Apple To Offer iOS Developers 85-15 Revenue Split; Debut Paid App Store Search Ads (theverge.com)

Apple says it will now take a smaller cut of commission from app developers provided they have customers who stick with their subscription model for longer than a year. Phil Schiller, Apple's Senior Vice President of Worldwide Marketing, told The Verge in an interview that the company will revise the 70-30 split for such developers to 85-15. In addition, the company will also begin showing search ads for apps in its iOS App Store search results. Also, the company says it is speeding up app review times "to the point where 50 percent of submitted apps are now reviewed in 24 hours, and 90 percent are reviewed within 48 hours." From the report: If the new subscription model becomes widely adopted, it will represent a fundamental shift in the economics of the App Store. Developers will be incentivized to sell their apps for a recurring fee instead of a one-time cost. It could change the way consumers pay for certain apps, but it also presents a massive opportunity for developers, many of whom feel the app economy has been become moribund in recent years. And as iPhone sales growth slows, a move to app subscriptions is another way for Apple wring more profits from its existing user base.Apple columnist John Gruber has more details.

Comments

Will that push Google to do the same?

[JcMorin]

Google currently have the 70/30 as Apple had. https://support.google.com/goo...

Re:Will that push Google to do the same?

[MobileTatsu-NJG]

Shush. That amount is only horrible when Apple does it, even if the developers do end up making more money than with Google for it.

Re:Will that push Google to do the same?

[Anonymous Coward]

Poor, poor mistreated Apple...

Re:Will that push Google to do the same?

[Anonymous Coward]

Your principles don't have any value if you don't apply them objectively.

Re:Will that push Google to do the same?

[alvinrod]

30% is hardly bad when you consider that you don't have to deal with payments at all or any refunding of those. If your average sale price is low (as it tends to be with apps) then transaction fees could eat up close to that amount alone.

Re:Will that push Google to do the same?

[danbob999]

30% is huge, except for penny apps. Dealing with payments is not worth more than 2-3% (what visa and mastercard currently charge, and I'd argue that even that is too much). What Apple is selling is access to the customers, much like a store on a busy street. In a competitive market, I wouldn't expect these fees to be higher than 5%, which is more than enough to cover costs and make a normal profit.

Re:Will that push Google to do the same?

[Solandri]

Difference is an Android developer doesn't have to pay Google 30% if they don't want to. They can always release their Android app via a different store, or offer a direct download from their website. Heck, they can set up their own store if they want (as Amazon has done). They have to pay 30% only if they want to sell it in Google's store. This makes it exactly like the brick and mortar analogue, where the retail store takes a cut of the price where your product is sold.

But with Apple, the only way to distribute your app to users is via their App Store, where you have to pay the Apple tax (be it 30% or 15%). In any other industry, this would be an illegal market restriction. What if you could buy gas for your Ford car only from Mobil gas stations? Not for any technical reason, but because Ford said they needed to do it to insure the quality of the gasoline you put into your Ford vehicle?

But it's Apple, so people's eyes glaze over and their brain shuts down. Even Apple's argument that it "needs" to do it for security doesn't fly. They're responsible for securing their hardware and OS. If people want their apps secured, there should be multiple companies competing to provide that service. And the people can choose which of these protection services they prefer to use. Exactly like Google does - you can use their Play store and whatever screening/protection they provide, or you can use someone else's store, or you can choose to use a store which doesn't purport to offer any protection at all. In an ideal world, Google would have their own iOS store, and Apple would have an Android store, and other companies would have their own stores for both platforms. And whichever company provided the screening and protection services customers want most would end up gaining a larger share of the market. (Apps would also be interchangeable between stores too, like it doesn't matter if you buy your TV from Best Buy or Target, but that's another argument.)

Re: Will that push Google to do the same?

[Karlt1]

I find it amusing that when the latest report of malware for Android comes out because of using third party stores, the first response from Android users is that they wouldn't have these issues if they stuck with Google Play.

But how popular will your app be if you try to distribute it on your own site and you have to tell users to go into settings and allow downloads from your website?

Re: Will that push Google to do the same?

[Redbehrend]

Then you realize they make more money off the ads their adding vs the split haha.

Re: Will that push Google to do the same?

[Solandri]

But how popular will your app be if you try to distribute it on your own site and you have to tell users to go into settings and allow downloads from your website?

That's a limitation with Android's current security settings - not enough granularity for "unknown" sources, and binary (all or nothing) settings. If I try to sideload an app via USB or a website download, it should have a different setting than if I'm getting it via an app (a store). Right now there's only a single setting for both - allow "unknown" sources.

And the setting is binary. Either they're never allowed, or they're always allowed. There's no option to have it ask me if I want to let it install just this one time. I have to change the global settings to allow everything, install it, then change the global settings back to disallow everything.

Re:Will that push Google to do the same?

