$99/year Developer Fee to Publish Applications

[jersena]

I am really excited to see what comes of the SDK but like many others have said, why would you put a free app up if you have to pay money to do so. That makes not sense at all.

I understand that it is Apple's servers, bandwidth and all that but it is also making their phone that much better. I am sure there will be some killer or much needed app that could lead to someone buy the iPhone.

Do you think there will be a way to get a self developed app on your own phone cause I am sure people will make something that is just for them.

 

[notjustjay]

Look at it this way: if you just want to put your own private app.s on your own phone, the $99 lets you do that. There is no need to distribute it. If you do distribute it, the $99 protects me from malware, crapware, abandonedware and stuff whose own authors don't think a hundred or so people (out of millions) would pay for. Either way, I don't think it is a bad deal.

Ok, but... if I want to write a custom little app that solves a little problem I have, and I install it on my phone and nobody ever uses it but me, I still have to pay $99?

 

[jmmo20]

Ok, but... if I want to write a custom little app that solves a little problem I have, and I install it on my phone and nobody ever uses it but me, I still have to pay $99?

Nope because with Xcode you can install such app in your own phone for testing purposes.

What brings back the idea of freeware apps being distributed as Xcode packages.. you could download the project, build it and copy it to your own iphone without going through the App Store. This could be an alternative distribution pathway...

 

[arn]

Nope because with Xcode you can install such app in your own phone for testing purposes.
.

This is incorrect. Xcode will not install an app onto your own phone for testing purposes unless you are a $99/year iPhone developer.

Otherwise, you are limited to the iPhone Simulator for testing.

arn

 

[radsense]

Publishing TrialWare Apps

I wonder how Apple and AppStore is going to deal with Trialware applications. Will AppStore allows you to download and install any application, so the user can try the app and eventually register and pay for it.

I have no idea how they are thinking about handling this. This is very common with Palm and Windows Mobile software developers.

I hope they have thought about this...

Thanks,

Marcio Castilho
RADSense Software Inc.
www.radsense.com

 

[boz0]

As I understand it, when your App is on iTunes, Apple hosts it. $99 per year is cheaper than hosting it yourself, something that most developers of free apps have to pay for themselves, so this $99 is a good deal, no?

Err ... sourceforge?

 

[Tosser]

Reminds me of all those people going "Well, when the SDK comes, it will all bo so f*** fantastic!"
Oh, and not to mention someone quoting SJ as saying "If you wan't XX on your phone, write the app" –*He just forgot to mention the thirty percent cut they take and the 99 dollar cash advance.
Actually, the 30 percent cut is more like a 42 (!!!) percent VAT:

If the developer needs to get an income of 10 dollar per sold app, it has to be sold at more than 14 dollars (divide and multiply to your hearts content). That's way more than cost or trouble. That's scimming the cream.

 

[Eraserhead]

Botton line is that the $99 price is not per application or per developer. It is per organization.

Apple are also handling the marketing/security for the application so I can set up a nominal charge of say $1-$2 to cover my costs, and most people who would use the app would pay the small fee to get to download it.

 

[yoman]

Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU like Mac OS X; en) AppleWebKit/420.1 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/3.0 Mobile/4A102 Safari/419.3)

I wonder how Apple and AppStore is going to deal with Trialware applications. Will AppStore allows you to download and install any application, so the user can try the app and eventually register and pay for it.

I have no idea how they are thinking about handling this. This is very common with Palm and Windows Mobile software developers.

I hope they have thought about this...

Thanks,

Marcio Castilho
RADSense Software Inc.
www.radsense.com

That is an important point. I also wonder if they have thought of this.

 

[spazzcat]

Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU like Mac OS X; en) AppleWebKit/420.1 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/3.0 Mobile/4A102 Safari/419.3)



That is an important point. I also wonder if they have thought of this.

There would be two version. One is a free download and one is a paid download.

 

[overanalyzer]

There would be two version. One is a free download and one is a paid download.

That would be a bit of a pain, though, vs. the norm of being able to download a full-featured trial with a time limit and then enter a serial number to unlock it.

 

[thuff13]

Reminds me of all those people going "Well, when the SDK comes, it will all bo so f*** fantastic!"
Oh, and not to mention someone quoting SJ as saying "If you wan't XX on your phone, write the app" –*He just forgot to mention the thirty percent cut they take and the 99 dollar cash advance.
Actually, the 30 percent cut is more like a 42 (!!!) percent VAT:

If the developer needs to get an income of 10 dollar per sold app, it has to be sold at more than 14 dollars (divide and multiply to your hearts content). That's way more than cost or trouble. That's scimming the cream.

