would be very happy to see native support for paid updates added to the MAS instead of the hacks developers are currently stuck with. I didn't say the MAS is without downsides (the original article does a good job of spelling them out), but joesmo is arguing that the MAS has no real benefits to the user. I don't think that's true, and that's why I really hope Apple fixes these issues instead of letting the exodus continue.
- Terretta 12y ago
  > while offering absolutely nothing over more traditional methods of installation On the contrary, I (who happily use brew and brew cask) have re-purchased anything that is available in the app store, even if I'd already purchased it elsewhere, just for the app store conveniences. It's really amazing to dump an old Mac for a new one and just click from your purchased inventory, no serials, no nonsense. Not to mention having that work on both your laptop and your desktop. The old days of having to take a day off just to move to a new or additional machine are long gone, thanks to the app store.
mmuro 12y ago
Ok, so Coda 2.5, BBEdit, TextExpander and other developer-type apps can't be in the App Store because they can't be sandboxed. Fine, if it's a developer-type tool that has to do things most everyday users aren't going to need, do it outside the Mac App Store. For everything else, the Mac App Store is great. In fact, I'm such a fan of the Mac App Store that I wish every app could conform to it's rules so I wouldn't have to dig out a lame license key, or heaven help me, email the vendor for some time sensitive generated key thing.
- smackfu 12y ago
  It's not just developer-type tools that can't be sandboxed. Dropbox can't. BackBlaze can't.
  - heychristian 12y ago
    Also, any service where it isn't viable to give 30% of their revenue to Apple, Spotify for example (who have to give 70% of their revenue to record companies). Not that Apple would want Spotify in the store anyway, with it being an iTunes competitor.
    - vitd 12y ago
      Wait - so what do they do on iOS? There’s a free Spotify app for iOS. Why couldn’t they do the same on the desktop?
      - 14113 12y ago
        Because they have to allow it for iOS, otherwise iOS becomes "the platform without Spotify". Imagine if iOS wouldn't allow a native Facebook app - what would happen then? With OSX it's a little different, as there are alternative channels for installing Spotify, which prevents OSX from becoming "a platform without Spotify", and also allows Apple to ignore them entirely, and push their own product in the store.
        12y ago
rismay 12y ago
A-men.
LCDninja 12y ago
I've not read anyone mention "discoverability" as part of Apple's value proposition to developers. Years ago I experienced great traction with the free download site Apple provided. Prior to that - much more significant traction from the hundreds of PC download sites. It's amazing to see how much the world has changed in 13 years for software developers. It's probably better not to look back. :/
Terretta 12y ago
> "Supporting app trials would be trivial" ... "zero additional complexity" ... "Supporting paid upgrades does not require much additional complexity, if any at all." These remarks sound suspiciously like those software development clients who think their nephew could do the work for free in his spare time while cleaning the garage and playing Halo. It's not about relabeling a button. Apple has enough talent to solve these, but these problems are not trivial.
- lukifer 12y ago
  I think most developers understood not having these features at launch. But it's been over three years now, and progress has been glacial at best. No one believes that Apple can't implement these things; their actions demonstrate that they don't consider it a priority.
- milen 12y ago
  Please note that I was not referring to technical complexity, rather cognitive / UX complexity. I've been creating software for many years, I'm well aware that feature requests that look quite simple on the surface can require significant development efforts. Having said that, implementing trials / upgrades is no a technical problem per se, it's more a question of spending the development resources required (yes, obviously there will be assumptions in the whole infrastructure that would require a bit of work but nothing that should have taken years to implement). In-App-Purchases were introduced a few years into App Store's existence, so it's certainly possible for them to implement major features when the willpower exists (and I'd wager implementing trials / upgrades would be easier than IAPs, although that's my guess, I have no internal information). In any case, I very much doubt the reason for not having those features implemented is because they don't have the available development resources - it's more likely a decision was made that those feature do not align with Apple's vision of how the MAS should work.
72deluxe 12y ago
I could never get over how slow the App Store or Software Update system was. I have a quad core Ivybridge i7 MacBook, and I still sit wondering if the Software Update program is working. I know it is frustrating in Windows land to have to repeatedly click "check for updates", particularly on a fresh install of Windows 7 but I was surprised how sluggish the App Store app was. Behind the scenes it is a HTML browser embedded I think, which I found particularly odd given the encouragement for Obj-C native development on the native platform. Just an observation - correct me if I'm wrong!
72deluxe 12y ago
I heartily agree with the devaluation of apps, the race to the bottom, the cheapest is the only one to install. The scourge of 99p apps on the App Store has spread to the other market-based ecosystems, where actual developer time and effort is considered very cheap indeed; most people I know who use Android will not ever ever pay for an app, for example. (Your experience may differ).
asherdavidson 12y ago
Another possible metric for rating apps could simply be how many users use an app on a consistent basis and how many hours they've logged in the app. If you get an app that has 5 negative reviews and 1 positive review, but you have over 100 people using it everyday for a few hours it should be rated highly regardless of the negative reviews.
- jp 12y ago
  I wrote some clever code that fixed a problem on Windows. When running on Mac the same code leaked memory and blocked the event loop. 1 star - "crashed my entire computer".
tn13 12y ago
I think this is a good thing. Problem with these distribution channels is that more popular they get Apple might be tempted to make it the "only" channel eventually dictating to us what software we can use and can not much similar to iPhone. Of course what worked for iPhone would not have worked for Mac and hence there was no incentive for Apple to make Mac Store popular. Apple cares little about developers, it cares about itself.
chj 12y ago
The only good thing about App Store is visibility. People aren't going to find out your own website, but they have learned to search on App Store. Developers need to have an alternative market place that are equally easy to download and update applications.