[Anonymous Coward]

You have no shitting idea what you're talking about. If your transaction fees are eating up more than 5% for regular merchant services then you're doing it very wrong, including the penalties for chargebacks. Hell, even Paypal's around this. Google Play and the Apple Store have been the same tired old leeching middleman profit model that publishers have used for centuries, and I'm pleased to see that Apple might be moving away from this. Yes, you get promotion and a download framework, but the latter costs fuck all, which means you're really paying 25% for promotion, in a store which leaves 100 popular apps taking 90% of the income and a hundred thousand others collecting pennies - adding up to something significant for only Apple and Google.

Re: Will that push Google to do the same?

[dnaumov]

I think it's exactly the way it's supposed to be. The option to use alternative installation sources is there, but you have to manually enable it and you most definately don't get to bitch about it if you get into trouble.

Re:Will that push Google to do the same?

[Anonymous Coward]

Since when did Google force app developers to use their store by refusing to allow alternative sources? Last I checked, you can sideload apps in Android where you can't in Apple. You can also use Amazon store, Samsung store & many others. Granted the Play store is where you'd get your market share, but it's not a fair comparison given the competing stores available to devs.

Re:Will that push Google to do the same?

[Anonymous Coward]

But with Apple, the only way to distribute your app to users is via their App Store

Or, as a web app that can be consumed via safari, chrome, or any of the other browsers available on iOS.

where you have to pay the Apple tax (be it 30% or 15%).

You can happily distribute your app for free, if you want - last I checked, 30% of $0 is still $0.

What if you could buy gas for your Ford car only from Mobil gas stations? Not for any technical reason, but because Ford said they needed to do it to insure the quality of the gasoline you put into your Ford vehicle?

I would not buy a Ford, I'd by a Chevy, or a Honda, or a BMW, or a Toyota. This is not a monopolistic market restriction - you can just as easily go buy an Android phone, or a Windows phone, or a Blackberry, or a plain old dumb phone. Android fans love to remind us how big the market share is for Android - all this restriction does is makes Apple's products less appealing to some segment of the market who wants maximum flexibility, and that in turn means that people buy competing products. If Apple finds that this is an untenable restriction, and they end up losing money, then they will adapt to what the market demands, or they will fail and stop selling iOS products altogether. In any event, you're not being forced to abide by Apple's restrictive model unless you volunteer to.

In an ideal world, Google would have their own iOS store, and Apple would have an Android store, and other companies would have their own stores for both platforms.

Why is that an ideal world? This is akin to saying that, in a perfect world, Toyota would also engage in the manufacture of parts for its competitors' vehicles. Why would they, and what would this add to the market landscape?

When you talk about "eyes glaze over," and "brain shuts down," I suspect you're a bit like the pot expressing his disdain for the kettle's color.

Re:Will that push Google to do the same?

[NoMaster]

Econ 101 might lead you think those fees should approach the overhead costs and wouldn't be higher than 5% - but out in the real world, shops selling "access to the customers" (i.e. consignment stores) typically charge anywhere between 20%~50%, with better-performing shops tending towards the higher end of that.

Re:Will that push Google to do the same?

[Anubis IV]

Even Apple's argument that it "needs" to do it for security doesn't fly. They're responsible for securing their hardware and OS. If people want their apps secured, there should be multiple companies competing to provide that service. And the people can choose which of these protection services they prefer to use. Exactly like Google does - you can use their Play store and whatever screening/protection they provide, or you can use someone else's store, or you can choose to use a store which doesn't purport to offer any protection at all.

You say Apple's argument "doesn't fly", yet we can link the fact that Android accounts for 99% of malware on smartphones directly back to Google's choice not to lock-out other stores. The malware is rarely from Google Play: it's almost all from other sources.

It's pretty hard to suggest that Apple doesn't have valid security concerns, given the above. You can argue that users should have the ability to make those choices, and you'd have a valid point, but given the evidence, Apple would have no-less-valid of a point in suggesting that the best way to secure the device is to lock that ability off to begin with. And the evidence backs them up.

Mind you, I'm not suggesting Apple got it right or Google got it wrong. Not at all. I'm merely pointing out a logical incongruity in the arguments you're presenting. Apple's approach is certainly heavy-handed, but the effects are obvious. It's fine and well to talk about "an ideal world", but in practice what we see is that there's a real cost to the security of the platform if you allow untrusted apps onto your OS. Neither approach is right. Both approaches have benefits and drawbacks, and different companies weigh them differently.

Re:Will that push Google to do the same?

[Uberbah]

But with Apple, the only way to distribute your app to users is via their App Store, where you have to pay the Apple tax (be it 30% or 15%). In any other industry, this would be an illegal market restriction.

Your car, game console, and DVD player find your Hatorade amusing, and would like to subscribe to your walled-gardens-are-only-a-problem-when-it's-Apple newsletter.

