Tips for Mac App Store Devs: No Trials or Betas, File System and Custom Control Usage

[guzhogi]

The app store can be a very good thing. One central spot to get most/all of your software. For most people, this would be good. However, there will be a few apps out there that Apple won't allow in that are necessary for some people. An example would be testing software for schools. My school district uses this one program, TestTaker from NWEA, that needs to be installed on each computer plus a server to store centralized data. I doubt Apple will allow something like this.

While Apple said they will allow people to download apps from websites/CDs in Lion, I wonder how long after Lion Apple will support that. Come Mac OS X 10.8, 11, or whatever they call the next version, what will they do then?

I also like the built in update system. What would make it better is combine it with the Installer and Software update, allow plugins for other stores and add a software removal tool, all in one app. Anything that has to deal with installing, updating or removing software in the same app. This will help people find software easier, plus allow for software Apple might not allow in its store. Kinda like a mall or something.

Something else I'd like to see in the Mac App Store would be a way to filter all the apps by system requirements. You could see only those apps where you meet the minimum requirements or suggested requirements.

 

[hinchesk]

Well put

Interesting complaints about this. As a developer and someone who's been in product management, marketing and sales of software for 23 years, I don't see any problem with what Apple is proposing. 30% is a very fair margin. For the right applications, they will do very well there. The store is a marketing and sales dream... where else can you get at 100% of the user base for 30% margin?

Consumers go for connivence and trust when they go to purchase. Apple provides both. If the software requires tons of review before a purchase, then it wont' do well there, but if it's an impulse buy software like a game or utility, or a well known software that does not need selling, I think it will do very well and the model is great.

It just amazes me that is seems that with every move Apple makes, there about 30% of the viewers here that feel the need to call disaster and make a big negative stink when to be quite honest... you've been wrong every time. Even though Apple is not perfect (no company is) they tend to be more right than wrong and more hot products than most others in the market today.

The 30% of people you mention are the same ones that 'call disaster' for every new thing that comes along... not just from Apple. That's just they way they approach things for whatever reason... not enough hugs as kids or they don't feel smart, etc.

There's no doubt Apple has a good idea here. Average users don't want to know how to find/compare/install/update/uninstall software, don't want beta/trial software, but they do know iTunes and the App Store. They want someone to make it as easy as possible for them... Apple did it with iPod/iTunes and they keep on doing it... all the way to the bank.

 

[Žalgiris]

There's no doubt Apple has a good idea here. Average users don't want to know how to find/compare/install/update/uninstall software, don't want beta/trial software, but they do know iTunes and the App Store. They want someone to make it as easy as possible for them... Apple did it with iPod/iTunes and they keep on doing it... all the way to the bank.

Not just everage people. Only geeks like to play with things, so they can continue to play, but all the everage and pro users (as in artists and so on) can save some time.

 

[guzhogi]

For the people who are crying foul over the 30% cut Apple takes & wonders why developers would do that, think of it this way:

Developers who distribute their software themselves would have either pay for web hosting services, or have their own website. And if they have their own website, they'll need to pay for:
-server(s)
-electricity for the server(s)
-internet connection
-domain name registration
-etc.

The amount they have to pay will vary from person to person, but would probably come close to the 30% Apple charges. Even if it doesn't, the ease of using Apple plus the traffic Apple will likely get will probably make up for it.

 

[Cougarcat]

Until Apple includes paid upgrade functionality, the App store will be a no-go for me besides iWork, which doesn't have upgrades anyway.

It's bad enough in the iOS store, but it'll be even worse when the average Mac app is $15-20.

For the people who are crying foul over the 30% cut Apple takes & wonders why developers would do that, think of it this way:

Developers who distribute their software themselves would have either pay for web hosting services, or have their own website. And if they have their own website, they'll need to pay for:
-server(s)
-electricity for the server(s)
-internet connection
-domain name registration
-etc.

