The Subtle Developer Exodus From the Mac App Store

An anonymous reader writes: Milen Dzhumerov, a software developer for OS X and iOS, has posted a concise breakdown of the problems with the Mac App Store. He says the lack of support for trial software and upgrades drives developers away by preventing them from making a living. Forced sandboxing kills many applications before they get started, and the review system isn't helpful to anyone. Dzhumerov says all of these factors, and Apple's unwillingness to address them, are leading to the slow but steady erosion of quality software in the Mac App Store.

"The relationship between consumers and developers is symbiotic, one cannot exist without the other. If the Mac App Store is a hostile environment for developers, we are going to end up in a situation where, either software will not be supported anymore or even worse, won't be made at all. And the result is the same the other way around – if there are no consumers, businesses would go bankrupt and no software will be made. The Mac App Store can be work in ways that's beneficial to both developers and consumers alike, it doesn't have to be one or the other. If the MAS is harmful to either developers or consumers, in the long term, it will be inevitably harmful to both."

Comments

Ob

[Hognoxious]

You're coding it wrong.

Re:Ob

[ShanghaiBill]

You're coding it wrong.

But there are no clear guidelines for coding it "right". Apps are often rejected for unclear reasons, with just a vague and terse comment from the rejecter. I have had apps rejected, then resubmitted them a few days later, with no changes, and had them accepted.

The Apple app store is flooded with lots of similar apps, and they no longer highlight new apps. So it is very hard for a new developer to get started. I know a team of developers that worked for nearly a year to create their app. They put it on the app store for a price point of $4.99. A week later they had sold five copies. The following week, three more. After a month, they had less than $100 in revenue for a year of work. Back in 2010 and 2011, it was easy to make money selling apps. Unless you already have a customer base, those days are gone.

Re:Ob

[Anonymous Coward]

you're whooshing it wrong.

though, now that I understand the guidelines, it appears you are whooshing it just right.

Re:Ob

[NotDrWho]

Apple behaves in mysterious ways. Perhaps you need to look into your heart and ask yourself if you have truly invited Steve into your heart and are truly following his teachings in your software development. If you do this, and then come back and make true penitence to Apple for this blasphemous post, then Steve will welcome you back into the Kingdom.

Re:Ob

[93 Escort Wagon]

You're coding it wrong.

I know you're making a joke (which worked pretty well) - but if he's complaining about forced sandboxing, I think Apple is (sorta) in the right. I can see the argument for allowing some kinds of apps to escape the sandbox, but it should require some hoops be jumped through and it should require specific notification to the user.

Re:Ob

[BasilBrush]

I know a team of developers that worked for nearly a year to create their app. They put it on the app store for a price point of $4.99. A week later they had sold five copies. The following week, three more. After a month, they had less than $100 in revenue for a year of work.

Where was their market research? Where was their marketing? Any traditional non-technology startup that forgets do do these things will fail. If you build it they won't necessarily come. One has to sell the right thing, execute well, price it right, and let people know about it. Why expect to be able to not do these things just because one is on the internet? If they didn't already know of 8 people that would buy it, why did they create that software?

We could watch Ramsey's Kitchen Nightmares and come to the conclusion that it's impossible to make money running restaurants. And indeed it's not easy. Yet there are many successful restaurants as well as many failures. The failure is always in the specifics of a particular restaurant, not the concept of restaurants.

Re:Ob

[Anonymous Coward]

Apps that can't be sandboxed shouldn't be allowed in the store: installation from software not signed and not from the Mac app store triggers a bunch of security hoops, which is exactly what the user should have to see to install software that doesn't exist in a sandbox. Apple's doing the right thing.

There was development before the App Store. People still sell software outside it, and in fact most of my useful software is not in the app store; I only buy little productivity utilities from the store. Office and Photoshop are killer apps that will probably never be in the store, and you don't see them suffering much.

Re:Ob

[kick6]

We could watch Ramsey's Kitchen Nightmares and come to the conclusion that it's impossible to make money running restaurants. And indeed it's not easy. Yet there are many successful restaurants as well as many failures. The failure is always in the specifics of a particular restaurant, not the concept of restaurants.