Re:Will that push Google to do the same?

[davester666]

It's huge, except for what they were before Apple started their app store.

Before that, you had:

1) a carrier would preload your app on a phone, and give you a few pennies for each one sold. Of course, you have to trust their accounting department, which took lessons from the accounting departments of the major music labels. But even so, this is the 'lottery win' case.
2) you sell your app through a carrier. 80/20 or 90/10 split. guess which one you get.
3) third party app store. win! you are up to 30%.
4) sell the app directly yourself. total score: you keep 90% of sales. unfortunately, sales vary between 0 and 1 per month.

And then there were as many different model phones as there currently are Android model phones, each running a slightly different version of Java, with a slightly different set of included libraries, with varying amounts of RAM, CPU power, screen size, and buttons. So you either kept your app incredibly simply or you spend a gazillion dollars on doing QA across a bazillion different phones. And don't forget, the "same" phone on each carrier has completely different firmware, and possibly cpu and ram.

Same with retail software sales through physical stores. You get what, 30%, with the rest divvied up between the multiple levels of distribution chain.

It's terrible, unless you consider how badly you got fucked before.

Re:Will that push Google to do the same?

[Plumpaquatsch]

Difference is an Android developer doesn't have to pay Google 30% if they don't want to

Exactly. They can chose to pay Amazon 30%. Or go to a store that only offers free apps - all of nothing! Or have their app distributed by a pirate store, where they don't have to pay anything no matter what the app costs there.

Re:Will that push Google to do the same?

[seoras]

As an App developer who lives off my App's proceeds I agree that 30% is "hardly bad", in fact I'd gladly pay 30% to any affiliate who can bring me customers like Apple does.
Apple does more than than an affiliate though.
They handle payments, local taxes, customer support (to a limited extent), they provide me with a superb development environment, Xcode and they host in-app content which I use in some cases.
That's all the good.

The bad is Apple hands out refunds without telling me which transactions were refunded.
As I'm selling consultancy and taking a commission I'm left out of pocket as neither Apple, the customer or the consultant who I have to pay lose out.
I get and agree that Apple wants to protect the anonymity of their customers but I don't agree that this should extend to refusing to tell me which payments have been voided.
A few users have caught onto this little scam of buying on my App, taking the product, thanking us for it and then going to Apple for a refund.
The price points are set by the consultants and some are unique and low volume so in some cases I can actually work out who is doing it.
Found one today who just paid $55, got their consultancy, got their refund. Checked previous purchases and they did the same thing a few months ago.
If this continues I'm pulling this service.
Shame to spoil it because 99% love it and don't abuse but if Apple continues to cover up for the 1% which grows to 10% it's good night and thank you.

Re: Will that push Google to do the same?

[Anonymous Coward]

I hate to say it but your architecture is broken. It is possible to sell and track in app content in such a way that you pass the risk to your "consultant" (which is fair given that Apple does the same to you).

Re:Will that push Google to do the same?

[danbob999]

So in short, if Apple charged 10 for every email sent it would be fine, since the older alternative (regular mail) would cost more?
That's not how it works. An electronic store can be operated with much lower fees. A competitive market would reflect that. The fact that Apple can charge 15 or even 30% is just a proof that this isn't a competitive market.

Re:Will that push Google to do the same?

[Anonymous Coward]

Less "their brain shuts down" and more "they can use their brains to focus on something else other than if the app contains spyware or worse".

Re:Will that push Google to do the same?

[Anonymous Coward]

You're comparing the iOS App Store to some ideal alternative that doesn't exist. If you host your Android app in some other app store, how will you accept payments? Almost surely by credit or debit card ... Then how much will you pay for accepting that payment? Well, Stripe is one of the cheapest and best payment processors and they charge $0.30 + 2.9% per transaction. So on a $0.99 app you'd actually pay more than 33% on this alternate app store, compared to only 30% on Apple. Sure, that Stripe percentage drops as you go up in price - only about 17% for $1.99 apps, and only about 6% for $4.99 apps. But since most apps sell for $0.99 if not free, then most apps on this alternate store will actually pay MORE in cost of sales than they would on the iOS app store.

So it's fine to speak of and dream of other alternate app stores, but you can't ignore that they will also charge payment processing fees ...

Re:Will that push Google to do the same?

[davester666]

Those were all "electronic" stores listed except for the line about retail software sales. Developing software for mobile devices sucked, it was much harder to do and you made a lot less money compared to when Apple entered the market.

And yes, there isn't a much of a competitive market for where you can get software for iOS devices, as you can only buy it via the Apple Store (technically, you can also jailbreak and buy apps from a couple of 3rd party stores as well).

And everybody copied Apple: Google, Microsoft, RIM/BlackBerry, Amazon, I think even Nokia.

But feel free to set up an online competitor to Google Play and give developers a better deal if you want. I'm sure everyone will jump right on it.

