Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
30% is nothing - developer gets 70% and doesn't have to worry about transactions etc, and gets paid routinely too. The model works and I don't think a single developer would argue against Apple's "tax" for the benefits they get.

The only thing I'd complain about is the fact that Apple holds onto all the money until they feel like giving us our share (technically when the amount owed in a region for an app is at least $150). Lowering the price of an app to free means you'll never see the money owed to you unless you start charging something again.

Most developers probably don't break even on their costs with iPhone development. I'm about ~2200 from breaking even, not counting my time or my MBP.
 
Perhaps not most smalltime guys, but I would think that major development companies don't like Apple's tax at all.

For example, companies like Sling and TomTom usually sold their apps through their own websites. Their apps are popular enough for people to seek out on their own.

Perhaps not, but it's quite simple: if a developer doesn't like the deal, then don't develop for the iPhone.

If I were a big software house I'd be pissed too, but seeing as how 70% is better than 0%, and companies like this Tapulous are bringing in 12mil a year, it's not such a bad deal.

It depends on how much development time is spent. Either it's worth your time or it isn't. If your app generates 12mil in revenue a year, you get 8.4mil of it, but your development costs are 15mil, then clearly it's not a good investment of time.

But somehow I doubt it costs them that much to develop an iPhone app.
 
have been able to create well-financed startup development houses looking to develop dedicated iPhone application pipelines and sustainable business models.
... , will fail do so, does not to hit the market with another successful product, asks a consultant company for help due to request of the board of directors, needs to acquire third-party support, finally gets sold to a bigger company and gets outsourced.

SCNR. :)

This is just one success. They did it right. But who knows how they perform in the future.
 
If I were a big software house I'd be pissed too, but seeing as how 70% is better than 0%, and companies like this Tapulous are bringing in 12mil a year, it's not such a bad deal.

It's not a good deal either, since that would mean they're paying 5 million a year to Apple.

There's also the problem of having to wait for Apple to approve an app and its updates. That results in lost revenue as well. Not to mention watering down the app itself at times, such as with the crippling of Slingplayer to only work on WiFi.

Is it better than nothing? Sometimes. Better than not having an Apple tax? No way. Large companies should be able to distribute their app on their own, if they wish.

It's ironic that Jobs made fun of the carrier walled app gardens ... since it turns out that he simply wanted to own such a garden himself.
 
Instead of averages or total numbers, I'd like to see the median of developers making enough money on the app store to sustain themselves. Stories like this are very much like winning the lottery.

After the final exam next month, maybe I'll do a dee research on the average revenue of developers on the app store, iTunes itself already hold the information we need:)
 
Oh my, so now VC companies are being created just to support iPhone app builders!
Gentlemen start your new Stock Market "app" bubble. :D
 
In regards to "the apple tax", does anybody realize that it does cost money to do the credit card transactions and all that stuff? It may end up being 20 percent of thirty in the end, when it comes to costs, but there is a lot to consider in that. Hell, you could be a musician under some record label that pays you a lot less compared to this.
 
Test of social skills

After the final exam next month, maybe I'll do a dee research on the average revenue of developers on the app store, iTunes itself already hold the information we need:)

While I'm sure that everyone who has an app on the store has good technical skills, it is ones social, interpersonal skills that makes the sales. If you have a brilliant app that is not selling well, you are not communicating how great it is to your market.

I have no sympathy for those that write great apps and then ignore the public only to move on to their next great technical conquest. If you are a solo, independent developer, you should have at most one third -- yes one third! -- of your time to coding and other technical issues. The rest needs to be advertising, promotions and -- shudder! -- public gatherings to show off your app.

I've been to many developer conferences and I can always spot those who's apps are not selling well from just how they work or don't work the crowd. A simple ad on a web site or in a magazine for your app can create a boost in sales.

In summary: poor sales = poor social skills

This also leads to why a lot of developers can't get dates!
 
It's not a good deal either, since that would mean they're paying 5 million a year to Apple.

There's also the problem of having to wait for Apple to approve an app and its updates. That results in lost revenue as well. Not to mention watering down the app itself at times, such as with the crippling of Slingplayer to only work on WiFi.

Is it better than nothing? Sometimes. Better than not having an Apple tax? No way. Large companies should be able to distribute their app on their own, if they wish.

It's ironic that Jobs made fun of the carrier walled app gardens ... since it turns out that he simply wanted to own such a garden himself.

I do agree with you to an extent, I think large developers are hit from the 30% compared to a small dev who might not have the marketing presence but gets into the top 10 and starts to get the exposure they might not have received before. For them I think the 30% is more than worth it and a great way to get their app out in front of millions that they couldn't do before.
 
Developer time is not "nothing" :) It's pretty much everything, in fact.

Oh please, you forget the Mac Mini they need to buy to write and compile the code. That 599$ isn't going to pay for itself! :rolleyes:

Time is pretty much everything for every content profession, be it music, movies, software, theater, books. The material costs are almost nothing in those industries, hence why copyright is needed to protect such works in the first place (close to 0 duplication costs).
 
Instead of averages or total numbers, I'd like to see the median of developers making enough money on the app store to sustain themselves. Stories like this are very much like winning the lottery.

I would beg to differ. If your an excessively smart person in your field, then success is not pure chance.
 
I would beg to differ. If your an excessively smart person in your field, then success is not pure chance.