335 points by milen 12y ago

api 12y ago

I can only hope. App stores are a horrible thing for developers-- you are utterly beholden to the app store and a rule change could destroy your business. They're also a horrible thing in the long run for all of us, since they lead us down a path toward a computing ecosystem where true universal computing is prohibited to ordinary users and only signed code will run. The convenience factor is real, but it could be addressed by a better app installation and upgrade model. Apple is already way ahead there by encouraging all components of most apps to live in their .app "folder-file." What if the OS had baked-in support for update feeds from the app's developer? The security factor though is a bit of a tragedy. Open desktop OSes have serious security issues around the installation of software. Instead of solving those issues in a way that does not degrade capability or restrict freedom, OS vendors have decided that it's easier and cheaper to sidestep them by just using the app store model and forcing all code to be signed. Your OS is no more secure... they're just limiting what can run on it. It's part security theater and part just punting on the problem. Maybe if the app store model fails on the high end we'll get real solutions to these problems.

jtokoph 12y ago
It's unfortunate that the Mac App Store most likely won't fail in it's current state. There are too many people that don't realize that they are purchasing the outdated or degraded experiences and are perfectly happy.
- api 12y ago
  Funny... I both like and hate the app store. I like it when the apps I want are there, mostly because they install with one click and update automatically and I don't have to worry about it. But I hate it as a developer. I've found that such conflicting feelings come up when I'm dealing with a poor solution to a nevertheless real set of problems. I think app stores in general are that -- they are a freedom-restricting, tax-extracting, capability-limiting solution to a set of problems around security, software package management, and quality control that could be solved much more intelligently.
- milen 12y ago
  What's quite interesting is that a few years ago, when you bought from the MAS, you assumed you will always be able to install the software and it will be kept up to date. Nowadays, the unfortunately reality is the opposite - it's very likely the MAS version is seriously lagging behind. What's worse, as you say, is that there's absolutely no indication that some of those apps have been abandoned (apart from the very old Last Update date). The vast majority of consumers will just buy the software and not go researching whether the app they're acquiring has been left collecting dust. And at the end, both consumers and developers lose out.
milen 12y ago
There's a lot of whispering going on behind the scenes and some developers have had enough (and I guess more to come in the future). The only way to have your voice heard would be to leave the MAS. If Apple wanted, it could easily resolve all issues very quickly. Unfortunately, I have no reason to believe it will happen. You're quite right that the convenience is part of the big pull of the MAS. But as you say, this can be implemented separately. If you can get the critical mass with some major players behind it, it can become a standard in no time. The security issues related to sandboxing are not insurmountable, either. We can have both sandboxed apps that have wider accesses so that we don't restrict the freedom of users.
dubya 12y ago
It's not just signing, there's sandboxing too. Some apps have avoided the app store or have somewhat less-capable app store versions because of the sandboxing. I'd actually love if they could get the Flash plug-in into the app store, especially if it was a crippled version that could only play video or games, just to get rid of Adobe's updater.
- api 12y ago
  Sandboxing is a good idea, but also done poorly on every platform I'm familiar with. What I want as a user: I want to be able to see -- for each app -- exactly what permissions it requests and what permissions I have given it. I want them to be in plain language, presented in a way that is comprehensible to non-technical people but also to developers / power users. I want to be able to toggle permissions that are not required. (Obviously if an app requires a permission I don't want to give it, I have to just uninstall it.) I also want to be able to see exactly what each app is doing. What it's talking to on the network would be high on that list, along with what files it's accessing or trying to access, etc. Obviously any privacy-invasive feature like location information is very high on such a list of things I want visibility into. There could be "permission motifs" or "templates" to make things easier to understand. For example, a "productivity app" template might only give file access to Documents and network access to a limited set of endpoints and iCloud. A "peer to peer networking app" though might require promiscuous network access. A "hardware interface" might require kernel module permission (which would have a warning to the effect that this confers full administrative rights, because it does). A "VPN" might require the ability to open virtual network (tun) ports. And so on... The app should be required to include descriptive text explaining why it needs each requested permission. Finally, as a user I want some kind of summary display that shows the cumulative "exposed surface area" of my machine. What permissions have I granted where? I also want convenient installs and uninstalls. By default I want automatic (secure, signature checked) updates, but I want the ability to turn that off if I desire. I want to be able to manage which certificates or CAs are trusted to install apps -- which would include self-signed apps. (Self-signed is superior to unsigned in every way, since it allows secure updates once I approve the self-signature.) What I want as a developer: I want to be able to request permissions that are as deep as are necessary to provide the functionality my users want. In a few cases (network stuff, virtualization, certain kinds of hardware support) this may even require a kernel module, but most of the time nothing that far-reaching is needed. The thing is -- desktops/laptops are "power" machines. You do need to be able to do powerful and OS-extending things on them. But I want a security model where I can say precisely which apps I trust with those kinds of permissions. I don't want grant-by-default and I don't want total prohibition. Microsoft actually tried to deliver something like that a few times, but failed. IMHO their failure is completely in execution. They offered a terrible UI and user experience where you kept getting pestered with security-related popups that didn't actually explain what was going on. If this was done well it could be quite revolutionary.

