Story of Two Developers Who Are Reporting Growth in Revenue After Leaving Apple's App Store (techcrunch.com)

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Story of Two Developers Who Are Reporting Growth in Revenue After Leaving Apple's App Store (techcrunch.com)

Posted by msmash on Monday February 13, 2017 @05:20AM from the going-independent dept.

John Biggs, writing for TechCrunch: In what amounts to one of the purest and most interesting experiments in assessing the value of Mac OS's App Store, the founder of Rogue Amoeba posted a description of what happened when he pulled his app Piezo. The result? More revenue as a whole without much damage to sales. The impetus for the move came after Apple pulled the Dash app off of the App Store. In the 100-day period since the move, Dash maintained and even increased revenue and found that its users didn't care which platform they were using -- 84% of the customers simply moved over to the independent app license from the App Store license. The bottom line? "It feels great to have full control over my business and to avoid App Store installation/updating/purchasing issues," wrote Dash creator Bogdan Popescu. When Paul Kafasis tried to move away from the App Store he was worried he'd lose half of his sales. After all, many months saw about 50% of sales coming from the App Store directly. When he pulled the app a year ago, however, all of those App Store sales turned into direct sales through his website, a fact that surprised and amused Kafasis.

65 comments

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

News at 11 by Anonymous Coward · 2017-02-13 05:22 · Score: 1

Developers discover when they stop paying someone a huge % of their profits, they make more money.
1. Re:News at 11 by Anubis+IV · 2017-02-13 05:56 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  To be clear, this is about the Mac App Store (MAS), not the (iOS) App Store. In both cases, you're effectively paying Apple a cut of the profits in order to make your product more accessible to consumers. In the case of the iOS App Store, it's pretty obvious that the 15%/30% cut is worth it, since if your app isn't there, it isn't for sale as far as 99.9% of people are concerned (even though that's not strictly the case).
  But the MAS? Its value proposition has always been questionable.
  For one, purchasing patterns are drastically different between mobile and PC. Consumers typically already know what Mac apps they plan to buy, rather than browse-shopping like they do on iOS, so whether the app is in the MAS or on a website makes no difference. As such, developers don't lose much from pulling out, or, in many cases, what they lose in unit sales is more than made up in reduced overhead.
  Making matters worse for the MAS, it's oftentimes the case that the version of the app sold in the MAS is both more expensive and has less features than the one sold on their website. The MAS has a number of requirements (e.g. strict sandboxing) that make certain features virtually impossible to implement, so the apps in the MAS are oftentimes missing key features found in the direct-sale versions, or they might be lagging behind by a few versions due to the app store review process that all updates need to go through. And because developers don't see much benefit from the MAS, many of them simply tack on a 30% premium for the version sold through the MAS, that way they can recoup the cost. But even in the case that the developer doesn't price it higher, there's no way to offer upgrade pricing for loyal customers, so MAS users end up paying full price for subsequent versions, rather than being able to get a discount that the developer might be offering on direct sales.
  All of which is to say, the MAS is a somewhat hostile environment to both developers AND users, so it's not surprising that niche apps aimed power users (i.e. the ones most likely to know how to use a browser to find software) are seeing improved numbers after pulling out of the MAS.
2. Re:News at 11 by Old97 · 2017-02-13 07:50 · Score: 1
  
  I use both the mac os app store and buy direct. If an app and its publisher are not well known the app store has advantages. It's easy enough to find and you know you can trust it. Reviews give you some idea about its value. Prices tend to be low so its an easy decision to go ahead and buy it. Once I own and am familiar with the app though, I'd be perfectly willing to buy it direct or go direct to the publisher to get an upgrade or related product. So my conclusion is that the mac app store is a good place for developers to start in order to break into a market. Once they are established i.e. are known and liked by users, the store's value diminishes. For established publishers it might still be a good place to sell you entry level versions. Except for Xcode, I never get my development tools from the app store, but that is a special category.
  
  --
  Very often, people confuse simple with simplistic. The nuance is lost on most. - Clement Mok
3. Re:News at 11 by thewolfkin · 2017-02-13 07:52 · Score: 1
  
  To be clear, this is about the Mac App Store (MAS), not the (iOS) App Store.
  OHHH that explains ALL of my questions. Yea the Mac App Store was and is a silly idea, your computer is not a phone it doesn't need it's own app store.
  
  --
  Just another second banana
4. Re:News at 11 by kencurry · 2017-02-13 07:56 · Score: 1
  
  Important clarification, thank you.
  