Re:Will that push Google to do the same?

[danbob999]

You basically confirm that Apple is charging 15/30% because they can, not because that is a reasonable rate considering the operating costs and normal profit.
There isn't only competition on a platform. There is competition between platforms. I'm glad the less closed one is winning, because at least you are allowed to side-load applications without giving that 30% to Google.

Re:Will that push Google to do the same?

[davester666]

Well, how the hell do you know what a "reasonable rate" is? You seem to think Apple should charge 2-3%, so effectively operate it at a loss, which is ridiculous. It costs real money to review apps, do the bandwidth for unlimited downloads of the app, keep track of everything, make and update the sdk, keep their web site from being hacked.

If anything, you should complain that google is charging the same, while doing a lot less work [their review system regularly lets malware through], crappier tools, a lot poorer support.

But this is also the same as any industry with a very high barrier to entry, but that everyone wants/needs. Ones that come to the top of my head include internet access, cable service, telephone service [less so now], refining petroleum.

High cost of entry, so only a limited number of big players, and everybody makes the most money if everyone charges similar, high amounts.

Apple leads the way again!

[Anonymous Coward]

Now to watch everyone else follow suit

Re:Apple leads the way again!

[Anonymous Coward]

Apple lead the way to follow the oracle "rape you every year" model

Missing from all of this: the customer

[Anonymous Coward]

Like hell I'm going to "subscribe" to an app.

Re:Missing from all of this: the customer

[Anonymous Coward]

Like hell I'm going to "subscribe" to an app.

+1000
One time payment or bust.
I have no problem at all using my smartphone as a dumbphone.

Re: Missing from all of this: the customer

[AmazingRuss]

Not even an episodic game with new content released regularly?

Re: Missing from all of this: the customer

[MobileTatsu-NJG]

There are two applications that I would pay a subscription for. They are very expensive (think several thousand dollars), very complex, and they are key ingredients to how I make a living. When this software is updated, there's a strong potential for my productivity to increase and should I master those new features I could get end up getting a pay raise.

So there are two reasons I would consider (emphasize the word 'consider') a subscription model for these apps. First is that I would like that company to be financially successful so they will continue to do significant upgrades. It is my hope that should they want me to retain a subscription they'd hear my voice more distinctly rather than hoping I'll purchase an upgrade. (I may be in fantasy-land, here.) Second is that upfront cost is HUGE. My company pays that cost for me to use the software at work. But should I wish to freelance I would need the software at home, and that is a LARGE investment. In many cases that is doable (in fact I've done exactly that), but I could not have done this before I became a professional with spending power. If I could have rented the software for say 3 months without having to lay out thousands of dollars I could then learn-by-using from home and my myself employable.

So why aren't I renting right now? Well in one case the 'rental' period is a year. Expensive and it falls under "what's the point?" In the other case I've already purchased the software and the upgrade isn't worthwhile yet. They really need to think in terms of 'month-to-month' and I doubt they will.

Also I need to make sure I'm using the same software version that my potential clients use. If they haven't moved to that model, I will not either. Although in one case I could see my clients forcing me into this model whether I like it or not.

I'm rambling a little too much here so I'll wrap it up. Even though I'm semi-positive towards software rentals, I need to emphasize that I'm talking about software that earns me money. I would not go this route with a games like GTA. I don't need ticks collecting on my monthly budget.

Re: Missing from all of this: the customer

[danomac]

Not even an episodic game with new content released regularly?

Which means the game is never, ever finished which will lead to really crappy games. I will never subscribe to an app on a phone, it's ludicrous.

I never bought into the DLC on other platforms for the same reason. And for those that say DLC makes the game better: Sure it does, because they finally finished the damn game!

Re: Missing from all of this: the customer

[CanadianMacFan]

That's what the in app purchase is for.

Re: Missing from all of this: the customer

[bn-7bc]

DLCs work for some titles like Euro truck simulator 2 IMHO, you have the vanilla game with maps for central europe , if you want Eastern europe or scandinavia buy the relevant dlc, instead hof having a very ekspensive base game with no DLCs. OK you have the issue with 3.d part devs of free mods (in this case maps) that use assets from one of the DLCs rendering their free maps unusable without said DLC, but I understand why they do it modeling takes a lot of time, amd why spend time duplicating other work ehen you instead can focus on things like actual roads. Woops went of topic a bit

Re: Missing from all of this: the customer

[Altus]

yeah, nobody pays for subscriptions to consumer grades software.... except for anyone who plays WOW.

Re:Missing from all of this: the customer

[known_coward_69]

Netflix, HBO Now and any other subscription service out there that bills via the app store and apple payments

Re: Missing from all of this: the customer

[Anonymous Cow Ward]

DLC can be perfectly valid as a game enhancer to a finished game. Dragon Age: Origins and Dragon Age: Inquisition both did it well overall, in my opinion. The main storylines were good, there were plenty of sidequests in the main game, and I really liked them both. They released DLC that let you play the main character in additional events after the main quest was finished; the original game was still certainly complete, but this was a nice bonus.