grimtrigger 12y ago

Its hard for me to imagine ever selling an app for a lump sum single payment. Software development is an iterative process and there needs to be a payment system reflecting that.

onion2k 12y ago
We managed with the 'lump sum and free patches to iterate' model for a very long time... It worked quite well.
- joshstrange 12y ago
  You could similarly argue we used the waterflow project management style for a very long time and it worked "well".
patio11 12y ago
It's doable, though it has much to anti-recommend it from the developer's perspective. (I've sold 10k copies of my first software product. Guaranteed revenue for November as of November 1st: zero.) But for the runaway success of the iPhone App Store model software-sold-like-shirts would probably be in even wider retreat than it already is. (The competitive models include "$X upfront plus 20% yearly for maintenance", "$X upfront plus an upgrade cycle which strongly encourages you buy a new version for 50% of X every 18 ~ 24 months", and, of course, SaaS. The popularization of the SaaS billing model is one of the biggest things that happened for software in decades, because it lets you sell $4,000 software to someone with $200 of willingness/capability to spend.)
freehunter 12y ago
There is a payment system reflecting that. This year you release version 1 or the 2014 version. Next year you release version 2 or the 2015 version with new features for an additional cost. That's how it always works.
- drivingmenuts 12y ago
  Just don't promise "Free Upgrades 4 Lyfe" and then have to walk it back.

benaiah 12y ago

> As a consequence, developers producing high quality apps reduce their prices significantly to levels that consumers can afford to take a gamble on. I wonder if this is Apple's entire point in taking this stance. The cheaper, more numerous, and better the apps, the more attractive the platform, and Apple may be betting that developers will just put up with it, at least on iOS, due to their massive market share. The MAS system might be the way it is simply to keep in ideological step with the iOS App Store. That's the only explanation I can come up with for their bizarre behavior WRT the MAS.

jessep 12y ago
my feeling is that the author is saying that "cheaper, more numerous and better" are like CAP, you can't have all three. so currently, there's cheaper, more numerous, and worse.
milen 12y ago
jessep is right - you cannot have a large amount of cheap and high quality software. Note that there are some very large difference between the software on iOS and Mac. On mobile system, the vast majority of apps are more akin to small consumables - like having a can of coke or a cup of coffee. On the Mac, you have much more complex software, that can take years (and even decades) to develop. This software requires serious investment of resources and time. If the ecosystem cannot support it, it won't exist. You're right that the iOS store is designed to encourage a lot of choice at low prices - that's what sells iPhones. This might be okay for consumables but a non-starter for professional software that exists on the Mac.
- melling 12y ago
  A lot of cheap abundant software doesn't help Apple in the long run. More expensive sophisticated apps would create a more useful platform, especially if the only existed on iOS. The easy stuff is easy to port or rewrite for other platforms.
- michaelt 12y ago
  If Apple could persuade Adobe to sell Photoshop for $0.99 it would be good for Mac adoption. Then once Adobe goes out of business, Apple could buy the Photoshop IP at a knock-down price, make it Mac-only, and give it away with the OS.

serve_yay 12y ago

There are problems with the iOS app store, but the Mac one is really a disaster. It's kind of shameful actually.

ianseyer 12y ago

> The Mac App Store is simply the most convenient way to purchase and download software, bar none. to quote the great Alfredo Kojima, Gustavo Niemeyer and Michael Vogt, "lol"

cvburgess 12y ago
I don't see the humor. When I bought a new mac recently, i logged into the mac app store with my apple ID and instantly had all of my apps on my new computer within 5 minutes. Over 20 apps licensed and installed in 20 minutes! In contrast, it took me the better part of a few hours to download and license Sublime Text and remember the URLs for all of the other software, let alone find and check the license keys. What could be easier?
- Anderkent 12y ago
  Not having to create a separate login for the store ('appleID' or whatever it's called), for one. Not having to manually switch back and forth between regions for reasons I still don't understand. I'm on a mac but basically never use the app store anymore, because it's such a pain.
  - cvburgess 12y ago
    The average user has an iTunes account and doesn't switch countries on a regular basis. For the average user, the mac app store is dead simple and easy to use.
    - ianseyer 12y ago
      Then Apple should stop pretending.
- slantyyz 12y ago
  Steam is just as easy. It does take longer than 5m, but that's because the files for the games tend to be huge. The problem with Steam is that it has been somewhat typecast as a store for games only, and that Valve doesn't seem to make a lot of effort to get other types of apps in there.

tbrock 12y ago

I wonder if anyone voting this up has ever thought about what it takes to put something on the shelves of a traditional store. I think developers in general should thank their lucky stars that any of this exists.