  --
  sigs are for losers (except to point out that sigs are for losers)
5. Re:News at 11 by sit1963nz · 2017-02-13 08:08 · Score: 1
  
  Actually one plus for me is that when I buy from the App Store I can LEGALLY install it on multiple computers I own. Yes, I own Apps I have bought directly too, but these are typically licensed for one computer, yes there are exceptions and yes there are "family packs" offering 5 licences but they tend to charge more for this. There is also the issue of serial numbers, don't need them for the App Store, so this make it great for disorganised people. And , for unknown Apps, there is a greater degree of trust in the Apps that come from the App Store. Apples 30% is not excessive, back when you had to buy from a bricks and mortar store the store generally took 50% of the retail price or more. Look at how often you see them discounting by HUGE percentages and even then they are making money. Consumables are a prime example, batteries, SD cards, AV cables, I buy from a store with cost + 10% and save typically 75% off standard retail. Given that Apple does not charge developers a fee for free apps even though they have the same costs as pay for Apps then there is value there for both consumer and developer.
6. Re:News at 11 by DontBeAMoran · 2017-02-13 08:49 · Score: 1
  
  But how long will this last? With all the rumours of Apple going ARM-only for their future generations of Macs, the Mac App Store may end up being the only way to sell macOS apps in the future.
  And seeing how Apple is not taking care of their Mac users (no real Mac mini update since 2012, no Mac Pro updates in way too long, premium price for now sub-par components, i.e. slow 5400RPM HDDs, soldered and non-upgradable RAM, etc), the point of owning a Mac could soon cease to exist.
  What's the best Linux or BSD for potential Mac switchers?
  
  --
  #DeleteFacebook
7. Re:News at 11 by Anubis+IV · 2017-02-13 09:20 · Score: 2
  
  Lots of things may happen. For now, if the machine is working for you better than anything else you've looked into, keep using it. Simple as that.
  As to your concerns, even if Apple decided to do what you said, it wouldn't be an immediate concern. You'd be able to keep using your existing machines for years as people worked on creating/polishing alternatives, given that there'd be nothing forcing you to "upgrade". By the time you needed to purchase an alternative, there'd not only be plenty of them available, there would also be plenty of blogs and other resources providing advice as to which ones suit your specific needs.
  All of which is to say, leave tomorrow's concerns for tomorrow. Don't worry about them today.
8. Re:News at 11 by Anonymous Coward · 2017-02-13 10:59 · Score: 0
  
  Avoiding the MAS is becoming more difficult for Mac users. Previously Gatekeeper had the option to to run apps from "Anywhere", that option has now been removed from GateKeeper settings and only 2 options remain:
  -App Store -App Store and Identified Developers
  The writing's on the wall for the Mac platform, it's going more and more iOS. Sure there will likely always be workarounds, just like jailbreaking but it certainly is becoming more user-hostile in favour of profitable walled gardens.
9. Re:News at 11 by Anubis+IV · 2017-02-13 11:48 · Score: 1
  
  Previously Gatekeeper had the option to to run apps from "Anywhere", that option has now been removed from GateKeeper settings
  The option to run unsigned apps (i.e. apps from "Anywhere") still exists, but rather than being a global setting, it's now handled on a one-off basis by bringing up the contextual menu on any unsigned app and telling it to Open. I think it provides a warning about the risks and then confirms that you want to still open it, but after that it'll run just like any other app, no more warnings or anything. In the last year or two, I've only encountered one unsigned app that required I go through that process, and I'd consider myself a fairly advanced user (as I imagine most other people here would).
  
  Avoiding the MAS is becoming more difficult for Mac users.
  In practice, I don't think this is actually the case. Again, I've only encountered one unsigned app in the last year or two. Were that not the case, I might agree, but the vast majority of Mac developers seem to have a certificate at this point, and the second option you listed is the default one, so their apps run with default settings, which means that no one is really being pushed to the MAS. And stories like the ones being described in the summary are becoming increasingly common. Indications seem to point towards MAS usage being in decline for the last few years among advanced users, and novice users are dwindling too as their attention is increasingly drawn towards mobile platforms.
  I do agree that macOS is converging on iOS, but I think we're still a good few years away from it becoming that locked down.
Stop calling them apps! by GrBear · 2017-02-13 05:29 · Score: 4, Insightful

Seriously, people are going to confuse this story with iOS 'apps', when in fact it's about full fledged computer applications on Mac OS.
1. Re:Stop calling them apps! by johnhennessy · 2017-02-13 05:31 · Score: 5, Interesting
  
  Can we rate this story flamebait ?
  It looks like Slashdot (and Techcrunch?) is just trying to bring up the whole Dash debacle again to generate traffic.
  Resist people ... resist!
  