Re: Missing from all of this: the customer

[tattood]

yeah, nobody pays for subscriptions to consumer grades software.... except for anyone who plays WOW.

Yeah, and that subscription rate has been going down for the last few years.

There is also a BIG difference between paying for a subscription to a MMORPG that can be played on your computer, and an app that can be played on a phone or tablet. I played WoW for several years until I got bored of the game, and the lack of any new or interesting game play. I have yet to see any game for the phone that would be worth paying a subscription for, and if I am going to pay for a game, I don't want to be limited to playing it on my phone.

Re: Missing from all of this: the customer

[Karlt1]

I'm sure Adobe and Microsoft are worried about random Slashdot poster who won't subscribe to an app while they are making millions on subscription fees.

Re:Missing from all of this: the customer

[Anubis IV]

Ok, then don't. Few of us actually want to pay anything, but at the same time, most of us can also recognize that there are whole categories of features and apps that have intrinsic, ongoing costs...costs which developers have few ways to recoup now, meaning that those apps never get built and those features never get added. It's lose-lose.

In some cases, we've seen successful launches of promising, niche apps get released to great acclaim, only to have few or no additional updates because the revenue dried up after everyone in the niche community bought it and sales fell off a cliff (and ad impressions were negligible because it's niche), leaving the developers with no way to sustain the business. For some apps, we see them use a high up-front cost to sustain the business until they launch version 2, but then they have to launch version 2 as a separate app with its own up-front cost. That may work for enterprise apps aimed at businesses willing to pay for something they need, but it's generally untenable when dealing with typical consumers.

And what of apps with features that carry an ongoing cost for the developer? Plenty of apps feature a server-side component that carries an additional cost for the developers that run them, but right now they either need to cover that expense from the up-front payments they receive when people buy their apps (thus limiting how much they can reasonably offer), or else they need to keep their costs below what they earn from ads, since that's the only other option available. I've seen developers admit to NOT adding much-sought features that have ongoing costs because they'd have no way to build a business around them. With these changes, however, they'll be able to offer different subscription tiers that could cover the ongoing costs incurred in providing the features offered in each tier. End result: users get the features they want that currently aren't being provided, while the developers have a means of supporting their business in a sustainable fashion. It's win-win.

Am I suggesting that I prefer subscription pricing? By no means! But I also understand the reality of the situation and can see that subscription pricing enables developers to build viable businesses around whole categories of apps and features that were previously impossible to sustain. Granted, it may be unappealing to pay ongoing costs, but if that's the actual cost to make those apps and features a reality, I'd rather not bury my head in the sand and pretend that things are fine as they are.

Re: Missing from all of this: the customer

[dgatwood]

So there are two reasons I would consider (emphasize the word 'consider') a subscription model for these apps. First is that I would like that company to be financially successful so they will continue to do significant upgrades. It is my hope that should they want me to retain a subscription they'd hear my voice more distinctly rather than hoping I'll purchase an upgrade. (I may be in fantasy-land, here.)

Yeah, good luck with that. As far as I can tell, there's even less incentive for the company to care about your needs once you're on a subscription model, because the second you stop paying them, you lose access to your files, and they know you won't do that, which means you'll keep paying them just to keep using the software, whether they improve things or not. At least with a normal sale model, they have to do enough upgrades to earn your purchase.

Products that are actively innovating are almost invariably sold, not rented; products on a subscription model are typically largely coasting.

Re:Missing from all of this: the customer

[Plumpaquatsch]

Like hell I'm going to "subscribe" to an app.

Yeah, this "World of Warcraft" thing will never catch on.

Re: Missing from all of this: the customer

[teg]

The common use case for subscriptions would be paying for content: Newspapers, magazines, streaming services and the like.

I don't pay for app subscriptions

[el_smurfo]

Have never paid for an app subscription on my PC. Have never paid for an app subscription on my Phone. I pay for many media subscriptions and I have no problems paying for major feature upgrades to my apps, but when I buy an app, I want to own it. When a mobile app like Pushbullet goes subscription, equivalent competitors like "Join" always spring up as people don't want to pay a recurring cost for a one time service (I don't care about server costs, as a MITM server should not be a part of an app like Pushbullet anyways, as Join has proven).

Re:I don't pay for app subscriptions

[MobileTatsu-NJG]

Pretty sure they're talking about Netflix, Hulu, HBO, etc.

Re:I don't pay for app subscriptions

[MobileTatsu-NJG]

My bad, my reading comprehension is bad today. You're right, they are talking about subscription of apps.

Welcome to the future, folks. Software companies feel as though they don't generate stable enough revenue through one-time sales. They feel they should share the success you endure with the software you use.