Lord_Zero 12y ago
Thats antiquated. Software besides console games are rarely purchased on shelves in stores anymore. Any software you can buy from the store can usually be purchased right off the developers site. In fact who says "Man I really need a new copy of XYZ, maybe ill run up to BestBuy and see if they have it..." Yes its nice for developers that this distribution channel even exists, but its hurting devs and customers more than helping them.
saturdaysaint 12y ago
Shelves?
baconner 12y ago
Devs can be aware that it's easier than ever to distribute software while simultaneously knowing that app store channels could be much better. There's nothing contradictory there. Working with an app store like a physical store is a business partnership. We can and should advocate for terms and capabilities with partners that will help our businesses and our customers. This idea that devs should take it or leave it and not say why publicly doesn't make sense to me.
chc 12y ago
This sounds suspiciously like "Don't complain that the bread is moldy. Some children in Africa don't even HAVE moldy bread."
brandonmenc 12y ago
False dilemma. Besides, this article is constructive - offering suggestions to improving the App Store. It's not simply a bitch fest.
mikeash 12y ago
If it could be so much worse, surely it's wise to fight against those who would roll it back?

neillimaye 12y ago

Interesting...

duaneb 12y ago

I agree with most of the points (pricing on the app store is the worst pricing model of any I've ever used), but I like that the apps are sandboxed. If an app requires functionality outside the sandbox, I'm happy to purchase and install a (signed) version straight off the browser.

dmix 12y ago
Agreed, sandboxing is important. I don't mind vetting a company externally of the App Store if they intend to run outside of a sandbox.

mstolpm 12y ago

While I agree with a lot of points regarding the weaknesses of the MAS, I doubt there is an exodus in sight. Two reasons: normal users and EU tax laws. 1. I know a lot of Mac users that use the MAS as the only (!) source for their software (even Scrivener and other software has come to the MAS that before was only sold through the developer website). These are "normal" users that are not developers or hardcore nerds. And they never see any problems with sandboxing (they don't even know what this is). But - and that is the beauty of the MAS for normal users: Apple has their payment info on file, allows easy browsing the catalog, easy installation, easy payment and easy canceling of the order just in case. In addition: iTunes gift cards that are sold with a discount. 2. With the new VAT laws in the EU starting 2015, it will be a pain it the ass for small developers to sell software and services through their website on their own - at least for developers in the EU. Of course, developers of business-related software for developers might see advantages selling on their own. But an exodus?

milen 12y ago
Thanks for your feedback. 1. I totally agree with you on this point - the MAS is a fine store for something that costs $1-10 and maybe took only a few months to develop, maybe a hobby project. But building a serious business for apps that cost $30-50+ is much harder - it's possible but it won't be ideal (talk to the developers behind the apps in those categories). The point behind the article is that it doesn't have to be that way, the tools can be easily made available. 2. Only if you're the selling directly to customers (and even then it's not a massive deal as you can just signup for the VAT MOSS, which means you only deal with a single VAT entity, which you have to do if your sales exceed the VAT threshold). Furthermore, if you sell via a reseller, your sales lie outside the scope of VAT (as the sale is technically made by the reseller). For example, that's the case with FastSpring, as they're a US company and you will be receiving proceeds from them (assuming you're in the EU). FastSpring themselves handle all VAT related issues (they comply with all EU laws and will pay it out) - you don't have to lift a finger.

stdgy 12y ago

Has any team ever tried to put together a system equivalent to Steam for Desktop application distribution? I'm imagining a cross-platform(Well, for desktops) store that would make it easy for developers to release applications, distribute updates, distribute trials and manage payments using a number of different models(single purchase, upgrade discounts, weekly/monthly/yearly subscriptions, all kinds of things). It's upsetting that good software doesn't have a good way to be distributed and searched for in 2014. I feel like we, as developers, should be taking the initiative here, not sitting on our haunches hoping Apple and Microsoft give us something that works.

gozmike 12y ago
Yup, the guys at Paddle are: https://www.paddle.com/ https://www.paddle.com/
- stdgy 12y ago
  Interesting, thanks. I'll have to check this out.
- api 12y ago
  I was just thinking "wow, someone should build this." Going to go check that out yesterday. Thanks.
- heychristian 12y ago
  https://www.paddle.com/sell https://www.paddle.com/sell for the developer solution. FD: I work at Paddle, and would be happy to answer any questions. It's exactly these types of headaches we're trying to solve for developers.
  - jdhendrickson 12y ago
    Any comment on the problems with the Macaw launch?
    - heychristian 12y ago

gozmike 12y ago

Interestingly this weekend at Cingleton, Rich Siegel announced that BBEdit was leaving the Mac App store... not for any one technical issue with it but for "sanity". Essentially, the app store dynamics add stress to the process of shipping mac software for most developers and they add this stress at the end of the release cycle when a developer is already at their most tense moment. Having deployed many products on Apple's stores, I can say that I completely relate to this and so did the crowd at Cingleton. I expect many other apps to follow suit...