  --
  [ Monday is a terrible way to spend one seventh of your life. ]
2. Re:Stop calling them apps! by Anonymous Coward · 2017-02-13 05:36 · Score: 0
  
  Yes, and soon we're tawkin like Windows 10 and touchscreen and apps and tiles and app this and f**** that.
  Tawkin', y'know, as in Two guys tawkin. What?
3. Re:Stop calling them apps! by TheFakeTimCook · 2017-02-13 05:37 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  Seriously, people are going to confuse this story with iOS 'apps', when in fact it's about full fledged computer applications on Mac OS.
  Oops! That's EXACTLY what I did...
  
  Why is this even a story, then? Macs have never had a "Walled Garden" approach. The vast majority of Mac software is still sold independently of the Mac App Store.
4. Re:Stop calling them apps! by Anonymous Coward · 2017-02-13 05:46 · Score: 0
  
  The annoying thing is that it's legitimate to refer to them as apps on apple computers because there is also a desktop app store.
5. Re:Stop calling them apps! by Voyager529 · 2017-02-13 05:53 · Score: 2
  
  Macs have never had a "Walled Garden" approach. The vast majority of Mac software is still sold independently of the Mac App Store.
  For now.
  First, the Mac App Store was opt-in.
  Then, it was opt-out.
  Then, it prompted when applications were run if they weren't installed from the App Store.
  Then it required admin access to allow sideloaded applications.
  It's abundantly clear that Apple is using the winning formula from iOS and applying it to OSX. Slowly, of course, but mark my words: within the next release or two of OSX, you'll see at least a few of these:
  -require a terminal command to enable sideloaded apps,
  -prompt every time a sideloaded app is run without the ability to suppress it.
  -require a third party patch of some kind.
  -require some sort of jailbreaking procedure.
  -threat of voided warranty if sideloaded apps are found.
  OSX isn't a walled garden yet...but Tim Cook is absolutely building a wall. And his customers are paying for it.
6. Re:Stop calling them apps! by Anonymous Coward · 2017-02-13 05:54 · Score: 0
  
  Oooooh! Here I was scratching my head about WTF was actually going on with iPhones. Terrible summary.
7. Re:Stop calling them apps! by Anonymous Coward · 2017-02-13 06:32 · Score: 0
  
  Like that "other wall," it will be big. Unlike that "other wall," it won't be beautiful.
8. Re:Stop calling them apps! by WheezyJoe · 2017-02-13 06:45 · Score: 1
  
  which actually makes sense, if you want to keep selling Macs. The demographics of computer buyers are changing away from power-users to casual users scratching heads over whether a tablet is enough. And with malware slowly but steadily on the rise for MacOS, there is a reason why a lot of people from a high-school kid to your grandmother would be better off with a software depot that is safe and proven and offers automatic updates.
  It ain't for me, but more and more even I get twitchy downloading something from softpedia or Sourceforge, wondering if someone's messed with the app I want. Tim Cook is trying to maintain the reputation that Macs "just work", and some sort of safe playroom may be the only way to ensure that for the potential buyers he is seeking to grow the line. I feel this... I spent hundreds, really hundreds, of hours cleaning malware junk off people's PC's back in the XP days ("I just downloaded this new bubble game, so why's my laptop so slow?") so I feel entitled to say I'm completely sick of malware.
  I know this is a touchy subject for Slashdotters, and damn I don't want my Mac closed off from "sideloading" any more than on my Windows PC or Linux box. But there are too many stories (google them yourself) about Android apps being fouled, and even one or two evil apps squeak through Apple's app store. It's a hostile world, and Cook would be a fool not to try and do something about it because a malware infested machine, no matter what platform, sucks for everyone. I am confident that Apple needs it's power users enough they will never lock-down macs like in like iOS, but a warning that you're about to run an app from an unknown source, require an admin password, is a price I'm willing to pay. Might lead to a few less infected macs overheating and crashing in weird ways.
  