Re:I don't pay for app subscriptions

[Anonymous Coward]

That ship sailed when Microsoft put Solitaire (of all things) on a subscription model.

Re:I don't pay for app subscriptions

[Anonymous Coward]

dipshit.

Re:I don't pay for app subscriptions

[MobileTatsu-NJG]

Eh, fine, whatever. I didn't read the summary very deeply because I thought this was in response to Amazon's blocking of AppleTV sales. They don't want to sell the AppleTV until it can play Amazon Prime video and they don't want to pay the thirty percent. I thought maybe they had finally gotten through.

Oh well.

Re: I don't pay for app subscriptions

[Karlt1]

Amazon could release Amazon Prime Video on the AppleTV...just as it is now available in iPhones and iPads without giving Apple 30%. You just have to subscribe from Amazon's website like you do now.

You can already AirPlay Amazon Prime Video to AppleTVs now.

App review speedup is real, and it's spectacular

[SuperKendall]

You might look skeptically upon Apple's claim that review times have sped up. How could they possibly have sped up to the process to a day from a week?

Yet, it is the case. Every single person I know submitting iOS apps has had every app approved within a day, sometimes just a few hours.

And it's not like they are just not looking at anything, in one case I head about someone who submitted an app update, the reviewer found a crashing bug, the developer fixed and resubmitted and it was approved - all within the same day!

That alone was a HUGE boon to app development as it made a lot of customers very cranky a change could not go out quickly. It should also eliminate a ton of emergency review requests developers were sending to Apple, so it probably helps Apple also.

Wow

[Anonymous Coward]

I love this instead of paying for an app once I can now pay for it yearly! About bloody time!

Re: Wow

[joh]

You mean instead of paying for every update that gets published as a new app because you couldn't charge for updates which meant either a new app or no updates or updates with no money earned.

Selling apps for a buck with free updates forever just doesn't work. Charging a buck a year may work.

My feeling on subscriptions for apps

[Zontar_Thing_From_Ve]

Is simply that I won't pay for such apps. Ever. I already have enough reluctance to pay once for apps and it wasn't helped when an app that I used a lot turned into abandonware and stopped fully working after some iOS updates. Apple deliberately has no way to complain to them that old apps no longer work so the mostly broken app still is available for purchase on their store. So good luck with this change, Apple, but I'll opt out of buying apps with subscriptions. I'm not really into this whole "subscription thing".

Re:My feeling on subscriptions for apps

[Dixie_Flatline]

It sounds like you have trouble paying for people's work at all. But here's the thing: nobody cares and you won't be missed. You weren't paying ANYWAY.

I have a few apps that I immediately buy when they have to put out a new revision to fund their development. The one that comes to mind most immediately is tweetbot. I always buy the new version because I want them to make more of them and keep up with Twitter's API. That doesn't come for free. I will absolutely pay a subscription to that app to make sure that there's always a new version ready for me.

I also use an RSS reader called Newsify that I really like. They monetize by providing a subscription to a bunch of services that I have absolutely no interest in. I don't pay that subscription fee. But if they have a subscription option--say, $5/year--that I can pay that just makes sure they stick around and make changes to the app, I'll pay that.

I don't know why you have such trouble paying people for their honest hard work for applications that you actually use. The other option is to let them fill the app with ads, and we've seen how well that's been going for the web in general. No thanks.

Re:My feeling on subscriptions for apps

[Anonymous Coward]

An app you paid a dollar for once (or got for free) was abandoned by its developers? Why on earth might that be?

Re:My feeling on subscriptions for apps

[swb]

But if they have a subscription option--say, $5/year--that I can pay that just makes sure they stick around and make changes to the app, I'll pay that.

I might buy into this, but....

1) You must update the app significantly at least once during the subscription period. Not just fucking bug fixes.

2) No ads, spam, tracking or unnecessary permissions

3) A means of exporting any persistent data I create in the app

4) a contact email for the app that actually gets responses. I don't care if its the actual developer or some kind of customer service team. I've bought apps where the dev was responsive and I've bought them where their was no support or response when the app didn't work.

5) App subscriptions with prompts to renew them for each subscription period. I am totally uninterested in buying into hard to cancel subscription models.

I'm more than happy to spend money on decent apps, I am not happy to just move into a parasitic environment where every app is a perpetual subscription for nominal bug fixes only, full of tracking, with no means of moving out my data and no support. Fuck that.

Re:My feeling on subscriptions for apps

[Anonymous Coward]

But if they have a subscription option--say, $5/year--that I can pay that just makes sure they stick around and make changes to the app, I'll pay that.

I might buy into this, but....

1) You must update the app significantly at least once during the subscription period. Not just fucking bug fixes.