This analogy would ALMOST work except for there aren't 42 italian restaurants lined up, side by side, doing the same thing, all for $.99 with the only visible difference being olive garden vs olive g4rden. There is so much garbage in the app store, the market research is almost impossible...and if you even DO the research, someone is going to essentially cold-spike your app, and charge less for it 10 seconds after it's released. Try that with a burger king...

Re:Ob

[mlts]

One issue I recall was around 2011, when IAP came along, the fundamental change of apps. Before that, one would buy an app for 99 cents, and it would be playable, people would tell their friends, friends would buy it, and so on.

IAP came along and fundamentally changed the landscape from having a good game that was well engineered from start to finish to games whose sole goal is to get the player stuck so they would throw money at IAP in order to buy extra currency/lives/etc. so they could move on. Games also put deliberate bottlenecks in place where it might take 2-3 weeks to earn enough currency to get some levels, or one could pay $20 and skip that. The fact that the most popular (as in app clones) games changed from tower defense to casino slots also echos this.

People are tired of games that are "free"... but in reality may take $30 to complete. So, user apathy is causing sales to sag in app stores. Candy Crush was the first big game along these lines, but consumers are bored with stuff like that and there won't be another game in that genre which will gross even near that.

Maybe it is time for developers to actually not go for the low and easy road with IAP, but go for something playable that can get a lot of people buying it.

Same problem in the console industry and the PC game industry. DLC used to be for expansions and added levels, not must have content to play the game, or items which make the game not a grueling grind. It is no wonder why game sales are sagging across the board, regardless of platform.

Re:Ob

[BasilBrush]

This analogy would ALMOST work except for there aren't 42 italian restaurants lined up, side by side, doing the same thing, all for $.99 with the only visible difference being olive garden vs olive g4rden.

In London and various other cities there is "China Town" with Many Chinese restaurants. Amongst them is Mr Wu's which is an all you can eat buffet for 5UKP (about US$8).

In Manchester there is curry mile with many Indian restaurants. Again many are very cheap.

It is a completely valid analogy.

Try that with a burger king...

They opened a Burger King near me, behind a petrol (gas) station, where it was't easily seen from the nearby busy road. It was a bad location, so it got virtually no customers. It was open a couple of years then closed - presumably the minimum time before they could get out of the franchise agreement and/or property let. ALL businesses suffer if the owners don't do the market research.

Re:Ob

[tibit]

Lolwut? Most "apps" I use daily at work start at tens of dollars and go up to $50k or so per seat. Some of the lower prices ones are actually quite popular - for example SmartGit/Hg and CadSoft Eagle. A $4.99 application can't be very good unless it's hugely popular, otherwise it won't support the development work needed to make it good. I'd argue that the cheap apps should be in fact in a separate "slum" section of the store where you have to explicitly navigate. It's rather sad, actually, that the Mac App Store doesn't have anything serious in the $50-$500 range. Never mind that the search is so broken that unless I knew the name of the app I looked for, I wouldn't find it anyway.

Forgot the biggest one: Money

[Anonymous Coward]

The author forgot the biggest one: money. I did a lot of iOS development in the early days and earned enough to buy a nice car (not super nice, just a mere mortal nice car). I'm now experiencing the long tail of the cycle. I get about $200-300 a month of sales. I wrote straight sale apps, not in app purchase type apps.

The biggest reason I don't do iOS development anymore (other than here and there) is because it's too damn crowded. I now have to invest in marketing and advertisement. I'd spend 3 months developing a really nice piece of solid software just to get a few downloads. It's not worth it for me. I've moved on.

The author has some gripes, and I have some more, but they are just gripes.When people were making good money on it, those gripes were farts in the wind. Now that most people are making no money, those gripes are still farts in the wind.

Re:Forgot the biggest one: Money

[BarbaraHudson]

This is the same thing that happens at the end of any "Gold Rush" cycle.

Remember the days when you had tons of stores from which you could purchase a computer, almost all owned by mom-and-pop operators? Each sold a few boxes and made a living. Standardization and hugely lower margins killed them. Same thing with the App Store. Everyone cashed in at first since there wasn't much competition. Now? Not just competition from other iThingee devs, but also from Android. Both the App Store and the Android ecosystem are experiencing the bust that follows the boom.

Heck, you know App development is in trouble when Florian Mueller says he's switching from paid shill to developing "an Android and iPhone" project. The bottom feeders have arrived. Or as at the end of Spaceballs, "Oh sh*t, there goes the neighborhood."