dchuk 12y ago

I've complained about the lack of app trials via the mac/iOS app stores for years now. It would be SO EASY for them to incorporate this functionality for developers to allow, where I can try a full version of an app for a certain amount of time and then it would lock me out until I purchased it. Not having that feature has easily stopped me from giving at least 50% of apps I've found a shot simply because I don't want to make a blind purchase based on 5 screenshots.

warfangle 12y ago
That's a pretty great thing about the android market - you can 'return' an app for a full refund.
- untog 12y ago
  Only within two hours, though.
  - gergles 12y ago
    15 minutes, now.
    - henrikgs 12y ago
      No, they changed it from 15 minutes to two hours.
    - dtech 12y ago
      They changed it to 2 hours last september.
- veritas20 12y ago
  You can "return" an app with Apple as well
  - chipotle_coyote 12y ago
    Unless this is changed, you can only do that by going through Apple support and asking for a refund. Google Play has a mechanism for it, which makes it considerably more convenient. I'd personally give priority to upgrade pricing and trials, but I'd still like to see Google Play's approach implemented by Apple here.

credo 12y ago

I agree with all four points mentioned by the writer, IMO of those four reasons, the biggest problem is the absence of "paid upgrades" Not being able to charge for updates is a problem that affects almost every single paid app (assuming the app is supported across multiple versions and major updates) in all the app stores. This is an unsustainable proposition for most developers. At a recent Seattle Xcoders meeting in Redmond, our speaker spoke about how he had given up his indie business and had now switched to contracting (disclosure: I run this meeting and had asked the speaker to speak). At the meeting, I noted that Apple made its profits through hardware and they could therefore afford to make their software free. Similarly, Google is an ads company and so they don't need to charge for their software. However, the dominance of these companies means that most users/consumers expect all their software to be free (and the small minority that downloads paid apps wants upgrades to be free). It is going to be an uphill battle for any "software" company to survive in the future. IMO that applies primarily to indie devs (I'm one myself) who sell apps in the app stores, but the problem also extends to large companies like Microsoft.

M4v3R 12y ago
Maybe I'm missing something, but couldn't you use In-app Purchases for "paid upgrades"? As in, release the update for free, but have an additional in-app purchase to unlock the new functionality? Of course that wouldn't work for all upgrades (like a whole-app rewrite or interface revamp, etc.), but for some cases I imagine that could work. This would also solve the problem of no free trial (release the app for free and then add in-app purchase to unlock the full functionality). These are of course only workarounds, and I would greatly appreciate if Apple would come up with a complete solution for these problems.
- smackfu 12y ago
  This is what some developers do, but as you say, it limits what you can add. A new discrete feature, yes. A replacement feature, not really. And it means you need to support the unpaid code path forever.
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]

ommunist 12y ago

Unfortunately, Apple is always right and in this case you cannot even help yourself, like Apple hardware consumers do in Apple discussion forums. This is indeed soft and smoky dead end for many businesses.

nsxwolf 12y ago

Mac App Store is a software updater for OS X and Apple branded applications. Don't buy games on the MAS when you could be buying them on Steam instead. Buy other software directly from the developer's website so you can be confident you're getting the software they intended you to have, and won't get burned by the MAS no upgrades policy.

Shivetya 12y ago
the difference being that games I download from the app store don't require the App store to run. I have games not launch from Steam because it could not connect and the game was locked. Not all games do that, but some do not have offline modes. I really don't understand your logic of avoiding Apple's App Store but supporting Steams version. They both have problems, odd restrictions, and the like. I do not care for Steam installing all the games I get from them into a subfolder unlike how other Mac apps are bundled. It makes it very difficult to find all of the games content
fuzzywalrus 12y ago
I'd argue that games are the best use case for the Mac App Store, Steam as others have pointed out has the cost of the Steam application. For casual gamers, the Mac App Store is more than vibrant and has the same update management that Steam has, and its decoupled from a parent application. Games rarely have upgrade pricing, almost never need extensive permissions, and while quick updates can be necessary, the necessity of upgrades aren't as crucial as a productivity/professional application where one's livelihood may be tied to the updates.
muyuu 12y ago
Yep, and I for one am very happy that they failed to make MAS the standard. I wouldn't like the practices that run rampant in their iOS platform to take over Mac, which I still use on the side.

bvogelzang 12y ago

This article does a great job hitting on a lot of the pain points for developers in the MAS. While not all of these are experienced by every developer all of them hold some weight. I've had a real tough time dealing with sandboxing especially. In my app HD Cleaner (https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/hd-cleaner/id836769549?mt=12 https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/hd-cleaner/id836769549?mt=12), users need to "open" their user folder in order for the application to get the proper access to files. Unfortunately this is a large hurdle for some users because they have no idea WHY they have to choose their user folder. This has lead to confusion as well as some bad reviews. The app could be a lot more efficient and convenient if these rules weren't in place. Despite this I think it's great Apple is taking security seriously. I just wish there was a better way.

