"App Store would not necessarily do anything more to push my app than the Internet as a whole does" - I see what you mean here. I would say however that it does provide real distribution, but the onus is still on you to push that further, as with most any other channel.
"You can push an update whenever you want." - Yeah, this was more in reference to updating content, not necessarily the app itself. I think I missed the crux of what he meant, apologies for not making that clearer.
"Apple sets fixed price points, and has rejected apps for price before." - True, but at the same time I'd say their reasoning is spot-on for rejecting based on price. Their concern is the UX, first and foremost, and their policies follow that line (almost) all the time.
"You're saying they no longer require 30% of all profits you derive from sales in apps, even if they had nothing to do with the sale except making the device the software is running on?" - No, they require that price and have done a huge amount to facilitate it. I'd say it is absolutely fair to charge that price and implement most (not all) of their policies. Making the device, the OS, doing all the marketing, researching and testing the entire user experience, providing the infrastructure that makes it possible to even download the app and use it. It is a lot and they have every right to want their piece of the pie.
No, they require that price and have done a huge amount to facilitate it. I'd say it is absolutely fair to charge that price and implement most (not all) of their policies. Making the device, the OS, doing all the marketing, researching and testing the entire user experience, providing the infrastructure that makes it possible to even download the app and use it. It is a lot and they have every right to want their piece of the pie.
Do you think it would be a fair deal in the same way if Microsoft imposed that rule on Windows apps? Because I don't see how what you're saying is unique to iOS devices rather than PCs in general.
Microsoft provides the operating system itself and supporting software and infrastructure for that business. Their business model is/was to drive adoption and standardization of the computer operating system by and large with Windows. They did so through aggressive tactics and eventually made it pretty much ubiquitous. However, they only provide the core OS that the machine runs on (and a bunch of other software) - they did not develop, market, distribute and support the machine. Further, they provide no infrastructure by and large to facilitate the transactions themselves.
Now, this made sense as they grew. The PC market was a bunch of companies running into an empty room and staking their claim. Microsoft simply said "let's make sure everyone uses our flag to stake their claim." Suddenly you had a crowded room with almost everyone waving a windows flag. They did not want to impede the growth of the market by controlling every step of the equation and at the time that was the right way to do it. They allowed an ecosystem to grow up around them, wanting to be the standard by which it all grew and developed.
However, the game has changed now. Apple uses the best UX they can make with the nicest hardware they can design to create desire. People want Apple products and that desire relies on everything about the product living up to the expectation placed on it. With this in mind, they ask for their cut of what goes through their infrastructure which supports this marketing machine. It would be different if they did not provide this level of investment or if they didn't actually handle the fulfillment.
To answer more directly, I don't think it is a question of fairness, I simply think it is a comparison of apples and oranges. Apple has a fundamentally different philosophy and this reflects in their business model.
That said, I do not agree with their policy of not allowing a link from an app to a place to purchase externally - I feel it doesn't add to the UX at all to enforce that and some manner of user choice is called for ( '-')-p
Comments
"App Store would not necessarily do anything more to push my app than the Internet as a whole does" - I see what you mean here. I would say however that it does provide real distribution, but the onus is still on you to push that further, as with most any other channel.
"You can push an update whenever you want." - Yeah, this was more in reference to updating content, not necessarily the app itself. I think I missed the crux of what he meant, apologies for not making that clearer.
"Apple sets fixed price points, and has rejected apps for price before." - True, but at the same time I'd say their reasoning is spot-on for rejecting based on price. Their concern is the UX, first and foremost, and their policies follow that line (almost) all the time.
"You're saying they no longer require 30% of all profits you derive from sales in apps, even if they had nothing to do with the sale except making the device the software is running on?" - No, they require that price and have done a huge amount to facilitate it. I'd say it is absolutely fair to charge that price and implement most (not all) of their policies. Making the device, the OS, doing all the marketing, researching and testing the entire user experience, providing the infrastructure that makes it possible to even download the app and use it. It is a lot and they have every right to want their piece of the pie.
Thanks for the reply :)
No, they require that price and have done a huge amount to facilitate it. I'd say it is absolutely fair to charge that price and implement most (not all) of their policies. Making the device, the OS, doing all the marketing, researching and testing the entire user experience, providing the infrastructure that makes it possible to even download the app and use it. It is a lot and they have every right to want their piece of the pie.
Do you think it would be a fair deal in the same way if Microsoft imposed that rule on Windows apps? Because I don't see how what you're saying is unique to iOS devices rather than PCs in general.
Hmm.
Microsoft provides the operating system itself and supporting software and infrastructure for that business. Their business model is/was to drive adoption and standardization of the computer operating system by and large with Windows. They did so through aggressive tactics and eventually made it pretty much ubiquitous. However, they only provide the core OS that the machine runs on (and a bunch of other software) - they did not develop, market, distribute and support the machine. Further, they provide no infrastructure by and large to facilitate the transactions themselves.
Now, this made sense as they grew. The PC market was a bunch of companies running into an empty room and staking their claim. Microsoft simply said "let's make sure everyone uses our flag to stake their claim." Suddenly you had a crowded room with almost everyone waving a windows flag. They did not want to impede the growth of the market by controlling every step of the equation and at the time that was the right way to do it. They allowed an ecosystem to grow up around them, wanting to be the standard by which it all grew and developed.
However, the game has changed now. Apple uses the best UX they can make with the nicest hardware they can design to create desire. People want Apple products and that desire relies on everything about the product living up to the expectation placed on it. With this in mind, they ask for their cut of what goes through their infrastructure which supports this marketing machine. It would be different if they did not provide this level of investment or if they didn't actually handle the fulfillment.
To answer more directly, I don't think it is a question of fairness, I simply think it is a comparison of apples and oranges. Apple has a fundamentally different philosophy and this reflects in their business model.
That said, I do not agree with their policy of not allowing a link from an app to a place to purchase externally - I feel it doesn't add to the UX at all to enforce that and some manner of user choice is called for ( '-')-p