Slashdot Mirror
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.
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.