2) No ads, spam, tracking or unnecessary permissions

3) A means of exporting any persistent data I create in the app

4) a contact email for the app that actually gets responses. I don't care if its the actual developer or some kind of customer service team. I've bought apps where the dev was responsive and I've bought them where their was no support or response when the app didn't work.

5) App subscriptions with prompts to renew them for each subscription period. I am totally uninterested in buying into hard to cancel subscription models.

I'm more than happy to spend money on decent apps, I am not happy to just move into a parasitic environment where every app is a perpetual subscription for nominal bug fixes only, full of tracking, with no means of moving out my data and no support. Fuck that.

I disagree with you. I'd be happy with a subscription which just covered bug fixes - I WANT BUG FIXES. I'm less happy with being given a new / better / different / shinier GUI once I've worked out how to use the existing perfectly adequate GUI. I bought it to do a job, and I want it to keep doing that job, not to add new functionality that I neither need nor want.

Evil Apple

[Plumpaquatsch]

Again they ruin the prices for the hard working competition. Will Amazon again call in the DOJ like they did when Apple ruined their sweet 60% cut deal for Kindle self published books?

With Android, at least you have a choice

[Anonymous Coward]

Installing from other sources is much better than being locked into a ghastly capitalistic 'app store' that is full of crapware and adware. Shouldn't Apple be paying me to make software to help sell their platform? Using iphone apps reminds me of being in America, with all the horrible street side advertising billboards. It's not somewhere I'd want to be. Likewise, the iphone is not a platform I aspire to use.

Re:With Android, at least you have a choice

[Anonymous Coward]

LOL. You don't appear to have understood the article/summary, let alone ever used an iPhone.

How much is 85% of zero?

[JoeyRox]

Customers despise software subscription models, esp for non-essential apps typically found on smartphones/tablets.

Re:How much is 85% of zero?

[Yvan256]

According to Verizon "0.002 cents per kilobyte" math, 85% of zero is 1700%

Not good enough...

[__aaclcg7560]

Throw in an Apple dev kit and we got a deal.

What about other media types?

[dgatwood]

Suddenly, it would make more sense to sell books as apps. Is Apple considering doing this for books, too? If they did, it would hit Amazon pretty hard.

Hmmm

[Anonymous Coward]

People simply use Getjar.com

Re:App review speedup is real, and it's spectacula

[Wrath0fb0b]

And it's not like they are just not looking at anything, in one case I head about someone who submitted an app update, the reviewer found a crashing bug, the developer fixed and resubmitted and it was approved - all within the same day!

Wow, it's faster and I can lay off my QA guy?

Apple is feeling pressure

[danbob999]

And that is a good thing. iPhones sales have slowed, Android is becoming the dominant platform (>80% market share). It's nice to see this competition forcing Apple to give back a little more. 15% makes a lot more sense than 30%. In a truly competitive market, that would be even lower.

Re: Apple is feeling pressure

[Karlt1]

Apple isn't going down to 15% universally. It's only for subscriptions and only after the first year. Apple could care less about competing with a no profit margin $70 Android phone.

Market share means nothing without profit.

Re:App review speedup is real, and it's spectacula

[SuperKendall]

Well since QA tells you when things suck in addition to when they crash, probably not...

App Store Reviewer is not going to tell you when a screen is annoying slow, he'll just figure you meant to have it poorly done.

Not to mention a really good QA person will find 100 crashes to every one the App Store Reviewer catches.

You must be joking, opposite is true

[SuperKendall]

Using iphone apps reminds me of being in America, with all the horrible street side advertising billboards

Wha?

Pretty much ALL Android apps are like that. The only option they really have is ads so all have them.

SOME IOS apps also have ads. But there are still a great many you can simply pay for, and have no ads at all.

Now with subscriptions, there need be no ads for many more apps because the recurring revenue ads were providing can be replaced by user revenue - meaning FEWER "billboards". Yet you are whining about not wanting to use iOS, instead of running to it to avoid the flood of Android App Ads.

Nice theory. Non-starter.

[Pitawg]

No ads have stayed away with pay. Once paid, their explanation "Those were tier 1 ads. They are gone now. These are tier 2 ads."

Paying money for damaged rental code that can be pulled, deleted, broken, and just never finished is not a valid path forward. Paying to a company that keeps it's products from working with other companies products is self-torture. Seeing how little goes to the actual crteators is reason enough. Paying a company for anything when they refuse to hire reasearch, or quality control, and then post "bounties" so they can steal others work for minimal cost to them instead of paying actual employees is not a path forward.

Any and all agreements made at the time of purchase are modified on their whims, even seconds after purchase, where you have "agreed" to let them do whatever they want by way of EULA and other licenses.

I pay creators, not corporate walled-gardens that thrive on the sweat and death of others. I even pay for things I will never use, just to help keep good things going. Apple is not what I consider a "good thing". "Better than some" is below my threshold.

I do not value your definition of work, nor your interpretation of modern day life. And, keep your ads.