coldcode 12y ago

As much as I support Apple and have been since 1979, including being an early Mac developer in 1985 and even working there in the horrible mid-90's, the major problem is that Tim and Jony don't care (and Steve didn't either for that matter) about developers enough to do anything more than what works for Apple. Whether the people in charge have no budget or don't care or are hamstrung by politics, nothing will change until and if the top people start to care. Apple makes so much money even with all the crap we have to put up with as developers they clearly have no reason to change and sadly I don't expect them to. You don't tell the world's most valuable company how to run their business. It didn't work for people telling Microsoft in the 90's or Apple today. Sorry for the brutal truth but it is what it is.

linguafranca 12y ago
Completely true. Kind of makes me want to look more seriously into making apps for Microsoft platforms. That said, Mac owners are generally far more likely to go out and look for new apps to buy. Whereas Windows users will find an app that does the job, and keep using that app forever (and recommend it to friends/family). So even though there are way more Windows users, it seems more likely to make a living as an indie Mac dev than an indie Windows dev.
- linguafranca 12y ago
  (Disclaimer: that last part was told to me as advice by a lone indie dev who makes about $189,000 per year off his lone Mac app and puts nearly all of the revenue in savings. So I have a bit of trust in that advice.)
  - 72deluxe 12y ago
    Wowsers, what app is that?
    - jawngee 12y ago
      My one sole app in MAS pays my rent and some bills every month with absolutely zero marketing or advertising on my part.

wy 12y ago

Don't blame on Mac App Store, blame on the market instead. In case of survival, change your business model as well as monetization approaches.

wy 12y ago
Can anyone explain the reason of "Down-vote/Negative" points?
- josephlord 12y ago
  You responded to a well argued post about how Apple could moderately tweak the market to make things better for all sides of the market and your response was "blame the market" and "change your business model" which is what people are doing by leaving the store. I suspect the down votes were because you added little to the discussion, educated no one (with that particular post) and people thought it deserved to be pushed down the page.

tree_of_item 12y ago

Software is a service industry, not a product industry. Expect to see more software in the style of http://chrome.blogspot.com/2014/09/adobe-joins-chromebook-party-starting.html http://chrome.blogspot.com/2014/09/adobe-joins-chromebook-pa... or http://aws.amazon.com/appstream/ http://aws.amazon.com/appstream/ or even http://www.playstation.com/en-us/explore/psnow http://www.playstation.com/en-us/explore/psnow in the future. This developer is upset about the difficulty of securing a continuing revenue stream. This is exactly the problem addressed by streaming software to users instead of just giving it to them. What this developer really wants to do is _rent_ their program: when users stop paying, they stop having the software as well.

archagon 12y ago
Software "is" not anything. It's what we make of it. Many users and developers are staunchly opposed to a software service industry. Personally, if my only option is ever to make products that require subscriptions and continuous upkeep to use, I'd probably go work in another field altogether.
- ninjaplease 12y ago
  Saying something like that makes me believe that you must work deep within the bowels of an entrenched corporation, insulated from revenue needs. Anyone who has ever had to pay employees, sacrifice time from other projects to do unplanned-for maintenance, or scrounge around for tedious grunt work during a slow season would never say something so ridiculous. I bet you also swore you'd move to Canada if Bush/Obama got elected.
  - archagon 12y ago
    I should have clarified: by "continuous upkeep", I don't mean patches and feature updates; I mean the type of perpetual update model you see in things like Creative Cloud and Facebook games. I make software because I enjoy it, and the type of software that I enjoy making either takes the form of one-off entertainment (games), or tools that expand your range of abilities (apps, mainly non-networked). If I couldn't hope to make money off these anymore, I'd probably lose my creative drive. (I am also a one-man developer. A corporation would obviously have different priorities.) This is basically the Chromebook version of the future, and it's why I support Apple's native-first model over the alternatives. If I buy a hammer, I want to own it, not have it streamed to me over crappy H264.

heychristian 12y ago

I'm the CEO of Paddle (https://www.paddle.com/sell https://www.paddle.com/sell), we're essentially trying to solve this exact problem for OS X developers, by providing App Store functionality, and more, for those selling outside the MAS (IAPs, Analytics, Payments, Trials, Activations/ Licensing). The lack of trial versions aside (which is still a huge problem), one of the primary issues with the MAS is the flat-out exclusion of certain categories of application. For example, system utilities are almost totally banned from the MAS, and the system tools/ utilities that are currently available in the Mac App Store tend to just be slimmed down versions of their non-MAS counterparts with lots of functionality removed. I speak to hundreds of OS X developers every week, and the sentiment around the MAS is gradually changing. Typically we're hearing developers just referring to the MAS as a marketing channel these days, due to the restrictions enforced on them. We see a lot of data around MAS vs. Non-MAS sales, and reasons for developers switching, so if anyone has any questions about this space, I'd be happy to answer.

