Epic Games vs. Apple Judgment Allows App Store Developers to Link to Alternative Payment Methods

[Maximara]

You are saying a federal district court ”has no right to reference” facts that were put in evidence not by the judge, but by the parties?

I hope you give your clients better advice than that, counselor.

As I said before Epic only won on one point and so far they are the only ones appealing. Epic is coming off more as Don Quixote then some great white knight...and the windmill is, for the most part, winning. 😀

 

[norwaypianoman]

It is sad to think of the thousands upon thousand of apps that were available on OS 9 and OS X - linked on Apple Web pages.

And how empty the Mac App Store still is compared to how large it could be if the Apple Tax was lower than 30.

 

[jlc1978]

And how empty the Mac App Store still is compared to how large it could be if the Apple Tax was lower than 30.

For most developers, it's 15% and even subscriptions that start at 30% are 15% after a year. The only companies taht benefit from a reduction are those making over a million/year on the App Store. This fight is about which big companies get how much of the pie; not a fight for the small developer. The small developer may very well be collateral damage as Apple adjusts how and what it charges on the App Store.

Frankly, I'm guess most, if not almost all, small developers could beat Apple's 15% cut and get the same value as the App Store.

 

[turbineseaplane]

even subscriptions that start at 30% are 15% after a year.

Only if you remain subscribed and keep it going for at least a year.

It’s ridiculous

 

[jlc1978]

Only if you remain subscribed and keep it going for at least a year.

It’s ridiculous

Which is why I said one year, and if the product isn't worth a second year that's on the developer, not Apple. If their business model isn't capable of keeping subscribers and generating a lot of churn, they need to rethink their business model and pricing.

 

[leman]

It is sad to think of the thousands upon thousand of apps that were available on OS 9 and OS X - linked on Apple Web pages.

And how empty the Mac App Store still is compared to how large it could be if the Apple Tax was lower than 30.

I find it incredible how successful Big Software propaganda has been in manipulating public opinion. App Store is what made small independent developers possible in the first place. Even 30% was a great deal compared to the payment processing, distribution, tax compliance, and other costs the developer had had to carry. For comparison, Stripe (a popular payment processor) takes 2.9% + 30c to process a card payment, so if you are selling an app for $1.99, that's already 20% just for domestic payment processing (and you are eating the charge if the purchase gets refunded, instead of App Store absorbing it for you). You want to sell your software on the global market and make sure that you are tax compliant? All that stuff is extra. With App Store, you get all this for 15% of your sales as a small-time dev.

What more, App Store model is built on solidarity, and that's what makes it so brilliant. You share the success. The system is financed through the few developers who make money, which allows everyone to take a shot at the market with zero investment into payment infrastructure. Entities who benefit most from reducing these fees are the large software houses who can afford to build and maintain their own payment and accounting infrastructure.

That said, I do believe that while Apple started strong, they ultimately fumbled their Stores. They should have set it up as a non-profit (or fixed-profit) independent group with transparent structure and partial community oversight. Not to mention the promotion of the subscription model, which IMO is a major software ******tification drivers. And discoverability tools for devs still suck. Unfortunately, they chose short-term profits over building a sustainable, trusted model, which is why we have what we have today.

 

[jlc1978]

That said, I do believe that while Apple started strong, they ultimately fumbled their Stores. They should have set it up as a non-profit (or fixed-profit) independent group with transparent structure and partial community oversight.

I am not sure it could survive long term that way. One of the reasons for it success is it can afford to underwrite free programs and lower fees for small developers by the profits from larger ones; as well as provide a lot of tools and low cost (developer's fee only) access. Given the current climate where some big developers want to get all the revenue from teh App Store as wel as still have access to Apple's user base, the model would implode over time as the big revenue generators' revenue disappeared. I doubt EPIC et.al. would care what the corporate structure was, they'd still want all of the pie and for Apple to keep baking pies for them.

Not to mention the promotion of the subscription model, which IMO is a major software ******tification drivers.

Unfortunately, developer's pricing apps at $1 or so led to users expecting low priced apps; how often on MR do we read "Great app but at $10 it's overpriced, get XX it's free (or cheaper) in the forums? As a result, unless developers get new users regularly, apps have a shelf life where teh revenue generated isn't enough to justify ongoing development. Thus a subscription model is the only way to justify investing time and money into ongoing development. Even then, at some point you reach a feature set level that further improvements are incremental at bset, so a developer has to hope users are locked into it and keep subscribing.

And discoverability tools for devs still suck.

As a user, I agree. I rarely go to the App Store looking for an app becasue a search returns a lot of junk to sift through to find what I want. Unless an app is recommended on MR or another forum, I doubt I will ever even try it.

Unfortunately, they chose short-term profits over building a sustainable, trusted model, which is why we have what we have today.

Unfortunately, I think that is the only model that works in the mobile device space. I doubt the MacOS way would be viable simply because of the price pressure making going it alone less profitable than being on the App Store.

 

[The Cappy]

It is sad to think of the thousands upon thousand of apps that were available on OS 9 and OS X - linked on Apple Web pages.

And how empty the Mac App Store still is compared to how large it could be if the Apple Tax was lower than 30.