You've just made his point for him. His point wasn't that it is chance, just that very few will come out on top, while the majority struggles. The lottery example probably wasn't the best choice to illustrate it.
 
I would beg to differ. If your an excessively smart person in your field, then success is not pure chance.

Success and making $1M/month are not one in the same. If you're smart and work hard you can be successful. To go from that to making $1M/month you need luck and timing, and often times those are much more important than simply being smart.
 
am i the only one who thinks this game sucks?
No, you're not. I don't understand who buys that game. tap, tap, tap to a beat? It's not like it's Rolando or Red Conquest or something like that.

Then again a fart app was tops at some point during the year so shows how much my opinion matters.

More power to 'em. At least it's 20 people with jobs.
 
I do agree with you to an extent, I think large developers are hit from the 30% compared to a small dev who might not have the marketing presence but gets into the top 10 and starts to get the exposure they might not have received before. For them I think the 30% is more than worth it and a great way to get their app out in front of millions that they couldn't do before.

I totally agree with you that it's a good deal for small developers.

Heck, when I was selling personal computer apps back in the 1980s, developers only got 15-30%. Of course, there was physical media involved and actual mailing :)

I would beg to differ. If your an excessively smart person in your field, then success is not pure chance.

True, but success is not guaranteed in that case either. You still have to sell your skills or products.
 
I'm surprised about the comments people make about the 30/70 split between Apple and developers. It's almost like no one on this board remembers (knows) what it's like (or used to be like) to get your software on a retail store shelf.

When I was the buyer for a small, independently owned retail computer store back in the mid to late nineties, all of our software and supplies were purchased from a distributor like Ingram/Micro D. The distributors supplied a catalog of products they distributed and you would pick and chose the products you wanted to stock. If one distributor didn't have a product you wanted, you shopped another distributor. If the product was available from multiple distributors, you contact the buyer and negotiate the best deal you could get. Margins on software was typically between 25 and 50%. The larger your store, the more buying power you had, the better your margins. Our store typically dealt with 2-3 primary distributors for all the product we had to sell. We dealt with the hardware companies like Apple and IBM directly. Occasionally, we were prohibited from buying certain software applications because of requirements by the vender (a grey market for these products developed because of this).

If a small startup company, say Quark, wanted to sell their new desktop publishing application to us (we had our store in Boulder), the president or vice president would come by after jumping through a few of our hoops, to give us a demo, tell us about their promotions, give us demo copies, offer to train our sales reps, negotiate margins, offer exclusivity deals, and set up buying terms (we order the product, get net 60 and get to return unsold product after so many months). More often than not, we told them we were interested but only if they could negotiate a deal with one of our distributors because, our buying power, terms, bills we had to pay, all made it easier to deal with just a few distributors rather directly with the companies themselves. Fundamentally, getting your product on a store shelf hasn't changed much since those days. It is still basically the same where I used to work at Microcenter but the number of brick and mortar/Mom & Pop stores isn't what it used to be in the 80's and 90's. In fact, it's probably even more competitive now than it every used to be.

The bottom line, not even considering all the hoops a developer has to jump through for this, they are going to give up upwards of 60% of the retail cost of the product just to get it into a distributor. They'll have to have financing to do that, manufacturing and customer returns to deal with as well. There is a lot more infrastructure costs by far than those dealing with a 30/70 split with Apple. I'm just surprised no one else though about it sooner.
 
I'm surprised about the comments people make about the 30/70 split between Apple and developers. It's almost like no one on this board remembers (knows) what it's like (or used to be like) to get your software on a retail store shelf.

I remember it, but the internet fixed that and allowed the producers to go directly to consumers. So what you're saying is that Apple is taking us a few steps backwards?
 
Sure, just get $2.8 million in seed money like they did, hire 20 people, and start writing highly desirable games.

(They were especially smart to have song sales within their apps.)

This. This is nothing new to game development on any platform. This is not a special "ooh ooh iPhones success story unique to the history of making money in apps!". Nothing to see, move along. Also to anyone who understand the history of gaming revenue, this $1million/month is not going to last for very long.
 
I remember it, but the internet fixed that and allowed the producers to go directly to consumers. So what you're saying is that Apple is taking us a few steps backwards?

Exactly.. Problem with Apple's 30% tax isn't the tax in and of itself.. but the fact you cannot avoid it, if you want to legitimately sell apps for iPhone. Apple basically forcefully inserted itself as an unavoidable middle man between the developer and a consumer.

It would have been a different story if iPhone supported other 3rd-party "app stores", that could complete with Apple's.. or simple side-loading of apps (like Android does). But right now.. don't want to pay 30% Apple fee and would rather market/sell apps yourself? Tough luck, you can't.

I hope FTC steps in here at some point and set some rules against this type of behavior.. which is fundamentally anti competitive and not good for anyone in the long run.
 
OMG, back when the iPhone v.1 was only available in the USA and I was speaking regularly to the people writting apps via the hacked code-base (long before Apple decided to put out their own developer kit), I'm pretty sure Nate wrote the original version of that called "Tap Tap Revolution".

I seem to recall someone bought the rights to it off him, probably the guy that is now Tapulous. I bet Nate thought he did well out of that at the time, but if he's doesn't get any royalties from it now, I bet he's pi**ed!!
 
Wow, if the 20 employees get 70%, they get about 30-40k per month, so each year they could about 300-500k each ... Rich...
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.