Re:Forgot the biggest one: Money

[irrational_design]

You do realize that iOS app store and the Mac app store are two different things, right? This article is about the latter.

Re:Forgot the biggest one: Money

[nine-times]

The biggest reason I don't do iOS development anymore (other than here and there) is because it's too damn crowded.

This brings up an issue that I have with the App Store from a customer/user perspective: it's not easy to find quality apps. Unless your application hits the front page by being on charted as one of their top apps, or by hitting one of their "editor's choice" lists, I'm probably not going to see it. Every once in a while, I actually go browsing through the different categories to see if there are any other nice apps out there, and even then I feel like there must be some hidden gems out there that I'm just not seeing.

I don't know how to fix that, but I think it is a problem. It's hard to browse/discover apps unless you already know which app you're looking for, or if it's one of the small number that Apple chooses to highlight.

Re:Forgot the biggest one: Money

[rjstanford]

You don't have to. Build a website. Do marketing. Sell your product however you want to, and when someone's ready to buy you can provide them with a link that opens the App Store and gives them a "Purchase" button - no need for you to mess with handling payments or fulfillment.

The App Store replaces your shopping cart and shipping desk, not your sales and marketing department.

Enough already

[It doesn't come easy]

How many apps are in the Mac app store? Over a million? Who needs a million apps? They can't all be doing something different.

And who needs yet another free app to mine your personal data and sell it to someone? We already have Google for that.

Seems to me that the market is a bit saturated...

Desktop/Laptop NOT Mobile

[irrational_design]

I'm seeing a lot of comments about iOS, smartphones, Android, etc. This article is about the Mac app store (for OSX, NOT iOS).

Other problems from another perspective

[nine-times]

I think he has some good points here, but as an IT (support) guy, I see other problems with the App Store that are completely unrelated. One of the biggest is the issue of "volume licensing". I don't know if Apple has sorted it all out recently, but last I looked into it, it was a confusing mess of a program with little administrative control. IIRC, at one point Apple was advising businesses to gift employees with applications that would then be bound to the employee AppleID, which is completely stupid, without the ability to withdraw the license and reuse it.

It's also pretty frustrating that you need to put in an Apple ID to install or update any application, even if it's free. For example, if the iWork/iLife apps are pre-installed on the system and there's a new update available, even though Apple detects that the apps are already installed, and Apple knows that the upgrades are free, it still won't install the updates until you sign in with an Apple ID. That might not seem like such a big deal, but when you're administering a few hundred Macs, it means that you either need to make every user create their own AppleID, or you need to provide them access to a company Apple ID which you then lose control over. Failing to come up with a solution means that your users are going to be bugged to update applications that they can't update.

And speaking of updates, AFAIK there's no command-line utility for the App Store application. This means that I can't control the thing with a script at all. Making it more confusing, there *is* a command-line utility to download and install system updates, which are normally installed through the App Store GUI. This means that if you look at a list of updates available for your system presented in the App Store application, you can write a script to install some of them automatically, but other updates need to be updated through the GUI. What I wouldn't give to be able to update everything with apt-get.

Getting back to the article, I'm not sure I completely agree with him. I understand his frustration with sandboxing, but on the other hand, left to their own devices, developers seem to do some really dumb and annoying things. For example, instead of using an installer or developing their app to be drag-and-drop, they develop a custom application that installs their software, making it difficult and frustrating to push out in an automated fashion. Or they code their application to require an installer, dumping their files all over the system, when it really shouldn't be necessary. I wouldn't be opposed to Apple supporting applications that require installers, so long as they (a) allowed customers to get access to the unaltered installer; and (b) kept tabs on what the installer did and rejected developers who used them unnecessarily. Otherwise, I think you'd see too much dumb crap on the App Store.

Re:Other app store

[tlhIngan]

So why not use a different app store then?

Exactly, there are plenty of ways to get software on a Mac.

Mac App Store is one, and it's required if you want to use iCloud (for security reasons - detailed below).

But there's also Valve's Steam (a good way for games), and you can always roll your own web store - it doesn't take much to accept Paypal or if you are a business, to get Amazon Payments or Google Wallet.