Do you have any idea how retail stores work? Do you think that Wal-Mart sells products for other companies for free? No, they buy products at wholesale prices and then mark them up to whatever they want. I do not know what Wal-Mart's markup is, but I work retail and our ideal markup is 50%. A 30% margin is not very good for us.

Apple is just doing it a little differently. Instead of the developer picking the wholesale price and then letting Apple sell it for whatever they want, the developer gets to choose the retail price. I think that is a good thing for the developer.

You also have to think of all the costs for Apple to run the App Store. First they had to pay somebody (or a group of people) to develop the store. Then there is store upkeep. If they just had one person who's responsibility it is to maintain the store and they only paid that person minimum wage, it would cost them $16,640 in wages alone (CA minimum wage was just raised to $8/hr). I really doubt that they are going to pay that person minimum wage and they may need more than one person. They will also being paying employees to review apps. Then there is the server space and the bandwidth. None of this stuff is free. On top of all that there is also a credit card fee the credit card companies charge for every transaction. These are not small fees. In fact, these charges are getting so bad that my store is talking about passing that fee to customers by charging a fee to use a credit card. I really don't think they will make much of a profit, if any off of the app store.

 

[dasmb]

I'm sure a lot of folks are going to be put off by the $99 registration fee, and I think that's a good thing. Apple's original objection that you don't want third party applications on your phone was silly, but their reasoning behind it -- that you don't want BAD applications on your phone, leaking memory, stealing processor time or just crashing frequently -- was sound. I was jailbroken for a while, and found a great majority of the applications were perfunctory, buggy or just plain dumb.

A $99 fee is just high enough to discourage developers from applying just to port random apps to the iPhone without polishing and testing them, but not so high that those with really good ideas would be discouraged. It encourages responsibility by removing anonymity.

It's also encouragement to flesh out applications prior to sticking them on the network. I'm a developer with experience working on the Macintosh (Java) and also with mobile devices (Windows Mobile), but not a whole lot working with Objective C or Cocoa. I have a handful of ideas, but none of them is at the point where they're worth $99. It's a fee I am willing to pay, but not until I have a deliverable product.

You do get an awful lot for $99 & 30% off the top. Access to a stable distribution platform that seamlessly handles installs, updates, payments, prevents piracy, and even does some of your marketing is of high value. Do you think you can get on Xbox Live Marketplace for less than that? What about the various mobile application libraries offered by Sprint, Verizon et al? I saw somebody mention Sourceforge, and that's a bad comparison. For one thing, SF won't allow you to host your non-OSS applications on Sourceforge; it's maintained by, essentially, donations made under contract to support the OSS movement. Commercial applications require a different version of the SF software, which is very expensive. For the power user or developer interested in version control and openness, who knows their software configuration needs and is willing to manage them, SF is the answer. That's not the case here.

As for the dev kit itself, it's probably the most impressive thing I've ever seen. 2.2 GB of development tools and a library of downloadable how-to videos for free? The barrier to get started is nearly zero (aside from the syntax of Objective C, which for a refugee from strongly typed languages is quite alien).

My gripe is that those of us who are members of the ADC should have been given a discount at least.

 

[notjustjay]

I'm sure a lot of folks are going to be put off by the $99 registration fee, and I think that's a good thing.
...
I found a great majority of the applications were perfunctory, buggy or just plain dumb.

A $99 fee is just high enough to discourage developers from applying just to port random apps to the iPhone without polishing and testing them, but not so high that those with really good ideas would be discouraged.
...
It's a fee I am willing to pay, but not until I have a deliverable product.

Thank you. This is exactly how I feel about the situation, except that initially I thought it was a one-time $99 instead of $99/yearly. I am less in agreement with a yearly fee model, though I suppose I can see Apple's perspective. If you're not willing to support your app to the tune of continuing to pay your $99/year, then Apple can be proactive about removing it from the App store before it becomes yet another abandoned app. Certainly I've had my share of many great OS X apps that were abandoned and no longer work properly on newer Macs (on Intel, or Leopard, or whatever). I can understand them not wanting this to happen on the iPhone.

