[slhck]

"These apps do not offer in-app purchase — and, consequently, have not contributed any revenue to the App Store over the last eight years."

This is pretty grotesque coming from a trillion-dollar company that anyway already charges developers a yearly fee.

[hombre_fatal]

What really rubs me the wrong way about that is that great products like Basecamp are what give app stores their legitimacy.

Without that top 10% layer of professional, honest apps from trustworthy companies, the app store is just a sea of scams, shams, and clones. Like barcode readers and tutorialware games with a $7.99/week subscription that only exists in the hopes that someone gets confused and clicks it.

[officemonkey]

"We didn't get our cut" should only apply if they add value.

What value does the App Store provide Hey?

[threeseed]

I take it you have never run a startup.

Otherwise you would realise that having an effective and profitable channel to market is one of the most difficult things to achieve.

Apple gives you one on a silver platter and for a pretty fair cost per acquisition compared to other channels.

[horsawlarway]

I have no problem with Apple offering the services they do in their app store for developers who'd like to use it.

The issue is that it's not really an honest choice - This company has decided that they'd rather not use it, and they have effectively lost access to the platform entirely.

Basically - What you're saying is that Apple should have the legal monopoly over building channels to market for iOS (because they prohibit any other form of distribution). I don't believe that should be true. I'd actually say that's exactly what put Microsoft into a world of pain for IE, and they were actually much more open about it - a user was free to install a different browser on Windows, a user is not free to install a different app store on iOS.

[libertine]

>Apple gives you one on a silver platter and for a pretty fair cost per acquisition compared to other channels.

For the Apple system, isn't that the only available channel to sell and distribute apps? It's not like there are other alternatives, or am I missing something?

[threeseed]

Facebook, Google, Twitter etc all offer advertising products targeted at app installs.

So if you imagine a fictitious world where anyone could just install apps off the web then you would need to buy ads through the main 3 players above to get any visibility. Just like how it works today for SaaS or eCommerce products.

And given that we know roughly how much CPC and volume is for certain keywords e.g email app then it's easy to get a picture of whether Apple is being unreasonable or not.

[oauea]

What on earth are you talking about? I'd just host the .ipa on my website and tell my existing users to install it. Easy and done.

Instead in this insane reality I have to pay Apple $100 every year for the privilege of distributing an app to my already existing user base.

[threeseed]

I am talking about the cost of acquiring customers.

It's great that you have these existing users but almost all developers don't. And so when people say that 30% is expensive often it's because the are ignorant of how much it costs most businesses to acquire customers.

And I have to pay to develop apps for most platforms so pretty confused why you feel like this is somehow unusual.

[libertine]

Assuming you only rely on paid media, yes, you'd need to pay for visibility (arguably through one or more of the 3 main players you've mentioned), or invest in other forms of earned and owned media.

But paid media is a small fraction of the marketing mix when it comes to sell and distribute a product - doesn't matter if it's software or a physical product.

Being unreasonable or not should be up to anyone of evaluates the distribution/sale/communication channel. But I'd limit this fee to be for the "access" to the only distribution channel - because you don't have a guarantee of clicks/impressions/downloads or any media KPI for that fee.

The CPC of a paid keyword is a subset of many subsets of media alone.

[donnellycc]

A distribution platform that reaches millions of users.

[oauea]

They already charge an absurd amount for the privilege. $100/year just to have access to the store. Google only charges $25 once. So Apple is already infinitely more expensive with their reoccurring cost.

[corobo]

Access to 20 billion unjailbroken iPhones

[Hamuko]

Apparently AT&T Mobility gives access to 144 million subscribers. I think this is an incredible value proposition that AT&T is offering to Netflix, HBO and the likes.

For reasons unknown, Netflix apparently hates this incredible offer.

https://www.attpublicpolicy.com/broadband/who-should-pay-for...

[gokhan]

A competing app store, if allowed, would do equally well

[horsawlarway]

Yes, list more abuse as a reason to justify this particular abuse.

[corobo]

I try to interpret peoples' statements in the best possible light, you appear to do the opposite. I've justified nothing.

[kjakm]

Take away those apps and those iPhone's become useless bricks. Apps + developers add huge value to the platform.

[threeseed]

I think you are vastly overstating the importance of apps.

Apple could easily remove the App Store tomorrow, sign deals with a dozen or so companies e.g. Facebook, Netflix, Twitter, Snap, Google, Microsoft etc and they would still sell devices.

[mirchibajji]

Isn't this part of the problem though? Apple _could_ remove the app store, and consumers would lose the apps that have existed so far, with no alternative.

[kjakm]

I think if you think back to 2007/8 and people had the choice of Android with millions of apps and a higher priced iOS ecosystem which only has some high profile apps so few people would choose iOS that it would quickly become a waste of money for FB/Twitter/MS to build their apps for it and it would die.

[majewsky]

In 2007/8 people were buying iPhones despite them not having an app store at all.

[kristianc]

The parent complains that apps on phones are mostly useless Barcode Scanners and scam QR readers.

Apple could easily do away with third party apps and sign licensing deals with third parties, and they’d still be massively popular. Most people download the same apps, and then there is an enormous long tail with barely any downloads at all.

[richardwhiuk]

Distribution. Access to iOS devices.

[myguysi]

Access to a market that they solely own, the definition of antitrust.

[threeseed]

Except that you have artificially defined the market to be "applications on an iOS device" instead of "mobile applications".

By that definition Microsoft has a monopoly over XBox games, Tesla has a monopoly over their car apps, Sony has a monopoly over their DSLR apps etc, Salesforce has a monopoly over their marketplace apps etc.

Any antitrust action based on your definition would actually set a precedent that would unravel every single marketplace product. Hence pretty unrealistic.

[horsawlarway]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Microsoft_Cor....

Literally this exact issue - MS was locking Windows to IE as a browser.

[Redoubts]

Windows had 90% market share then.

[richardwhiuk]

If it didn't provide any value, Hey wouldn't be so concerned with losing it.

[horsawlarway]

Distribution is explicitly locked to the app store. That's not an honest argument.

[empath75]

If I were basecamp I’d be tempted to pull my apps over that passive aggressive bullshit.

[garyrichardson]

I was thinking the cheeky thing to do is charge $100,000 for the in app version. It’s technically there but even if someone clicked it almost no cc would allow the charge through.

[projektfu]

If apple’s store provides value they should be able to capture some at a higher price point. Charge $149 for it on the store, $99 on Android and web subscriptions. Get some of that sweet “apple tax”

[majewsky]

AFAIK it's also against App Store policies to charge different prices in the app and outside.

[projektfu]

If that's the case I don't see where it's clearly stated, unless they consider that to be a "rip off".

https://developer.apple.com/app-store/review/guidelines/#bus...

[Hamuko]

Doubt that Apple would let that pass. I Am Rich got pulled from the App Store because of its egregious pricing.