A lot of developers that started with iOS migrated to the MAS when they port their IOS apps to OS X - you find a lot iOS games "enhanced" for the Mac. Cross-platform games usually are on Steam, and there are few on both. Steam is nice, though it limits you to one user at a time, while MAS lets you have 5 copies on 5 different PCs at once. Useful if you want a quick multiplayer without having to have 5 copies (especially in a family setting).

Regarding MAS and iCloud, well, you have to hark back to the bad old days of Microsoft office viruses - they'd infect Microsoft office's default template files and then subsequently infect every document since then. Well, you can imagine one using a variety of exploits that infect an entire computer. Use something like iCloud and now the attack's persistent - you reformat the computer, reinstall the app, and boom, you're infected again (thanks cloud!). So Apple made sandboxing a requirement for the MAS, and use that with iCloud mean well, if that happens, damage is limited to within the sandbox. So you're isolating the rest of the computer from the infection target (since the sandbox keeps the infection to a small area) in case a persistent piece of malware tries to remain in that way.

Without sandboxing, a cloud storage account could prove very interesting. I'm actually surprised we're not seeing viruses try to persist using Windows Explorer vulnerabilities and say, DropBox. (Remember the ones involving specially constructed image files? Imaging putting one of those in DropBox, and now when you browse to it, your PC gets infected. And the virus makes sure to keep a compromised image there so even if you wipe and reinstall, you install dropbox and boom, infected again.)

Is there an exodus?

[phantomfive]

In none of the articles could I find evidence of the 'exodus from the app store.'

Maybe the title would be better, "Things that Could Be Improved in the App Store"

Re:Not mysterious. Just lousy.

[tibit]

To address some of your concerns:

You really need to get a hackintosh. Go to tonymacx86 and read up the most recent recommended hardware. When installing, make sure you start with the latest Mavericks, and the early versions required bootloader trickery with integrated Intel graphics. The most recent release doesn't need anything special besides the usual multibeast treatment. I have one and I'm not looking back.

There's simply no hardware I could buy from Apple to give me the same functionality at any realistic price point - especially that I really like to reap benefits of all-in-one testing done during hardware and software development at Apple. The new Mac Pro is fine and dandy if you have all of your storage and PCIe cards in a single external enclosure, but that makes it just too expensive, and you're shelling lots of money to someone else but Apple, the warranty doesn't cover the enclosure, it's not tested and validated during the OS X development, etc. Even then, if you bump the tiny thunderbolt cable, you crash. It's not that hard to put it all in one case, as the "old" Mac Pro demonstrates. They could have slimmed it down and modernized it. With some clever engineering, a modern Mac Pro with drive caddies and card slots could have still been very, very compact.

You probably have a Lion-compatible MBP, with something like AMD X1xxx graphics, right? If there's a 64 bit graphics driver kext for it in Lion, then you can run Mountain Lion via tiamo's boot.efi - simply copy the driver over from Lion. It'll work fine (BTDT). For original Mac Pro, it's even easier, all you need is the new boot.efi, a compatible graphics card, and you can boot Mavericks. Read here for details. In all cases, though, don't use Mavericks or Yosemite without an SSD for the OS itself. Even a 100GB SSD will be sufficient. I have nothing but stellar performance on "old" machines that were the first ones that still support Mavericks, but without an SSD it's essentially unusable.

Re:Not mysterious. Just lousy.

[Anonymous Coward]

To address some of your concerns:

You really need to get a hackintosh. Go to tonymacx86 and read up the most recent recommended hardware. When installing, make sure you start with the latest Mavericks, and the early versions required bootloader trickery with integrated Intel graphics. The most recent release doesn't need anything special besides the usual multibeast treatment. I have one and I'm not looking back.

You probably have a Lion-compatible MBP, with something like AMD X1xxx graphics, right? If there's a 64 bit graphics driver kext for it in Lion, then you can run Mountain Lion via tiamo's boot.efi - simply copy the driver over from Lion. It'll work fine (BTDT). For original Mac Pro, it's even easier, all you need is the new boot.efi, a compatible graphics card, and you can boot Mavericks. Read here for details. In all cases, though, don't use Mavericks or Yosemite without an SSD for the OS itself. Even a 100GB SSD will be sufficient. I have nothing but stellar performance on "old" machines that were the first ones that still support Mavericks, but without an SSD it's essentially unusable.

Now THAT'S what Just Works(tm) means!