The amount they have to pay will vary from person to person, but would probably come close to the 30% Apple charges. Even if it doesn't, the ease of using Apple plus the traffic Apple will likely get will probably make up for it.

Since Apple is not allowing for trials, Developers will need to have their own sites anyway. Many do today for iOS apps. The only thing it saves developers is transaction costs. I think the App Store will be a nice additional way to make software visible, but for most it won't replace what they already have.

However, there will be a few apps out there that Apple won't allow in that are necessary for some people. An example would be testing software for schools. My school district uses this one program, TestTaker from NWEA, that needs to be installed on each computer plus a server to store centralized data. I doubt Apple will allow something like this.

There are similar Enterprise features for iOS today. The App Store may make it easier to deploy an app on a network.

 

[jc1350]

Please explain. I never saw anything like what you're describing.

https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/IOS_(Apple)

third line in the "history" section. When the iphone first came out, Apple didn't allow for native apps because they could "cause instability" and instead Apple provided APIs for web-based applications only.

Believe it or not, the reason I don't buy a lot of software that intrigues me is simply because I can't try it out. So here we agree.

'Nuff said.

Up to a point, I could agree with you here, too. I don't use Garage Band or iWeb, but I do use iPhoto, iMovie and iDVD. If the cost of these three applets is more expensive than the entire iLife package, why not go ahead and buy the package? Garage band can still be used to create the soundtracks for the slideshows and movies made by the other apps and iWeb does make creating personal web pages easier for individuals--though maybe not so well if you're creating a small business site.

If I'm only going to use iPhoto out of the new version and the other apps I use haven't been included or updated, why spend $49 for $15 worth of product? This is for personal use, so I don't need Dreamweaver level web site creation/editing. iweb is just fine for my needs.

The point here has been answered many times. By letting Apple handle the financial transactions, the developer can concentrate on his product rather than worrying about who's trying to rip him off. He can offer the trial and demo on his site, then link to the App Store for the sale itself.

If that's how they do it (link to Apple), then fine. But if the app has a "buy it now" built-in, that's the route I'll take.

I'm not hating the App Store; I only question the POSSIBLE run-around of getting a trail version vs. full version. If it's seamless, then fine.

 

[BertyBoy]

Trial software is useful and can be a draw to potential customers. I'd rather try and THEN pay for software rather than paying and finding out it doesn't meet my needs.

I can see your point, but the iPhone and iPod Touch software available through iTunes is mostly tat. How does anyone find the useful stuff through all that utter rubbish ?
I find it very hard to buy apps that might prove useful because all i can find is awful.

 

[ciaran00]

I think you guys continually miss the point. Leaps can't be made all at once. Trial software needs additional infrastructure and changes. Apple's trying to do this step by step, and the only OS maker who's close to even doing it. They're not going to feature everything in their first iteration. Improvements from Apple always come in tiny slices.

They also set realistic expectations, which is why they get it done at all.

A Mac App Store would go a long way in simplifying OSX apps.

And Trialware sucks, sorry.

 

[poseidon84]

What is the deal with trials? Isn't a trial just a basic version of the program with a lot of stuff removed?

So if I make a game I can today make a trial with 3 levels and then the full game with 10 levels.

With the mac-appstore it will be different? As I read it the change is that I can't add both to the store. But can't I just make a game with 3 levels and then in-app purchase the rest of the levels?

 

[firewood]

I can see your point, but the iPhone and iPod Touch software available through iTunes is mostly tat. How does anyone find the useful stuff through all that utter rubbish ?
I find it very hard to buy apps that might prove useful because all i can find is awful.

How is that different from Mac software now? I did a Google search for "Mac photo software" and got 90 million hits, many leading to rubbish sites.

 

[Cougarcat]

But can't I just make a game with 3 levels and then in-app purchase the rest of the levels?

As far as I'm aware Apple hasn't revealed plans for Mac in-app purchases yet.