  --
  Take it easy, Charlie, I've got an Angle...
9. Re:Stop calling them apps! by TechyImmigrant · 2017-02-13 07:02 · Score: 1
  
  Seriously, people are going to confuse this story with iOS 'apps', when in fact it's about full fledged computer applications on Mac OS.
  I wasn't confused. It's right there on the first line : "Mac OS's App Store".
  
  --
  I should use this sig to advertise my book ISBN-13 : 978-1501515132.
10. Re:Stop calling them apps! by TechyImmigrant · 2017-02-13 07:04 · Score: 1
  
  > The demographics of computer buyers are changing away from power-users to casual users
  Eh? There are more developers than ever.
  
  --
  I should use this sig to advertise my book ISBN-13 : 978-1501515132.
11. Re:Stop calling them apps! by Anonymous Coward · 2017-02-13 07:04 · Score: 0
  
  Keep an eye open, "editor" msmash has a string of anti-Apple and pro-MS stories that flow under their name. I detect a shill or at least a fanboi/girrrl.
12. Re:Stop calling them apps! by guises · 2017-02-13 07:21 · Score: 1
  
  Oh, ha. Thanks for clearly that up for me, that's exactly what I thought.
  
  Was wondering how he was selling this, independent of the walled garden...
13. Re: Stop calling them apps! by Anonymous Coward · 2017-02-13 07:29 · Score: 0
  
  I guess you could build a window in the wall ...
14. Re:Stop calling them apps! by thewolfkin · 2017-02-13 07:54 · Score: 1
  
  /me raises hand
  
  I was confused.
  
  --
  Just another second banana
15. Re:Stop calling them apps! by TheFakeTimCook · 2017-02-13 08:04 · Score: 1
  
  Macs have never had a "Walled Garden" approach. The vast majority of Mac software is still sold independently of the Mac App Store.
  For now.
  First, the Mac App Store was opt-in. Then, it was opt-out. Then, it prompted when applications were run if they weren't installed from the App Store. Then it required admin access to allow sideloaded applications.
  It's abundantly clear that Apple is using the winning formula from iOS and applying it to OSX. Slowly, of course, but mark my words: within the next release or two of OSX, you'll see at least a few of these: -require a terminal command to enable sideloaded apps, -prompt every time a sideloaded app is run without the ability to suppress it. -require a third party patch of some kind. -require some sort of jailbreaking procedure. -threat of voided warranty if sideloaded apps are found.
  OSX isn't a walled garden yet...but Tim Cook is absolutely building a wall. And his customers are paying for it.
  Yeah, doom and gloom. Apple is Teh Evilz!
  
  Heard it all before.
  
  Right-Click and you can Run anything from anywhere. It's your funeral. Now and forever.
16. Re:Stop calling them apps! by erapert · 2017-02-13 08:04 · Score: 1
  
  ...there is a reason why a lot of people from a high-school kid to your grandmother would be better off with a software depot that is safe and proven and offers automatic updates.
  You mean like Linux distros have had for decades?
17. Re:Stop calling them apps! by WheezyJoe · 2017-02-13 08:29 · Score: 1
  
  You mean like Linux distros have had for decades?
  Yeah, but no. In short, dependency hell. PC-BSD and MacOS largely avoid this by keeping apps in their own containers. In the Linux world, RPM and dpkg depend too much on particular repositories (and their maintainers) to keep things just right, which often means the mainstream repo doesn't have the latest releases and you find yourself jonezing for the experimental repository or some off-site, you're-on-your-own repo to get what you need, and then shit starts to happen. It's gotten a lot better, for real, but it's not so perfect that your grandmother can find a game of Breakout and not wind up in some sort of trouble.
  
  --
  Take it easy, Charlie, I've got an Angle...
18. Re:Stop calling them apps! by WheezyJoe · 2017-02-13 08:54 · Score: 1
  
  Eh? There are more developers than ever.
  But developers are not where the money is. Unless you're a Mac or iOS developer, you're probably looking at a PC anyway. Right now, Tim Cook and company want to sell Macs to people who are ogling at iPhones and iWatches, and they think that means smaller and lighter, rather than beefy and powerful.
  I don't like this trend. But people getting paid a lot more than I am believe that this is where the money is (read: market-share growth). There's some truth to this, as for a long time the quality of PC laptops have sucked and sucked more, with a few recent notable exceptions like the Dell XPS 13 and the HP Spectre . But there appears to be little profit in desktops like what a developer would want, and if you're a developer or gamer, you're often better-off rolling your own anyway. All that results in the Apple marketing-gods believing that there are lots more casual users open to buying a Macbook than there are developers considering an iMac or Mac Pro. For better or worse, Apple puts their mouths where they think the money is, and so far, compared to HP, Dell, and Lenovo, that strategy has worked, even while power users and their Mac Pros feel screwed, year after year.
  
