Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Fed Up With Apple's Policies, App Developers Form a 'Union' (wired.com)

Posted by msmash on from the is-anyone-listening? dept.

Even as Apple has addressed some of the concerns outlined by iOS developers in the recent years, many say it's not enough. As the iOS App Store approaches its tenth anniversary, some app developers are still arguing for better App Store policies, ones that they say will allow them to make a better living as independent app makers. On Friday, a small group of developers, including one who recently made a feature-length film about the App Store and app culture, are forming a union to lobby for just that. From a report: In an open letter to Apple that published this morning, a group identifying themselves as The Developers Union wrote that "it's been difficult for developers to earn a living by writing software" built on Apple's existing values. The group then asked Apple to allow free trials for apps, which would give customers "the chance to experience our work for themselves, before they have to commit to making a purchase."

The grassroots effort is being lead by Jake Schumacher, the director of App: The Human Story; software developer Roger Ogden and product designer Loren Morris, who both worked for a timesheet app that was acquired last year; and Brent Simmons, a veteran developer who has made apps like NetNewsWire, MarsEdit, and Vesper, which he co-created with respected Apple blogger John Gruber.

28 of 108 comments (clear)

  1. What leverage? by omnichad · · Score: 3, Interesting

    These developers gain no leverage by forming a union. They remove their apps from the store forever, Apple doesn't care. There is no power to be gained except maybe in media coverage.

    1. Re:What leverage? by omnichad · · Score: 2

      If they are "app developers" then their livelihood and entire career depends on app sales. It would hurt them way more than it would hurt Apple, because unlike an employee union - you can't just find another employer. Apple has all the leverage, even still.

    2. Re:What leverage? by Altus · · Score: 2

      The thing is, if these are independent developers, how much does their voice really matter. What percentage of app store downloads do these folks represent, vs the number of downloads of apps from larger corporations. There are a lot of apps on the store that could vanish tomorrow and nobody would even notice so it kind of depends on what the software portfolio these developers represent. Sure, they can go to android but if they are struggling to make money on the iPhone it doesn't seem likely that they will do all that much better on the play store.

      That said they do have some valid gripes. Free trials would be ideal for certain types of software but when you can just delete and re-install an app to get around it then it isn't all that useful, leaving developers to find ways to distribute locked version of their software with an in app purchase to unlock additional functionality. Good for some things (play the first 5 levels of my new game) but bad for other things (try out this GPS software that will only get you 80% of the way to your destination until you unlock it).

      --

      "In America, first you get the sugar, then you get the power, then you get the women..." -H. Simpson

    3. Re:What leverage? by Altus · · Score: 2

      No, its not. I gave you an example for which feature limits doesn't really work. It does for some types of apps but for others a time limited full featured app is really the best way to show a user what they will be paying for. Making a GPS app that has some cool features but not letting anyone try those out before paying isn't a good marketing tool, I don't know if your feature will work well enough for me.

      Just because the app you make can be marketed effectively using feature limits or watermarks on outputs or whatever doesn't mean that everyone else's can and thanks to sandboxing its not practical for the developer to create a time limited app, if apple would even allow it, because the user can delete it and install a new copy at any time

      --

      "In America, first you get the sugar, then you get the power, then you get the women..." -H. Simpson

    4. Re:What leverage? by Altus · · Score: 2

      Personally, probably not, but what about 10 bucks... what if its an app I only need rarely... what if I'm a cheep skate. People used to do this same thing with demo software back on the PC but back then you could hide a file somewhere or flip a switch in the registry or something to indicate a previous install. Why would a developer go to those lengths if people weren't working around their demo protection?

      Without some actual enforcement what you have is shareware, which is fine but isn't always a good model for people who want to make a living making software.

      --

      "In America, first you get the sugar, then you get the power, then you get the women..." -H. Simpson

    5. Re:What leverage? by squiggleslash · · Score: 3, Insightful

      If they're not making enough money from app sales - which is their complaint then withdrawing from the app store isn't going to hurt them more than it hurts Apple.

      because unlike an employee union - you can't just find another employer

      That's... not how unions work or why they exist. Traditionally they've existed precisely because employers have monopsonies on employment for the workers concerned. If there was no monopsony, the employees wouldn't need the union, they could just hop onto a rival employer.

      --
      You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
    6. Re:What leverage? by BronsCon · · Score: 2

      Very few people bought that $999 iPhone, many more have bought the $650 and $750 Galaxy phones, though. Many more than have bought iPhones at any price point, in fact. Care to try again?

      --
      APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
  2. The return of shareware! by Khyber · · Score: 2

    Except it's the app store sharing it instead of a forum or BBS.

    Apple never liked demo/shareware software much because it could be buggy and make their hardware look bad.

    --
    Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
    1. Re:The return of shareware! by brunes69 · · Score: 4, Informative

      A free trial *is not* "the return of shareware".

      Almost every piece of software in the enterprise and consumer world has free 30 day trials now, most of them delivered via cloud. Consumers don't want to invest a ton of money into something that won't work for their use case. If you're talking about a $0.99 game that is one thing, but some productivity apps can cost $8 and up. Paying $8 for something that turns out to not be useful at all, that stings.

      Google figured this out forever ago - the play store has had free trials since inception. They used to be 24 hours, now just 4 hours - however 4 hours is plenty long enough to install an app, set it up, and try it out before deciding if it is worth actually paying for.

    2. Re:The return of shareware! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I'm in game development. In our industry, free trials have been shown to reduce sales so we don't have "demo versions" anymore. PC games are typically more expensive than mobile apps so the purchase price doesn't seem all that important - it's more about allowing the transaction to occur at the peak of the user's interest in the product. Steam does this very well by making the purchase/download quick and easy. Free trials get downloaded at the peak interest, played through, and the customer then goes to bed and most likely doesn't think about the game again. The next day they hear about and download another game.