 

[MattInOz]

First, people complained about iPod when Apple first announced it, then later it became successful.

Second, people complained about iPhone when Apple first announced it, then later it became successful.

Third, people complained about App store when Apple first announced it, then later it became wildly successful.

Second, people complained about iPad when Apple first announced it, then later it became successful.

Fourth, people already complained about yet-released of Mac App store then it WILL become successful.

Replace the word people with nerds and your spot on.
Nerds just don't get people which is why they are so awkward at parties.

This is why the geeks will inherit the earth.

 

[BaldiMac]

https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/IOS_(Apple)

third line in the "history" section. When the iphone first came out, Apple didn't allow for native apps because they could "cause instability" and instead Apple provided APIs for web-based applications only.

Where is the evidence that the App Store was the result of Apple caving to customer complaints? Do you honestly believe that third-party apps were not in the roadmap?

 

[hayesk]

https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/IOS_(Apple)

third line in the "history" section. When the iphone first came out, Apple didn't allow for native apps because they could "cause instability" and instead Apple provided APIs for web-based applications only.

Do you honestly think Apple could put together the entire SDK, complete with full documentation in a few months? Do you not think Apple was working on the SDK before the iPhone was released?

The web-apps was a stall tactic until the SDK and developer portal was ready, and while Apple worked on the licensing, terms, and conditions that developers must follow. There's no way they could have done that in that amount of time as a result of complaints.

 

[trainwrecka]

Trial software makes zero sense when you consider the 99 cents most iPhone apps cost. If you get an app and it isn't good, big deal. It was only a buck, right?

The iPad apps jumping in price to $4.99-9.99 makes the impulse buy a lot harder.

Mac apps being $20-50 (or more!) makes trial software a pretty good idea.

Sure the "free" or "lite" versions of apps are OK on the iPhone (though still annoying), who wants their desktop cluttered with multiple versions of the same app?

 

[MattInOz]

The app store can be a very good thing. One central spot to get most/all of your software. For most people, this would be good. However, there will be a few apps out there that Apple won't allow in that are necessary for some people. An example would be testing software for schools. My school district uses this one program, TestTaker from NWEA, that needs to be installed on each computer plus a server to store centralized data. I doubt Apple will allow something like this.

Apple fights battles not wars.

First battle on the mac front is the consummer targeted store running on SL.
Lion server may well bring tools to target site licensing and deployment for all the app stores. Not that we've been told anything.

Apple knows that their devices are getting popular in larger organization. Who can now deploy their own software on iOs using the store plus their own or licensed software using server software which ties in the software update. If the MacAppStore bring some of these things together then it would seem like a the next server version needs to do it's job in the chain.

 

[MattInOz]

Didn't you hear? The existence of the Mac store means that it will soon be the only way to install software on the Mac!

'Cause I've heard that.

A lot.

Then you've been listening to the wrong people.
Yes those people are loud but that doesn't make them right.

A locked down Mac couldn't be a certified Unix.
In the post pc era of mac's being trucks which is more important?

Edit then I saw this post as well.

I love how Mac App Store stories bring out the angriest fringe of the Mac community. Conspiracy-theory postings have never been higher! Fun stuff.

 

[hayesk]

I would hedge a bet and say that most Mac software ( read: shareware etc ) is sold over internet so developers keep more than they would via retail sales.

Some developers can't get into retail at all.
It's also very expensive to sell in retail. More than the 30% Apple takes - this is not a large amount.

MacAppStore will only contain a limited section of software ( due to the restrictions ) so software such as PathFinder will never be sold there. VMWare, Office will never be found on the MacAppStore either...

PathFinder may or may not be, but I can guarantee you this - most Mac users have never heard of PathFinder. If they put it on the store, a lot more Mac users will find out about it.

 

[Cougarcat]

PathFinder may or may not be, but I can guarantee you this - most Mac users have never heard of PathFinder. If they put it on the store, a lot more Mac users will find out about it.