I think overall this is a really neat time. I remember back in 1995, when I was in high school and the "world wide web" was still new, I wanted to tackle a (then) niche market -- I wanted to write a book about HTML and making websites, aimed at students, written by students. My draft manuscript was up to 200 pages and I was consulting with known local authors, but I encountered hurdle after hurdle and ultimately it was costing me too much time and money to continue. Besides which, the "big brands" (Teach Yourself..., ... For Dummies) had much more power than I ever could have and they quickly flooded the market with these sorts of books. Today, any kid can publish stuff on their own website, and in Google's eyes it is all equal opportunity.

I go to Youtube to learn how to jailbreak my iPod, and find that I'm being taught step by step... by a 13-year-old. Such is the world we now live in.

Now the exact same thing is happening with software, but this time the playing field is totally level and the cost of entry is lower than ever.

I do wish there was some provision to install something on my own phone or in the phones of my circles of friends or family, for example, without also having to pay the fee. I guess for that there's always the web-based route.

 

[AlphaBob]

Has anybody had success actually logging in to apply for the 2.0 ?

I keep getting a not found and error 404

And it's starting to tick me off.

I just did. I got into the iPhone Development page then clicked on the upper-right corner (where it talked about the development program). That allowed me to indicate that I was applying as an individual for the $99 program. Nothing else was entered and the screen said they would be in touch. From what I understand they will roll those things out slowly starting in the US only.

I'll keep my fingers crossed that it will give me the ability to test on the actual hardare soon.

 

[AlphaBob]

Age of posters showing...

Wow,

Judging from the complaints I've been reading about the $99 fee to be able to post apps on the iTunes App Store, I can bet many of the posters are high school or college age and have no concept of how much money it takes to support yourself in the real world (rent, food, clothing, transportation, etc.). This lack of real-world experience is resulting in a lack of understanding of what it takes to market a product and what is reasonable overhead in the business world.

A 30% overhead rate (what Apple skims off the top) is extreemly reasonable. Apple has to provide internet access, servers (lots of big huge power hungry boxes), staff, rent, insurance, etc. to operate iTunes. I would be surprised if their overhead rate wasn't almost exactly that high. (I ran a small $15 million dollar high-tech business for a number of years and our overhead rate was 28%). So Apple is essentially charging the developer exactly what it costs Apple to do something. That is darned generous.

The same applies to the $99 fee to get a seat at the table. That is VERY reasonable too, and for the same reasons. Heck, my internet access is costing me three times that per year, and I'd have to add hosting on top of that.

Bottom line is if you don't think you can write an app that will pay for the $99 annual fee and 30% off the top, then you are wasting your time, or it is just a hobby (and nothing wrong with that).

 

[samab]

A 30% overhead rate (what Apple skims off the top) is extreemly reasonable. Apple has to provide internet access, servers (lots of big huge power hungry boxes), staff, rent, insurance, etc. to operate iTunes. I would be surprised if their overhead rate wasn't almost exactly that high. (I ran a small $15 million dollar high-tech business for a number of years and our overhead rate was 28%). So Apple is essentially charging the developer exactly what it costs Apple to do something. That is darned generous.

The same applies to the $99 fee to get a seat at the table. That is VERY reasonable too, and for the same reasons. Heck, my internet access is costing me three times that per year, and I'd have to add hosting on top of that.

Compare to desktop apps --- 30% revenue share may not be much. But you have to compare it with other mobile phone platforms. To get on the deck of Nokia, Qualcomm and DoCoMo --- the developers gets a bigger cut of the revenue share.

Mind you, certification fees may be higher for the platforms --- but that's higher fixed costs.

 

[AlphaBob]

Compare to desktop apps --- 30% revenue share may not be much. But you have to compare it with other mobile phone platforms. To get on the deck of Nokia, Qualcomm and DoCoMo --- the developers gets a bigger cut of the revenue share.

Mind you, certification fees may be higher for the platforms --- but that's higher fixed costs.

OK, I have ZERO experience with the handset makers like Nokia/Qualcomm, but I don't understand what that has to do with anything. When you buy a game for your phone it comes from the carrier like T-Mobile or Sprint, not Nokia. I'd be hard pressed to believe that when T-Mobile sells Bejewled for $6 the developer is getting anywhere close to 70% of that money. T-Mobile isn't a magic company. Their overhead figures have to be close to the 30% figure too. Given that they state substantial profit comes from selling games and ringtones, that makes me expect the cut to the application developer is much less than 70% for T-Mobile to make any money.