  --
  Take it easy, Charlie, I've got an Angle...
19. Re:Stop calling them apps! by Anonymous Coward · 2017-02-13 12:46 · Score: 0
  
  I bet you suck lots of dicks, right voyager529@yahoo.com?
20. Re:Stop calling them apps! by tlhIngan · 2017-02-13 19:29 · Score: 1
  
  For now.
  First, the Mac App Store was opt-in.
  Then, it was opt-out.
  Then, it prompted when applications were run if they weren't installed from the App Store.
  Then it required admin access to allow sideloaded applications.
  It's abundantly clear that Apple is using the winning formula from iOS and applying it to OSX. Slowly, of course, but mark my words: within the next release or two of OSX, you'll see at least a few of these:
  -require a terminal command to enable sideloaded apps,
  -prompt every time a sideloaded app is run without the ability to suppress it.
  -require a third party patch of some kind.
  -require some sort of jailbreaking procedure.
  -threat of voided warranty if sideloaded apps are found.
  OSX isn't a walled garden yet...but Tim Cook is absolutely building a wall. And his customers are paying for it.
  Nope.
  For starters, there's a limit to apps in the Mac App Store. They can't install device drivers, nor can they be "demo" apps. And then those apps are sandboxed - they do not have full access to the filesystem. So this excludes a whole bunch of utilities.
  Finally, Gatekeeper only pops up the message when a app is copied from "untrusted" sources. What's untrusted? Stuff downloaded from the internet. Not stuff obtained from USB sticks or optical media, or even... the compiler.
  And the Mac App Store has a $1000 limit on pricing.
  And there's the few developers who will never be on there - Adobe and Microsoft, in particular.
  So as long as people want to use Photoshop, Office on Mac, keeps it open. As long as AutoCAD costs more than $1000, it will be open. (AutoCAD LE, though, is sold through the Mac App Store. Autodesk has said they make more per copy of AutoCAD LE than through their resellers). As long as people want to connect oddball music devices or other device to the Mac requiring a device driver, it will have to be open. As long as people want to use utilities like disk management, disk repair, etc, will keep it open.
  And yes, the compiler is trusted. So even in the worst case, it would result in macOS being the first commercial OS that supports open-source over closed source applications. (Take that, RMS).
  The only thing non-Mac App Store apps cannot do is access iCloud, but that's for security reasons because they don't have access to the sandbox. Otherwise, you could get a document infected with some malware, and it spreads to iCloud. Now it's practically impossible to remove. Otherwise if you install the app, the app gets infected and infects the mac. With the sandbox, it can't do this, so infecting your Mac is much harder. So persistent malware infections will be limited to just an app instead of continually re-infecting Macs and spreading to other Macs via your iCloud account. (There are limited ways to fix this, but still, it's easier to just not make it possible).
  Hell, even iOS is not bound by the walled garden - open source applications can be loaded on any modern iOS device via a Mac without approval from Apple or paying $99. XCode can compile and use a sefl-signed certificate for iOS apps. Sure you have to reload them every 30 days or so, but it's an era of openness that hasn't been seen before.
21. Re:Stop calling them apps! by Anonymous Coward · 2017-02-13 22:24 · Score: 1
  
  But they are apps. "App" is just short for "application". It's always been this way, this isnt anything new that came along with smartphones. You can call them iOS apps or iOS applications, macOS apps, or macOS applications, it's the exact same thing.
22. Re:Stop calling them apps! by TechyImmigrant · 2017-02-14 05:29 · Score: 1
  
  I wasn't really counting Mac or iOS developers. They're a small fraction of the whole. I mean people who program or design electronics and can get more done in a Unix derivative OS. I work in a building with 5000 such people. My observation is that a large proportion were very happy with the retina MBPs (I like my late 2013 model) and didn't feel screwed. Nice screen and keyboard, nice robust and simple case and you can work in a bash shell and can compile programs that also compile on Linux.
  The new MBPs haven't enthused me, but I don't feel screwed because I haven't purchased one. Maybe let down, in the sense that they failed to make something as compelling in the new MBP range.
  
