Hacker News Reader

Comment by guelo | Hacker News Reader

Weak. The evidence provided by this article that Apple is wooing developers is :

- Shorter review times. This is a genuine improvement. Can be seen here http://appreviewtimes.com/ios/annual-trend-graph

- App store ads. If you have an app marketing budget this does nothing besides shift who you spend it with. We'll see if the roi is better but you'll be competing with some heavy spenders for the limited inventory.

- The new subscriptions pay model with the 15% cut after one year. In my opinion Apple doesn't deserve any cut of the recurring money since they don't have to do anything to earn it.

- Some new marketing documentation.

woop dee do

View on HN

> In my opinion Apple doesn't deserve any cut of the recurring money since they have to do nothing to earn it.

Aside from host the infrastructure that delivers the apps. Are they doing this to make money? Of course. But saying they haven't earned it is flat out wrong.

They haven't earned 15-30% by any stretch.

> Aside from host the infrastructure that delivers the apps

Under that logic they should charge for upgrades. But subscriptions is not really related to upgrades. Subscription implies that your app is tied to your own backend service that you keep up and running without Apple's help.

This is debatable. Recent changes and interviews with Shiller seem to imply that _any_ application can use the subscription model, even if it is only to pay for updates.

>> "Subscription implies that your app is tied to your own backend service that you keep up and running without Apple's help."

You could be using iCloud as your backend. You're definitely using their subscription billing infrastructure. You're getting access to their users credit cards without having to ask for them.

Indeed. Here is a list I made a while back of things they do for their cut.

* Maintains a user database including authentication, plus all the support costs (password support is very high)

* Payment handling (no one does it for free) including keeping up with tax authorities and legal systems in much of the world

* Almost unlimited (re)downloads for users to a reasonable number of devices. Bandwidth is cheap but not free.

* Backup and restore for application data. (That functionality is available to apps without extra fees.)

* A curated walled garden including a review process. Apple keeping the dregs out and avoiding the place turning into a cesspool means users can be more confident about the apps and that halo effect helps all apps in the store.

* Mechanisms to extend your app such as IAP, and an advertising solution etc

* Access to a large user base, with reasonably fair rules that everyone has play by

* They make all the above work together

It is certainly worth more than zero percent!

You didn't even mention the fact that they keep the OS and platform updated, something critical to the longer term viability and success of apps you'd want to use a subscription model on.

i don't think thats supported by the appstore though. its covered by the money paid to buy the owner of the ios device.

After a user pays 99 cents Apple will provide all that for free indefinitely. Subscriptions has nothing to do with Apple. A fair fee for just credit card processing is 1-4% max.

None of that applies to subscriptions.

> A curated walled garden including a review process. Apple keeping the dregs out and avoiding the place turning into a cesspool means users can be more confident about the apps and that halo effect helps all apps in the store.

I switched from Android to iOS and I just don't see this at all. Yes I'm more confident installing from the app store because of the security model, but android is getting that too. I'm no more confident that an app or particularly game will be good or worth downloading or buying though, and I don't perceive apps to be high quality in general.

Having deployed apps to the app store, and on one occasion a bug was caught, that saved it from going out to the users. It's far from perfect, but it does have an effect. I think due to the mass amount of apps & users, shit is inevitable :(

Note that I am talking about a comparison with no app store at all, not comparing Google to Apple. f there wasn't an app store at all - you just downloaded apps from random web sites instead like for much Windows software. Now have a random person go download VLC for Windows, or for that matter something like Java. Between hijacked installers, "download" sites, toolbars, dark patterns in the installers and who knows what else, the experience is very negative and would make users far less likely to install stuff. The app store helps alleviate those issues and increase user confidence in apps, which in turn helps those offering apps at the app store.

Absolutely valid point and comparison, thanks for clarifying and I definitely agree.

I don't see it as any different from a shopping mall that takes a cut of a retailer's sales/profit as rent.

No, the analogy here is the mall taking a cut from someone that buys from a catalog taken from the mall.

The new subscriptions pay model with the 15% cut after one year. In my opinion Apple doesn't deserve any cut of the recurring money since they don't have to do anything to earn it.

Maybe it isn't a benefit to developers, in which case we'll find out, because no one will be using it. Is that really what you expect will happen, though?

It's ridiculous to argue that it's a bad deal or somehow unfair because Apple doesn't incur costs in proportion to the cut they are taking. Welcome to the free market where prices are set according to what customers are willing to pay, and not according to how much it costs to provide the particular service.

> Apple doesn't deserve any cut of the recurring money since they don't have to do anything to earn it.

You mean aside from providing you access to a potential user base of millions of people?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com