[phillmv]

I want to say something about sharecropping, but I have a hard time thinking of the appropriate analogy.

It's making me think about the service model as being a superior revenue stream, for-better-or-for-worse. From a user's perspective, the MAS already acts as a service; the subsidy is just being paid for at the developer's end of the scale.

I love the iTunes/MA stores as a marketing and distribution channel, but I hate how heavy handedly Apple behaves with enforcing business models. I think there's an argument to be made that we can avoid the Android marketplace crapware without forcing everyone to become serfs.

[benihana]

>without forcing everyone to become serfs.

Calling people who willingly cede less than a third of their profits for access to the giant infrastructure and advertising Apple has at their disposal is a bit of hyperbole. It's a mutually beneficial arrangement for both parties, which both parties are free to sever at any time. Doesn't seem like serfdom to me.

[fpgeek]

But it is effectively equivalent to sharecropping (with a somewhat lower percentage, I suppose), which some people reasonably consider a form of serfdom. Developers are willingly ceding 30% of their profits for the benefits of using Apple's infrastructure the same way sharecroppers willingly ceded a portion of their crop (typically 50%, but higher in more exploitative relationships according to Wikipedia) in return for the right to use an owner's land.

In both cases, landlord is more powerful than the sharecropper and can set "take-it-or-leave-it" terms (which, if you consider game theory, suggests that the landlord will capture most of the profits of the relationship - limited only by a sharecropper's alternative ways of making a living and their willingness to make decisions that are economically irrational in the short term in order to improve their situation in the long term).

I could even go on to talk about sharecroppers buying seed, fertilizer from the landlord and compare that to developers buying laptops, paying for developer programs and so on, but this analogy has probably been pushed far enough as it is.

[phillmv]

Well… I don't know if "willingly" is the right word.

I can very easily imagine a near future where it's not rational for small vendors to opt out of it. You're not wrong; it's just… more complicated than I am capable of articulating at present.

IMO, there are just very real reasons to be weary of the shifting power dynamics in the consumer software space.

[kennywinker]

Obvious hyperbole is obvious. IMO, the analogy stands. I'm not the only one who thinks so http://www.codinghorror.com/blog/2011/10/serving-at-the-plea...

[tptacek]

Wil Shipley makes a living selling a popular Mac application both on and off the Mac App Store.

Jeff Atwood has from what I can tell never shipped shrink-wrap software as an ISV on any platform (I don't mean that derisively).

[kennywinker]

I don't see them disagreeing. They're both saying "here are some issues I see with the Apple/Developer relationship".

[tptacek]

Non sequitor. The comment thread you're on argues that developers on Apple's Mac platform are sharecroppers. Atwood may well think that (it's not totally clear to me), but Shipley clearly does not: he is making more money after adopting the App Store than he was before it, and is content with the control/promotion tradeoff. He says so explicitly in the article we're commenting on.

[statictype]

Maybe the use of the word sharecropper has changed recently with respect to Apple, but as far as I know, it doesn't have anything to do with whether or not you're successful and content with the Land Owner's restrictions. It's meant to signify that you don't have full control over the ecosystem you're living in and that you owe part of the profits you reap from your hard work to the land owner.

In that sense, App Store developers are very much sharecroppers whether they enjoy and accept it or not.