  --
  I should use this sig to advertise my book ISBN-13 : 978-1501515132.
23. Re: Stop calling them apps! by Anonymous Coward · 2017-02-14 09:37 · Score: 0
  
  +1000
24. Re:Stop calling them apps! by Voyager529 · 2017-02-14 11:41 · Score: 1
  
  For now.
  First, the Mac App Store was opt-in.
  Then, it was opt-out.
  Then, it prompted when applications were run if they weren't installed from the App Store.
  Then it required admin access to allow sideloaded applications.
  It's abundantly clear that Apple is using the winning formula from iOS and applying it to OSX. Slowly, of course, but mark my words: within the next release or two of OSX, you'll see at least a few of these:
  -require a terminal command to enable sideloaded apps,
  -prompt every time a sideloaded app is run without the ability to suppress it.
  -require a third party patch of some kind.
  -require some sort of jailbreaking procedure.
  -threat of voided warranty if sideloaded apps are found.
  OSX isn't a walled garden yet...but Tim Cook is absolutely building a wall. And his customers are paying for it.
  Nope.
  For starters, there's a limit to apps in the Mac App Store. They can't install device drivers, nor can they be "demo" apps.
  Admittedly I'm not a daily Mac user, but I'm having a rough time coming up with hardware that fits the limitations. Device drivers? I'm having trouble coming up with one that doesn't come from Apple directly. Even specialty/media hardware tends to either be class compliant or properly autodiscovered, and typically the super-specialty hardware (like MRI machines or factory floor operations equipment) tends to be PC specific.
  
  And then those apps are sandboxed - they do not have full access to the filesystem. So this excludes a whole bunch of utilities.
  Okay, so WinDirStat and XYplorer and Defraggler are out...
  
  Finally, Gatekeeper only pops up the message when a app is copied from "untrusted" sources. What's untrusted? Stuff downloaded from the internet. Not stuff obtained from USB sticks or optical media, or even... the compiler.
  Apple doesn't sell machines with optical drives anymore, and very few pieces of software made it to flash drive distribution. Basically everything is download now, so Gatekeeper is going to apply to like 99% of software installed that isn't from the MAS. The compiler makes sense, because it's the same user account doing the compiling as is approving the message from Gatekeeper...and again, applies to developers and basically nobody else.
  
  And the Mac App Store has a $1000 limit on pricing.
  That's where IAPs come into play. The kitchen sink edition of the Waves plug-ins costs about $7,000, but one at a time they're like $800. People regularly spend more than $1,000 on phone apps; desktop app devs aren't going to let something like that slow them down.
  
  And there's the few developers who will never be on there - Adobe and Microsoft, in particular.
  So as long as people want to use Photoshop, Office on Mac, keeps it open.
  This is probably the best case made. Part of me is thinking that Apple and Microsoft can absolutely come to some sort of arrangement, and that while Adobe may largely be in the same boat, they've managed to figure out how to make annual releases of Photoshop Elements a thing for a decade beyond its feature-completeness. Serif has got a bullseye on Photoshop with their $40 Affinity Photo, and Apple's gutting of the 'pro' versions of their products to be on par with midrange PCs makes me wonder how much they care about pissing off pro photographers.
  
  As long as AutoCAD costs more than $1000, it will be open. (AutoCAD LE, though, is sold through the Mac App Store. Autodesk has said they make more per copy of AutoCAD LE than through their resellers).
  AutoCAD is far from an OSX staple. it spent about 30 years being PC-only prior to its release on the Mac in 2011, and only a very small number of the very expensive Mac Pros have Firepro or Quadro cards to take advantage of the rendering capabilities beyond the LE version.
Re:Apple needs sideloading and a real file system by TheFakeTimCook · 2017-02-13 05:31 · Score: 1, Insightful

Apple needs side loading and a real file system that apps can use. If they want to make the mac more like IOS.
iOS has permitted Sideloading since iOS 8. All perfectly legit.

No Jailbreaking, and with Cydia Impactor, you don't even need XCode or even a Mac.

