It's not just about Taylor Swift having way more pull than any developer, she was also presenting Apple with a problem simple enough that it could literally be solved by throwing money at it.
As Rob Napier pointed out in a great blog post [1]: The app store sustainability problem is definitely not the sort of problem you can just throw money at, and thus can't be responded to by Apple with the same way.
Even in this article it is immediately apparent there is no consensus among the affected as to what the real problem is: Is it lack of free trials? Paid upgrades? Review times?
At least some of the complaints of indie devs like Cabel Sasser relate to the technical restrictions that Apple places on Mac App Store apps. Based on statements by Apple, these restrictions are, to Apple, important from a security standpoint.
Thus it's probably going to take more than complaints to resolve them. It's going to take Apple engineers figuring out how to permit more power for good devs without creating holes for malware.
Apple is well aware of the shortcomings of the Mac App Store model, which is why they continue to provide an official, supported path for apps to be installed on Macs from outside of the App Store.
From a money standpoint, Taylor Swift is getting 1.5% more from Apple than App Store developers are...doesn't seem like that much to me. As far as I know, there is no "download and try it for 90 days" feature in the App Store.
Many, I dare say even the vast majority, of the problems with Apple's App Store are not cases where Apple has favored users over developers, but rather cases where fixing the problem would help both users and developers. Thus, IMO, this idea that it's all because Apple cares more about the users simply does not fly.
Even though they haven't publicly addressed the problem, I'm sure they knew that the current model was proving unsustainable well before any of us. You have to imagine that for every 100,000 apps their small review team has accepted, they must have also rejected 100,000 more. Apple doesn't admit when things are shitty until after they've fixed the problem. They're smart like that.
As far as solutions, I like the pay-per-app model the best. The signal-to-noise ratio in the app store is way too high (low?). It doesn't need to be too expensive to publish an app, it just needs to deter the kinds of publishers that are writing one app and rebranding it hundreds of times (per sports team, per state, etc). You even have people taking public domain novels and throwing thousands of them up as $0.99 ebooks, just on the chance that the sheer volume of them will make a profit. There are of course thousands of great apps, too, but the chances of stumbling across any of them are becoming smaller and smaller.
Right, the app store is an issue for users not developers already invested in Apple's platform. That's probably a PR goal for Apple, to turn users and developers for other platforms into one group and iOS developers into another group.
I think that problem stems from apples vice grip on the app store environment and iphone development ecosystem rather than lack of marketing creativity on the developers part.
While I agree with the basic thrust of the article (Apple is not your friend, is often vindictive in response to criticism and could do more to help developers), I always feel when reading App Store articles that there's quite an odd underlying assumption, namely that Apple somehow owes all developers a living and has it within its power to achieve this if only it wanted.
Please correct me if my history is wrong but I don't think being an independent software developer has been anything but a high risk and/or low profit endeavor. It's not like everything was just great for indies until Apple came along and devalued software. On the contrary, I feel the App Store has done more to level the playing field for indies than anything before it.
Discoverability is not a solved problem for any product or service apart from massive advertising expenditure, which is why "big labels" come to exist. It's not like Apple is holding back on a solution out of spite. Is it supposed to routinely feature each of the million apps on the store?
In a short space of time, the App Store has become a mature market of too many people chasing after too little money. This isn't some kind of outlier in capitalism. It's an entirely predictable pattern of consolidation that we've seen time and time again.
The only unusual thing is that the independent developers got invited the party in the first place without having to worry about payment or delivery infrastructure.
The difference is the Apple app store is not nature. They make a point of curating the app store. When the results are bad and getting worse there is only one player to blame.
I don't see anything wrong with the Apple app store - they just need to be forced to bring the Apple percentage down (they clearly won't do it on their own).
It's a puzzling omission, given that building App Store revenue is such a priority, and they feed the supply side in a number of other ways. I don't think they're doing it on purpose, they're just bad at it.
For anybody outside of the situation, this article may seem to explain everything. After all, the explanation seems reasonable, the retail-store metaphor is one that most people intuitively grasp. What's the big deal?
Well, the real issue is that Apple still does not pro-actively and directly address the problems that developers have with the app store. Fluffy interviews with Schiller don't cut it in my opinon.
I did actually have thoughts of making iPhone apps at one point. Now; there is no chance I'd ever make anything if it means dealing with a tight-arse bueracracy like that.
Well, first to set the context. Most money on the App Store isn’t being spent on the little Indy developer. It came out in the Epic trial that the large majority is being spent on games, in-app purchases and loot boxes on pay to win games.
Now, let’s talk about the challenges on the App Store for the Indy developer. 15% vs 30% is the least of it.
1. You have to be discovered among the millions of other apps. The App Store is horrible for discoverability. Even if you do get a one day pop from it being spotlighted, that’s fleeting.
2. The value of an application has been devalued. Back in the day, people didn’t mind spending real money on applications. People think spending $10 on a mobile app is overpriced.
3. No one wants to pay for upgrades even if the App Store made that easy. I once bought an app - Tempo Magic in 2010. I hadn’t thought about it for years. But 10 years later I looked for it. Downloaded it and it still worked. The developer has kept the app working for a decade and through the 32 bit to 64 bit transition. I haven’t paid a penny more for it. How is a developer suppose to sustain themselves?
The only business model where high quality productivity apps are sustainable are via subscriptions. That’s why you have MS Office available.
The App Store is the real issue. Apple's antipathy towards developers is perplexing. The number of stories I've heard about companies having problems due to some interpretation of their policies is ridiculous. There are even horror stories about businesses going bankrupt simply because Apple decided they were in violation of something and banned them from the App Store entirely. I mean, no game company wants to spend millions on a game only to have all of their games pulled because one of them was too similar to someone else's game or something (according to some Apple reviewer with way too much power!).
While the App store is indeed powerful, it's also severely flawed beyond the approval process.
Discoverability is a huge problem, and honestly, more than 80% of the apps aren't very good. And given that iOS apps are still in the gold rush stage, that percentage of crappy apps is growing by the day.
If a significant number of the developers who vote with their feet are part of the top 20% (for quality), and the boycott becomes more widespread, I think Apple would have to respond.
In the post-Jobs era, who knows if something like this could have an impact.
So your opinion is that Apple should invest finite resources in a company which isn't dedicating all their resources to building the best iOS app they can ?
That sounds like bad business to me. You should nurture and support your best customers/clients. There are 1 million apps on the App Store. Apple just figured some of the others deserve their support. It's harsh but understandable.
Can you firm this up a bit? If money talks, why would Apple want to keep crappy apps in the App Store? These apps aren't going to make much at all in the short run for Apple, and in the long run will turn off users. Do you think Apple isn't going to do something about these? Or is it more that they haven't been proactive enough? Something else?
As Rob Napier pointed out in a great blog post [1]: The app store sustainability problem is definitely not the sort of problem you can just throw money at, and thus can't be responded to by Apple with the same way.
Even in this article it is immediately apparent there is no consensus among the affected as to what the real problem is: Is it lack of free trials? Paid upgrades? Review times?
[1] http://robnapier.net/throw-money
reply