[barryfandango]

When I think of all the articles that have passed through the HN front page about mobile developers' terrible experience with the app store, I can't imagine why a desktop software developer would voluntarily subject themselves to it.

Sure, iDevice developers have no choice. But for desktop software there's this handy thing called the Internet. Why kick up revenue to apple, subject myself to submission rules and arbitrary rejection, absurd technical limitations and switcheroos like the one described in this article, and all the rest?

[Steko]

"When I think of all the articles that have passed through the HN front page about mobile developers' terrible experience with the app store"

Right, there are no success stories.

"Why kick up revenue to apple"

People keep saying this like Apple doesn't deliver buying customers and revenue. The app store making a profit on sales is exactly how every other store in the world works. Why does Apple 'kick up revenue' to Amazon when they could just sell all their iPads online through Apple.com? The answer is because lots of people shop at Amazon and Apple will sell way more iPads with Amazon then without them.

[barryfandango]

If the app store can truly compete with an open marketplace, why won't apple let me install arbitrary software on my iDevice?

[Steko]

It's common courtesy to announce when one's surrendering an argument and starting a new one.

"If the app store can truly compete with an open marketplace"

As it turns out there is an open market for iOS apps and an open alternative to iOS and Apple's walled garden is competitive with both.

"why won't apple let me install arbitrary software on my iDevice?"

Aren't the reasons obvious? Simplicity, profit, security?

You might as well be asking why your Macy's card doesn't work at Sears or why you can't make a copy of your building key at Sears or why.. hey just what does Sears have against freedom anyway?

[barryfandango]

Since you've asked, Steko, I'll continue as if you're actually interested in exploring this topic with me. I promise I was trying to contribute to my argument and not change the subject. Please calm your fury.

First, what is this open market for iOS apps you mentioned? I haven't heard of it.

Of course Apple locks down the app store on their iDevices for profit. I think we're in agreement on that. If they didn't limit software delivery in that way, their app store would have to compete with other software delivery channels including the open web.

What I'm trying to express is my surprise that developers in the desktop world would opt in to a market like this. I had assumed that iDevice developers only used the app store because they had no choice.

[Steko]

"Of course Apple locks down the app store on their iDevices for profit."

I doubt that Apple is solely concerned with profit and even if they were I guess I don't see that as the end of the world.

If Apple is solely concerned with profiting from apps why do they subsidize free ones and credit card fees? {If dev share is actually calculated post cc fees I'll plead ignorance and move on to the other part of the argument.}

99 cent app less 69 cents to developer less 40-70 cents to credit card company less bandwidth fees = loss.

(I've given a range on cc fees because they are shared if you purchase multiple apps within a few days, that mitigates the loss but ultimately someone motivated only by profit would be taking easily avoided losses all over the place in either scenario.)

Isn't it well known that Apple's direct profit on the App Store is a rounding error compared to their other business?

Isn't it then more likely then that their motivation is not primarily to directly profit from it?

While I do think Apple is interested in profit here, I very deliberately listed it as secondary to simplicity which is really at the heart of everything Apple does well. There's a book coming out soon about just this:

http://kensegall.com/blog/2012/02/and-now-a-different-kind-o...

The premise I'm building on is that Apple really profits by making great products that just work and make people happy. Having a super simple way to get apps is part of that.

For 98%+ of users 1 app store >> 2 app stores >> 10 app stores. One App Store just works. It also stops most malware without any action by the user. That's simplicity again.

"What I'm trying to express is my surprise that developers in the desktop world would opt in to a market like this"

I guess again I'll fall back on my Sears comparison. I don't know if Sears still sells software but they did for decades -- Wal-Mart still does for sure though and there's no way Wal-Mart is any more dev friendly then Apple. Way harder to get your product on the shelves at, harder to keep your product there, takes at least as large a cut, etc.

What Wal-Mart does have is tens of millions of customers though. Apple too. So of course devs are going to opt into those markets.

[barryfandango]

Very true. I didn't try to imply in any previous post that being motivated by profit is a bad thing. The app store definitely provides the ultra-simple software ecosystem you mentioned, and I agree that's awesome for most users. It also happens to guarantee that apple will be in the pipeline for all sales, so it's really win-win.

Despite my surprise that anybody would use it, there are over a thousand apps on the mac app store, so apple must be adding value by getting the product in front of eyeballs and streamlining the payment process. Still, I don't think they'll be able to get away with the draconian rule that they enjoy in the iDevice world. After all, if they make the experience too unpleasant, developers can still sell software through a competing app store, their website, or by mailing you a CD-ROM if all else fails. I think this is a good thing - the "escape hatch" means they'll actually have to put effort into pleasing the vendors who use their channel.

You'll never see a "why we decided to abandon the iPhone app store" - the only choice in that world is to abandon the platform altogether.