Try to keep up, willya?
Imma Dash Store Relocator by TechyImmigrant · 2017-02-13 05:40 · Score: 3, Informative

I am one of those who had been using Dash and was forced to go through a re-licensing procedure when Apple kicked it off the Apple app store.
While moderately convenient, the Apple MacOS app store is not good and the experience buying from outside is better. The number of reviews on each application is too small to be useful. It is often 0. I assume this is because they are not being shows. I've posted reviews and they never appeared. So you are left looking at the promotional blurb, wondering if the application is going to be good.
Also there are bugs with the App store's licensing code, because I often get told I don't 'own this application on this computer' (I do, I purchased it on through the app store) and have to log into with my AppleID to make it go away - on the same machine I purchased the application.
So it's buggy, leaves consumers guessing and reams developers for fees. There is plenty of scope for someone to set up a better app store that all the vendors would switch to. Steam did it for games. So why not?

--
I should use this sig to advertise my book ISBN-13 : 978-1501515132.
1. Re:Imma Dash Store Relocator by jemmyw · 2017-02-13 08:29 · Score: 1
  
  Yes. I didn't purchase Dash through the App Store originally and I'm pretty glad of that. I've seen the App Store bugginess with other apps, and I wish I'd had the foresight to not use it with anything.
  
  Saying that though, Dash has been driving me mad with it's own bugs and slowness recently.
Re:Apple needs sideloading and a real file system by Anonymous Coward · 2017-02-13 05:43 · Score: 0

So.. In 2017 in order to sideload you need XCode or another computer or some bizarre third party app and a how-to.
Yeah. I guess that's improvement. I'll keep my Android in my pocket.
App App App App by Anonymous Coward · 2017-02-13 05:48 · Score: 0

App App App App App
I like Products by Yergle143 · 2017-02-13 05:52 · Score: 2

Rogue Amoeba makes a nice program Airfoill that allows my Apple OSX to play nice with the Google Chromecast. Casting audio to my old Stereo is now a cinch. Why Google and Apple don't seem to get along is no mystery.
Re:Apple needs sideloading and a real file system by NoZart · 2017-02-13 05:55 · Score: 3, Insightful

so either pay 99 a year to be able to sideload software onto your device or redeploy it every 7 days. Not what i would call "perfectly legit"
Re:I like Products by MightyYar · 2017-02-13 06:34 · Score: 1

Yes, I've been using Airfoil for years to play music from any source to my small fleet of Airplay receivers (Airport Express) that I use for super-cheap whole-house audio. One of them recently died and so I added an even more super-cheap Chromecast Audio. Impressively, Airfoil treats it identically to Airplay and even keeps them all in perfect sync with one another. Very nice software.

--
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
Re:Apple needs sideloading and a real file system by iampiti · 2017-02-13 06:43 · Score: 1

Meanwhile in Android all you need to do sideload is check the "allow other sources" box and you can install whatever you want and keep it forever
Re:Apple needs sideloading and a real file system by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · 2017-02-13 06:44 · Score: 1

Wait, what? I didn't know this. I'm astonished and excited.
But it looks like the sideloading is via pretending to be the developer of said application. How do I distribute a side-loaded application? Can I still use the app-store for IAPs? Any more details on how to actually deliver sideloaded apps as a developer?

--
Your ad here. Ask me how!
Re:Apple needs sideloading and a real file system by Anonymous Coward · 2017-02-13 06:58 · Score: 0

Really hi-lights the differences between the 2 companies.
Re:Apple needs sideloading and a real file system by TechyImmigrant · 2017-02-13 07:01 · Score: 1

So.. In 2017 in order to sideload you need XCode or another computer or some bizarre third party app and a how-to.
Yeah. I guess that's improvement. I'll keep my Android in my pocket.
I write programs all the time and just run them. I don't use XCode. I use GCC.
Are you confusing the MacOS with iOS?

--
I should use this sig to advertise my book ISBN-13 : 978-1501515132.
Civil Rights Extremists by Anonymous Coward · 2017-02-13 07:14 · Score: 0

Apple now caters to civil rights extremists. Run. Like. Hell. Away. From. Apple.
Re:Apple needs sideloading and a real file system by Anonymous Coward · 2017-02-13 07:17 · Score: 0

Yeah. Android has a checkbox for installing non-sandboxed, mostly virus-riddled software. Woo-hoo, just what the average Joe needs! Get off your basement. Mac sucks, but so does Android when compared to iOS
Re:Apple needs sideloading and a real file system by ImprovOmega · 2017-02-13 07:22 · Score: 1

You can only side load using a developer account to a device specifically registered with that developer account.
Found the LUDDITE! by Anonymous Coward · 2017-02-13 07:32 · Score: 0

ONLY apps can app apps, NOT LUDDITE software like on LUDDITE Windows 7!