Re:Nice theory. Non-starter.

[Dixie_Flatline]

How little goes to the creators? 70% goes to the creators, currently. 85% in the new scheme, after customers have stuck around for a year.

In return, app creators get hosting and payment services. For small developers, that surmounts a massive barrier to entry--trying to negotiate those payment systems on your own is terrible.

I've heard generally good things about this split, and the majority of complaints come from larger companies that might be able to do this stuff effectively on their own, but balk at paying the standard fee to Apple. Forgive me if I don't shed a tear for Amazon-Comixology.

Re:Nice theory. Non-starter.

[Pitawg]

And you may make a good corporate recruiter, but 70% of potentially underreported anything is too low for working in an environment completely out of your own control. Spending time and energy making something for a platform that is killed or altered beyond your project, is 70% of nothing. Losing customers because they hate the walled-garden ads wrapped around your project is more nothing. Being limited to only the customers inside the garden, and then seeing the garden shrink is not a future.

Give me a real job, or go make your own apps. Pay for time and effort, not just for success. Forced to wrap ads or other promos within a clean product just leaves a bad taste in everyones mouth, and that does not sell beyond fad.

These corporations have shown what they like doing when they have all the control. Take wonderful product ideas, remove ~70% of the greatness, jack up the prices, wrap them in flashing garbage, make it incompatible with anything not made by corporate, and once their buyers start to get comfortable, delete the products or the platforms on which they existed to force re-purchase. Can't have customers stick around when the platform is gone. More no-pay work for another shot at undefined-shrinking-market for 70% of may-change-without-notice.

Accepting this environment looks like "giving up" to me. Just more "Bounty" games to make people think it's not the low to unpaid intern work that it appears to be.

Re:Nice theory. Non-starter.

[Anonymous Coward]

What are these 'ads' you keep going on about?

The ads mentioned in the summary are adverts that will appear alongside user searches of the iOS App store, as per your typical web search. There won't be any adverts in a developer's app unless that developer choses to put them there, exactly as is currently the case.

They're definitely not talking about an Amazon (or Google?) style approach of forcing ads onto users' devices.

Freemium wasn't universal either

[Anonymous Coward]

When the App Store started allowing freemium apps, that wasn't universally required either. But now even damn good apps I've paid several bucks for have switched to the freemium model because they can.

I am more surprised that nobody seems to have noticed that this means Apple are now moving a set of apps behind a credit card wall. While they don't make it easy today to set up an Apple Store account that uses gift cards with zero tie to a credit card, it can be done and is a good option for kids devices. But Apple won't let an account subscribe to anything unless there is a current and valid credit card on file with them and this move gives Apple a bigger hammer to force more people to give them credit card access.

More quality apps

[Anonymous Coward]

This is a good move on Apple's part. The old buy-once model rewarded developers for creating an app that seemed appealing. But once there was a sale, it did nothing to ensure that it was actually useful. All the developer's financial incentitive ended with the sale.

This subscription model will encourage developers to either give their app away or make it cheap, but at the same time to make it so good, users are willing to pay regularly to continue to use it. That rewards the developers of useful, well-done, continually improved apps.

Instapaper is so useful, I already subscribe to it. This is likely to make me willing to do the same with other apps that I use all the time, such as Overcast. For developers, the key will be to find the magic amount that maximizes their income, particularly since they will still be competing with non-subscription apps.

Two suggestions:

1. Apple might want to consider developer-wide subscriptions to all a developers apps, particularly games. One fee for all of them.

2. As an author, I'd love to see Apple do something similar with the iBookstore. An 80/20 split would clearly put them ahead of Amazon and motivate authors with a fan base to steer it to Apple. Apple should also allow both versions of an ebook, the fixed layout and the reflowable, to be sold in the same purchase. Then customers to read the best versions for their iPad and iPhone.

Re:App review speedup is real, and it's spectacula

[mfearby]

I submitted a 1.0.3 version of an app last week and was surprised when I got a notification on my iPhone the next morning to say that it was "ready for sale" already. Previous versions took several days, and the first version took over a week!

Yes, i already did

[SuperKendall]

I can't find the link, but I read earlier today Google announced they were dong the same thing as Apple.

Apple still dominant

[SuperKendall]

Note that Google decided to do the same thing as Apple, the same day....

Who is dominating who?

Just because a lot of users have crappy devices means nothing. I have an Android device myself, but I don't use it nor buy apps for it... and that is reflected in the broader market by people still making apps for iOS first. That's where the users are, that's where revenue is. That will not change anytime soon.

Not really news, just opening up to all app classe

[Plumpaquatsch]

Some apps have offered subscriptions for some time now, e.g. https://itunes.apple.com/en/app/lumosity-mobile/id577232024?mt=8 or https://itunes.apple.com/en/app/instapaper/id288545208?mt=8