Too bad that they won't, because it breaks most of Apple's restrictions.

 

[jc1350]

Where is the evidence that the App Store was the result of Apple caving to customer complaints? Do you honestly believe that third-party apps were not in the roadmap?

It was almost 4 years ago, so that's how I remember it (I could remember wrong). Jobs and company said basically no native apps because they will make the platform unstable and we can't control security, so it's a closed platform with web-apps only. At the time there was no mention of "web-apps only for now."

Whether or not Apple planned all along to have an SDK and native apps, the message was simply "no" in the beginning.

 

[batchtaster]

What is the deal with trials? Isn't a trial just a basic version of the program with a lot of stuff removed?

Trials expire = bad experience for consumer. Apple doesn't want to have to be the one to tell the consumer "sorry, that app doesn't work any more cos your trial period is up.... no, you can't reset it... blah, blah, blah....." The annoyances of trialware are being handed back to the developer. I'd do the same thing. Apple obviously doesn't want to get tangled up in the support involved in providing trials.

if the developer doesn't like Apple taking 30%, they have 3 choices.
a) suck it up
b) go somewhere else
c) up the price to compensate

As with the iOS App Store, the prices are chosen by the developer. Free apps? Apple takes $0 * 0.30 = $0. Same as iOS App Store.

BTW, Microsoft is developing their own App Store for Windows, based on their (acquired) App-V technology. App-V is designed to try and overcome problems and limitations in Windows that just don't exist in Mac OS X; Mac OS X has self-contained bundles, separate plists, and user/local/system domains. App-V attempts to superimpose self-containment and non-interference onto apps that don't know anything about it. You people don't know restrictions until you've dealt with App-V. You think Apple's conditions are unreasonable? Go look up an App-V sequencing website some day.

 

[batchtaster]

It was almost 4 years ago, so that's how I remember it (I could remember wrong).

https://www.macrumors.com/2007/05/30/iphone-may-allow-3rd-party-applications/

 

[tatonka]

Chances are in the long run developers will discontinue the option to purchase on their website to cut costs and headaches with credit cards and advertising. They may only allow you to download the demo from them but then forward you to the Mac App store to purchase the full version. Getting 70% of the sale while Apple deals with all sales and advertising is a chance to good to give up. You're not seeing the big picture.

That sounds horrible and goes against the usual make-it-simple approach.
I think the Appstore has a huge potential and I can see it work really well. But I do think apps are going to be more expensive compared to the iOS app store and people will want to try before they buy, I certainly do. Apple has to come up with a better solution than please redirect to your own website for trials.

T.

 

[Stella]

I can see your point, but the iPhone and iPod Touch software available through iTunes is mostly tat. How does anyone find the useful stuff through all that utter rubbish ?
I find it very hard to buy apps that might prove useful because all i can find is awful.

Yup. Apple need to improve their Search functionality. Difficult to fine gems amongst the dirt..

Where is the evidence that the App Store was the result of Apple caving to customer complaints? Do you honestly believe that third-party apps were not in the roadmap?

Yes, the iPhone was work in progress... not feature complete but released to the public when it was 'good enough'. The SDK / iOS was yet to be completed to allow 3rd party apps.

The on-line widgets were a poor excuse for 3rd party apps.. but all the iPhone could cope with at the time. Would have been better if off-line web widgets were allowed.

Some developers can't get into retail at all.
PathFinder may or may not be, but I can guarantee you this - most Mac users have never heard of PathFinder. If they put it on the store, a lot more Mac users will find out about it.

A lot of great apps won't be allowed on the Store because of restrictions.. :-(

BetterTouchTool is another example... which is a must have for the Magic Mouse IMO.

 

[Compile 'em all]

It's too odd, if users have to go to the developers' site for trial, they might just as well download the full version from the developers' end as well. Why bother to let Apple get the 30% cut?

One word: Exposure.