Apps!
Re:Apple needs sideloading and a real file system by TheFakeTimCook · 2017-02-13 08:15 · Score: 0

Meanwhile in Android all you need to do sideload is check the "allow other sources" box and you can install whatever you want and keep it forever
And you can keep the malware forever, too...
Re:Apple needs sideloading and a real file system by TheFakeTimCook · 2017-02-13 08:17 · Score: 1

Really hi-lights the differences between the 2 companies.
Yes it does.

One company (Apple) cares about its Users.

The other company (Google) cares about its Users... Data.
Re:Apple needs sideloading and a real file system by TheFakeTimCook · 2017-02-13 08:19 · Score: 1

You can only side load using a developer account to a device specifically registered with that developer account.
That's the way it USED to be.

Now, you can "Trust" a Developer.
Re:Apple needs sideloading and a real file system by TheFakeTimCook · 2017-02-13 08:30 · Score: 1

Wait, what? I didn't know this. I'm astonished and excited.
But it looks like the sideloading is via pretending to be the developer of said application. How do I distribute a side-loaded application? Can I still use the app-store for IAPs? Any more details on how to actually deliver sideloaded apps as a developer?
Well, some people just publish the Source on Github.

Here's a tutorial from the User's point-of-view on using XCode to install f.lux for iOS.

Other people publish the Cydia Impactor (.ipa) Packages on their websites. Here's a tutorial for using Impactor to install f.lux from their .ipa file.

I don't think this affects your ability as an iOS Developer to submit offerings for the iOS App Store. But I would check with some other iOS Devs. to be certain.
Re:Apple needs sideloading and a real file system by iampiti · 2017-02-13 08:43 · Score: 1

Thank you, but I'm smart enough to avoid it. The same way I can avoid it in Windows. By your username I might think you're a troll but anyways that's what I think
Re:Apple needs sideloading and a real file system by TheFakeTimCook · 2017-02-13 09:01 · Score: 0

Thank you, but I'm smart enough to avoid it. The same way I can avoid it in Windows. By your username I might think you're a troll but anyways that's what I think
That's what everyone thinks.... Until they get bit.
actively avoid the app store by gomoku · 2017-02-13 09:27 · Score: 1

I got caught out on the app store several years back, bought an expensive suite for couple of hundred dollars, when it came time to upgrade. Ooops, sorry upgrade pricing is not possible on the app store you need to re-buy the next version at full price. If I had purchased direct the upgrade would have been only $80-. After contacting the developer and asking if I could switch to the non appstore version + upgrade they declined citing being to scared to piss of apple. So I was royally fucked. Anyways still running the old version 4 years later, and now I am switching back to Dell & Debian after Apple butchered the pro line. :)

--
Track your fitness and strength gains with www.trackmytraining.net
FILM at 11 by fyngyrz · 2017-02-13 11:15 · Score: 1

your computer is not a phone it doesn't need it's own app store.
The only reason you think your phone needs an App Store is because Apple has forced people to use it. I get apps for my phone from various sources. It's perfectly easy to do. Because it's not an iPhone.
This kind of failure (as in TFS) is what happens when you mismanage an App Store. Apple has no idea what it's doing here. The only reason they get away with the iOS app store is because users can't side load. But with macOS - so far - you can, so the Mac App Store has to add value. And it doesn't. It reduces value by slowing updates, reducing choice, and negatively impacts developer revenue.
Of course, the direction the "security" features in macOS are going has been right along the path towards no side loading. It's much more difficult than it used to be. Might end up there, too.
Interesting to watch them fumble so badly.
(I develop Mac apps, btw.)

--
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
Re:Apple needs sideloading and a real file system by Anonymous Coward · 2017-02-13 12:36 · Score: 0

That's what everyone thinks.... Until they get bit.
I know, I bought a new macbook pro and an iphone and the damn things dont work together, the iphone headphones don't work with the macbook and damn macbook doesn't even have a port I can plug the iphone into. Apple used to be well-respected for making products that seamlessly worked together, now they don't work together at all, I have to go buy adapters to make Apple products work with other Apple products and its not like I'm mixing old and new here either it's just a shitty user experience. Undoubtedly you'll defend it because it's Apple though, I mean Apple just sold you an excuse to go back and visit the Apple store again! How great is that?! You get to buy more Apple stuff!
Re: Apple needs sideloading and a real file system by Anonymous Coward · 2017-02-14 07:53 · Score: 0

You're such a no-life loser.