It's also kind of sad to realize that you might have been there during those days and yet completely oblivious to the enormous costs developers had to pay to sell those apps you remember. Mostly solo developers couldn't do it themselves. They had to go through bigger companies that could produce the software and make the DRM and it typically cost far more than 30%. Why do you remember the days of OS9 and not remember the early days of the App Store when it was universally pointed out how much cheaper that 30% is than what they had been paying before. Also, you're fantasizing something else. You're fantasizing that in the days of OS 9 there was an internet where Apple linked all these apps. There wasn't and to the extent Apple ever advertised for anybody it was Claris or Microsoft. And in the days before the App Store, there was no App Store. Everything was side-loaded. Don't want to pay the "Apple tax"? Yearning for the golden age of the past? You're in luck. Apple still allows side loading. Go for it. Steam sells games you can put on your Mac. Lots of devs will sell you their apps and let you download from their sites, far more quickly than you ever could have, loading from a floppy or a CD. You won't get the security or the iCloud saves or the App Store's ability to identify you to the app and keep you from seeing the dev's homegrown DRM. But if you think that's not worth anything, none of that should bother you.

 

[turbineseaplane]

It's also kind of sad to realize that you might have been there during those days and yet completely oblivious to the enormous costs developers had to pay to sell those apps you remember. Mostly solo developers couldn't do it themselves. They had to go through bigger companies that could produce the software and make the DRM and it typically cost far more than 30%. Why do you remember the days of OS9 and not remember the early days of the App Store when it was universally pointed out how much cheaper that 30% is than what they had been paying before. Also, you're fantasizing something else. You're fantasizing that in the days of OS 9 there was an internet where Apple linked all these apps. There wasn't and to the extent Apple ever advertised for anybody it was Claris or Microsoft. And in the days before the App Store, there was no App Store. Everything was side-loaded. Don't want to pay the "Apple tax"? Yearning for the golden age of the past? You're in luck. Apple still allows side loading. Go for it. Steam sells games you can put on your Mac. Lots of devs will sell you their apps and let you download from their sites, far more quickly than you ever could have, loading from a floppy or a CD. You won't get the security or the iCloud saves or the App Store's ability to identify you to the app and keep you from seeing the dev's homegrown DRM. But if you think that's not worth anything, none of that should bother you.

Distribution and publishing were indeed enormous costs, as was old school advertising and getting any traction.

All of those are costs and issues that are a tiny minuscule fraction of what they were then.

 

[jlc1978]

Distribution and publishing were indeed enormous costs, as was old school advertising and getting any traction.

All of those are costs and issues that are a tiny minuscule fraction of what they were then.

Costs, however, are irrelevant to value. Apple, via the App Store created a high value product by offering access to a lucrative market for less hassle and costs previously associated with bringing and selling a software product to market.

Developrs have never had it this good, IMHO. Apple's model lest them work on product development while Apple handles all the administrative and legal requirements related to selling the product, all for 15% for most developers. If Apple were to allow sideloading, I doubt most developers would find a better deal and access to the same market; they'd likely pay as much or more than Apple's fee and have a smaller market to boot. I'd also bet EPIC et. al. would not want to abandon the App Store for their own store. It's simply too lucrative.

Apple, in some ways, is a victim of its own success.

For ake of argument, let's suppose Apple decides to open up the iPhone to sideloading. At that point, IMHO, Apple becomes free to charge however they want for the App Store and setup rules governing allowing users to decide how apps can access their data and the OS. For example:

App Store

• Charging a monthly access fee to be on the store plus a per d/l fee
• Adopting an EPIC licensing model for access based on annual revenue from an app on the store
• Basing developer fee based on revenue from an app
• Fees to sign apps
• Offer the current 30/15% deal and terms as an alternative to the above

iOS

• Adopting a sandbox mode where users can block non-signed apps, much like the Mac
• Require apps to ask permission to access data or track, and Apple follows the same rules. No tracking, no popup, track, popup required
• Not be required to offer choices initially for any alternative to Apple apps
• Not allow unsigned apps to access parts of the OS/device designed to maintain security

Those are just some random thoughts. I'm not saying Apple would do any of that, nor am I against sideloading, per se, my point is I doubt sideloading / alternate app stores will be the the nirvana some think it will be; and small developers may find it harder to bring apps to market and make money.

You could see an expansion of the SetApp iOS model to more apps. The challenge for developers is how much money do they make from being on SetApp. The monthly fee is hardly enough to pay more than a few pennies per install, they seem to be the Spotify of MacOS apps.

One unanswered question is "How will sideloading impact piracy?" The App Store hasn't eliminated it but it is much less easier than in the jailbreaking days. Even then, jailbreaking was more of a hard core user thing, sideloading could open up the jailbreaking world to the casual user. If it becomes a problem to the point of seriously impacting developer revenue, I suspect we'll see more subscription based apps rather than one time purchases as developers try to protect their revenue. From a user perspective, more subscription based apps is a bad thing. Even worse would be more ad supported apps.

How will this all play out, who knows, but I think this is a be careful what you wish for because your wish may just get granted situation.