milen 12y ago
When I was researching what we can use for payments, I stumbled upon Paddle and it looked exactly like what I wanted - looks very well done. I have two questions for you: 1) Who is the vendor of record? This is relevant to handling VAT and it means either you have to do it or the business selling the software. 2) I couldn't find any information on what countries are supported, payment methods for receiving royalties, etc. Thanks.
- heychristian 12y ago
  Thanks for the kind words. In response to your questions: 1). Paddle is the vendor/merchant of record. We handle all of the VAT/ sales tax liability on your behalf. Payouts you receive from us are a royalty payment, exactly as they are from Apple/ the MAS. (This is particularly relevant as of Jan 1st 2015 when the EU VAT regulations change, and become super complicated for indie devs). 2). We support most countries (all countries, with the exception of North Korea, Cuba etc.), allow payments from customers via Credit/Debit Card (Visa, Mastercard, Amex) and PayPal. Support payouts to merchants via PayPal, Local Wire (32 countries - List: http://padl.to/1qoAWNN http://padl.to/1qoAWNN) or International Wire (everywhere else).

Animats 12y ago

Mac developers, be grateful that Apple still allows you to sell applications for their platform that don't go through the "Mac App Store". Apple's general approach to applications on their platforms is "if it's profitable, it's ours". Try writing a competitor to iTunes. Apple wants to provide a good out-of-the-box experience. That means their devices come with what customers really need. Apple now views aftermarket apps the way Detroit views aftermarket car accessories. Mac App Store developers, you are in the same business as the company that makes the little tree-shaped air fresheners for cars. Deal with it.

jp 12y ago
Spotify, Lightroom and Skype replaces iTunes, iPhoto and Facetime for lots of people. Dropbox works better than iCloud when it comes to camera images.

jnem 12y ago

This is especially interesting for me because I am on the cusp of a technological coup in my own home. I've been a "PC" my whole life, and have somehow gotten away with never buying an Apple product, and never felt the lack. However, many of the reasons I avoided Apple in the past are now irrelevant, as all but Linux now attempt the same fascist business model (The rings/rules of Apple QA for software, and One store with which to rule them all). My go-to argument against Apple in the past was: "In order to get an application or piece of software into the Apple ecosystem, you have to go through Apple. Apple has a strict QA process, every app that gets into the store has to vetted by one of Apples legions of QA staff. This sounds good; we want quality apps. However, a great deal of Apple’s QA rules for acceptance aren’t just about app quality, but also nebulous ideas of morality and ethics. The problem with that is, when only one agency is in control of what is proper and what isn’t, we are left with a situation where one agency gets to control what you see, use, and by environmental influence—think. Now, imagine everyone exclusively owns an Apple product…” Ironically, this notion is very 1984, and my stance on it was a bit extremish to be sure, but hey, I’m a PC. Anyway, ever since Windows 8 and Windows Phone, it seems Microsoft has seen how completely Apple controls its own ecosystem, and wants a piece (complete with its own app ecosystem). Suddenly Babylon had arrived on my desktop. My initial thought was, “are we going to reach a situation where there are no more open platforms to develop for? Are we going to get to a point where software can only be deployed through stores run by the same folks who run my OS? Do I have to learn Linux?!” So, long ramble short, I’m thinking of joining the cult. A few years back I was given an iPad as a present. I initially resented it, labeling it a glorified TV-ala-Netflix device. I have since spent hundreds on app purchases. Is now a good time to put on my robes and worship at the altar of Jobs?

robin_reala 12y ago
I’m typing this on an Macbook in a house with just Macs and iDevices after getting back from work where everyone uses Macs, but honestly what’s wrong with just going down the Linux road? It’s politically better, hardware is as good as you want to buy and there’s no app store vetting (unless you install Steam).
- jnem 12y ago

joesmo 12y ago

The last place I go to get apps for OS X is the MAS. If it's available outside of the store, I always prefer that. There is nothing compelling about the MAS and there never has been. It's ridiculous that I have to sign in to get free apps or OS updates. For OS updates and apps that offer no other way of installation, it's a concession I make grudgingly. Why should Apple be a middle-man in my software purchases/downloads while offering absolutely nothing over more traditional methods of installation, not even convenience?

ninjaplease 12y ago
You actually don't need to sign in or have an account to receive OS updates.
lh7777 12y ago
I find the simplicity nice: find an app I want to buy, click buy, and I've got it. Developer just pushed an upgrade? It installs automatically without my having to do anything.
- mjcohen 12y ago
  And the developer doesn't get anything, no matter how much work developing the upgrade took.
  - lh7777 12y ago
    I agree that's a problem and would be very happy to see native support for paid updates added to the MAS instead of the hacks developers are currently stuck with. I didn't say the MAS is without downsides (the original article does a good job of spelling them out), but joesmo is arguing that the MAS has no real benefits to the user. I don't think that's true, and that's why I really hope Apple fixes these issues instead of letting the exodus continue.
Terretta 12y ago
> while offering absolutely nothing over more traditional methods of installation On the contrary, I (who happily use brew and brew cask) have re-purchased anything that is available in the app store, even if I'd already purchased it elsewhere, just for the app store conveniences. It's really amazing to dump an old Mac for a new one and just click from your purchased inventory, no serials, no nonsense. Not to mention having that work on both your laptop and your desktop. The old days of having to take a day off just to move to a new or additional machine are long gone, thanks to the app store.