But I haven't dealt with T-Mobile or Sprint, so I don't know. If you have let us know because that would be valuable experience to share!!

 

[aristobrat]

Anyone remember Handango? I guess anyone who's owned a smartphone in the last decade probably does.

Here are their fees for hosting developer applications in their store:

Less than $250,000 in gross revenue: 50%
$250,001 - $1,000,000 in gross revenue: 60%
$1,000,001+ in gross revenue: 70%

http://www.boygeniusreport.com/2008/02/16/handango-revises-cda-says-screw-you-to-developers/

 

[AlphaBob]

Anyone remember Handango? I guess anyone who's owned a smartphone in the last decade probably does.

Here are their fees for hosting developer applications in their store:

Less than $250,000 in gross revenue: 50%
$250,001 - $1,000,000 in gross revenue: 60%
$1,000,001+ in gross revenue: 70%

http://www.boygeniusreport.com/2008/02/16/handango-revises-cda-says-screw-you-to-developers/

Ah, fantastic !! Good solid data! Thank you!!! (Now I've exceeded my "!" mark quota for the day).

So small app developers will get 50%. And you can see that the biggest seller gets 70% (which again plays to that 30% overhead figure).

 

[ChrisA]

So Apple is going to be trying to actively prevent application distribution outside the App Store?

That's disappointing. But surely there's a way for developers to install their applications on their own phones indefinitely? If that's the case, couldn't people get around the App Store requirement by distributing their apps as open source/free software, so anyone can appear to be the 'developer' from the phone's perspective?

If it were possable for developer to install apps on their own phone then those apps could be distribed outside of the App Store. So I doubt it will be possable to install even on your own phone.

The 2.0 firmware might even use strong encryption to enforce this. I'd not be surprised if Apple did that.

 

[dasmb]

It's unlikely that there will not, within the next few weeks or months, be some manner of installer developers can use to test their own application(s). I don't believe Apple expects developers to produce an application and put it up on the store before they can test it on its target platform.

However, it's just as likely that these applications will be very special -- perhaps with an executable signed to only operate on a certain SIM, etc. It's highly unlikely this mechanism could be used to copy or modify applications downloaded from the store or compiled by others. I suppose there'd be a possibility to distribute source code, which others could compile and sign, I just don't see a lot of value in this.

 

[overanalyzer]

If it were possable for developer to install apps on their own phone then those apps could be distribed outside of the App Store. So I doubt it will be possable to install even on your own phone.

The 2.0 firmware might even use strong encryption to enforce this. I'd not be surprised if Apple did that.

It's unlikely that there will not, within the next few weeks or months, be some manner of installer developers can use to test their own application(s). I don't believe Apple expects developers to produce an application and put it up on the store before they can test it on its target platform.

However, it's just as likely that these applications will be very special -- perhaps with an executable signed to only operate on a certain SIM, etc. It's highly unlikely this mechanism could be used to copy or modify applications downloaded from the store or compiled by others. I suppose there'd be a possibility to distribute source code, which others could compile and sign, I just don't see a lot of value in this.

You can do testing on your iPhone, you just have to have the certificate that costs $99/year and then you can load them via the regular dock, and use the remote monitoring they demoed yesterday.

 

[Loge]

I just did. I got into the iPhone Development page then clicked on the upper-right corner (where it talked about the development program). That allowed me to indicate that I was applying as an individual for the $99 program. Nothing else was entered and the screen said they would be in touch. From what I understand they will roll those things out slowly starting in the US only.

I'll keep my fingers crossed that it will give me the ability to test on the actual hardare soon.

And if it doesn't (because of limited numbers or whatever) then you've pretty much wasted your time? For those not in the US it may be even more of a guessing game.

 

[notjustjay]

So small app developers will get 50%. And you can see that the biggest seller gets 70% (which again plays to that 30% overhead figure).

No! You misread! That 70% is what THEY take! YOU, the developer, get 30%!

To reiterate: if you sold your wares with Handango, YOU receive 50% of the revenue if you're small-time, and YOU receive only 30% if you're big enough that they think they deserve an even bigger cut. After all, you wouldn't be so big if it weren't for their help in the first place, right?

... Now does that make Apple's plan sound a little more fair?