mmuro 12y ago

Ok, so Coda 2.5, BBEdit, TextExpander and other developer-type apps can't be in the App Store because they can't be sandboxed. Fine, if it's a developer-type tool that has to do things most everyday users aren't going to need, do it outside the Mac App Store. For everything else, the Mac App Store is great. In fact, I'm such a fan of the Mac App Store that I wish every app could conform to it's rules so I wouldn't have to dig out a lame license key, or heaven help me, email the vendor for some time sensitive generated key thing.

smackfu 12y ago
It's not just developer-type tools that can't be sandboxed. Dropbox can't. BackBlaze can't.
- heychristian 12y ago
  Also, any service where it isn't viable to give 30% of their revenue to Apple, Spotify for example (who have to give 70% of their revenue to record companies). Not that Apple would want Spotify in the store anyway, with it being an iTunes competitor.
  - vitd 12y ago
    Wait - so what do they do on iOS? There’s a free Spotify app for iOS. Why couldn’t they do the same on the desktop?
    - 14113 12y ago
      Because they have to allow it for iOS, otherwise iOS becomes "the platform without Spotify". Imagine if iOS wouldn't allow a native Facebook app - what would happen then? With OSX it's a little different, as there are alternative channels for installing Spotify, which prevents OSX from becoming "a platform without Spotify", and also allows Apple to ignore them entirely, and push their own product in the store.
      - 12y ago

rismay 12y ago

A-men.

LCDninja 12y ago

I've not read anyone mention "discoverability" as part of Apple's value proposition to developers. Years ago I experienced great traction with the free download site Apple provided. Prior to that - much more significant traction from the hundreds of PC download sites. It's amazing to see how much the world has changed in 13 years for software developers. It's probably better not to look back. :/

Terretta 12y ago

> "Supporting app trials would be trivial" ... "zero additional complexity" ... "Supporting paid upgrades does not require much additional complexity, if any at all." These remarks sound suspiciously like those software development clients who think their nephew could do the work for free in his spare time while cleaning the garage and playing Halo. It's not about relabeling a button. Apple has enough talent to solve these, but these problems are not trivial.

lukifer 12y ago
I think most developers understood not having these features at launch. But it's been over three years now, and progress has been glacial at best. No one believes that Apple can't implement these things; their actions demonstrate that they don't consider it a priority.
milen 12y ago
Please note that I was not referring to technical complexity, rather cognitive / UX complexity. I've been creating software for many years, I'm well aware that feature requests that look quite simple on the surface can require significant development efforts. Having said that, implementing trials / upgrades is no a technical problem per se, it's more a question of spending the development resources required (yes, obviously there will be assumptions in the whole infrastructure that would require a bit of work but nothing that should have taken years to implement). In-App-Purchases were introduced a few years into App Store's existence, so it's certainly possible for them to implement major features when the willpower exists (and I'd wager implementing trials / upgrades would be easier than IAPs, although that's my guess, I have no internal information). In any case, I very much doubt the reason for not having those features implemented is because they don't have the available development resources - it's more likely a decision was made that those feature do not align with Apple's vision of how the MAS should work.

72deluxe 12y ago

I could never get over how slow the App Store or Software Update system was. I have a quad core Ivybridge i7 MacBook, and I still sit wondering if the Software Update program is working. I know it is frustrating in Windows land to have to repeatedly click "check for updates", particularly on a fresh install of Windows 7 but I was surprised how sluggish the App Store app was. Behind the scenes it is a HTML browser embedded I think, which I found particularly odd given the encouragement for Obj-C native development on the native platform. Just an observation - correct me if I'm wrong!

72deluxe 12y ago

I heartily agree with the devaluation of apps, the race to the bottom, the cheapest is the only one to install. The scourge of 99p apps on the App Store has spread to the other market-based ecosystems, where actual developer time and effort is considered very cheap indeed; most people I know who use Android will not ever ever pay for an app, for example. (Your experience may differ).

asherdavidson 12y ago

Another possible metric for rating apps could simply be how many users use an app on a consistent basis and how many hours they've logged in the app. If you get an app that has 5 negative reviews and 1 positive review, but you have over 100 people using it everyday for a few hours it should be rated highly regardless of the negative reviews.

jp 12y ago
I wrote some clever code that fixed a problem on Windows. When running on Mac the same code leaked memory and blocked the event loop. 1 star - "crashed my entire computer".

tn13 12y ago

I think this is a good thing. Problem with these distribution channels is that more popular they get Apple might be tempted to make it the "only" channel eventually dictating to us what software we can use and can not much similar to iPhone. Of course what worked for iPhone would not have worked for Mac and hence there was no incentive for Apple to make Mac Store popular. Apple cares little about developers, it cares about itself.

chj 12y ago

The only good thing about App Store is visibility. People aren't going to find out your own website, but they have learned to search on App Store. Developers need to have an alternative market place that are equally easy to download and update applications.