    3. Re:The return of shareware! by lgw · · Score: 3, Informative

      No, a free trial has full functionality with limited time. Shareware has limited functionality but unlimited time.

      There were many kinds of shareware: limited time, limited functionality, nagware, and guiltware, just to name a few. The early BBS says lacked the monetization sophistication of modern apps, but they did try quite a few approaches.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    4. Re:The return of shareware! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      What the fuck do you think shareware was in the first place? A free trial of a program with limited functionality made with the hopes of getting you to pay for the full un-limited product.

      A free trial is a specific form of limitation. It is a way of limiting use of software in and of itself, but would be a subset of shareware.

      A free trial is by its definition fully functional software that is time limited.
      If the software is limited by features, it isn't a trial as you can't test and verify those locked out features.

      This is certainly one way shareware can be restricted, but by far not the only way.

      Restricting what features are available is another way shareware can be restricted, but this is most often not any way to try the software as a whole as a trial would usually need to be.

      Shareware authors would usually choose a limiting method that made sense for the type of software it was, balanced out such to encourage most people to purchase the full version over making it usable enough that people would not pay and just keep it in shareware mode.

      mIRC, a Windows IRC client (it used to be the most popular one) is one of many examples of shareware that initially only utilized a nag screen on launch.
      People got the idea that you can just leave it running 24/7 to avoid the nag screen, and the devs said that in over a decade they had less than 3 registered users, despite multiple millions of downloads and users.

      However, unlike your claim, the above software was definitely "shareware" yet had no time limits or even feature limits while it was unregistered.

  3. idiots by slashmydots · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Around 85% of smartphones worldwide are Android. THAT is why you're not making any more. Maybe follow the lead of most PC software manufacterer's and ignore Apple and their tiny market share. They're not worth the time and hassle.

    1. Re:idiots by AlanBDee · · Score: 2

      There's this concept that Android users won't pay for software; that's too bad because I hate, hate, HATE advertisements and will gladly pay a few bucks for the app. But the vast majority of software that is in the Android store is ad supported/free. They should bring their software over to Android where it's easy to release two versions of any app; a free to try/ad supported version and a paid version without ads.

    2. Re:idiots by llZENll · · Score: 3, Insightful

      You are correct that most smartphones are Android, however you are gravely mistaken about mobile economies. Apple accounts for over 65% of all mobile revenue in the world, the reason is simple, Android users are poorer, and more likely to root their device and steal everything. I'm not saying this is good or bad, they are simply facts.

      https://techcrunch.com/2018/01...

    3. Re:idiots by alongley · · Score: 2

      It is genuinely hard to believe this level of ignorance still exists. Android may well have (many) more phones out there, but that's completely irrelevant. Marketshare does not equal profit or revenue, either for the hardware vendor or for the app software vendor. There is more money to be made in Apple's ecosystem because something like $2 is spent in iOS software for every $1 on Android software (Android downloads are higher than iOS). It's also a royal pain to support Android because of the 2 zillion handsets out there running different resolutions, OS versions, and hardware. FWIW OP doesn't claim iOS developers don't make any money.

      --
      How do I edit my sig.
  4. 30% IS FUCKING ROBBERY by l0ungeb0y · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I'm all for Apple making money off the Apps people put into the App Store. It's their Phone, it's their Platform. They deserve to make money off that. But THIRTY FUCKING PERCENT OF ALL In-App Purchases?? That was never a fair shake and was a definite cash grab meant to exploit the work of the Developers creating those Apps. There is simply no way to justify taking 30% of the revenue from the Developers who toil to make those Apps. I think it's time Apple slashes it's cut and substantially. And by substantial I mean just that -- at least half, down to 15% or even 10%. Perhaps these Developers can attain some critical mass and have enough weight that they could yank all their apps and make a considerable dent in the App Store. That sort of move would get attention and provide some leverage. It's high time Apple stopped fucking over it's developer base, who has been a large part of the reason for the iPhone's success.

    1. Re:30% IS FUCKING ROBBERY by R3d+M3rcury · · Score: 2

      Well, part of the argument is that if you were selling your software via retail stores, they would often demand 50%.

      Of course, here in the 21st Century, who buys software from retail stores?

    2. Re:30% IS FUCKING ROBBERY by epine · · Score: 2

      Apple is a corporation. It's not a person. It's run by board with the only goal being to make money.

      90% of corporations behave less unethically than they could get away with, bottom line, total-cost-of-assholeness (TCA).

      The psychopathic shock absorber in modern corporate culture is perhaps not terribly large, but neglecting it entirely is ideological, idiotic, inflammatory and smells bad, too.

    3. Re:30% IS FUCKING ROBBERY by farble1670 · · Score: 2

      90% of corporations behave less unethically than they could get away with, bottom line, total-cost-of-assholeness (TCA).

      You can point to say Apple donating to homeless shelters in Cupertino. I could say they did that to butter up the Cupertino city council so they'd be allowed to expand their parking lot. I could say Apple has an interest in maintaining an image that's it's socially responsible, because that's what turns on its hipster millennial fan base, and what ultimately will sell more product. So donating to that homeless shelter gets paid back in sales ten fold.

      Not provable either way. Just an observation that money always wins in the end.

  5. The definition of insanity by AlanBDee · · Score: 3, Interesting

    If they find it difficult to make a living as an independent app developer then stop being an independent app developer. Not only is it easy to earn a living from being a software engineer, most of us make a really good living from it. How many apps aren't created by independent developers but are instead created by companies with teams of developers? They're not going to join a union. A union would only works if enough app developers join it. The fact that you can't make a living from it tells me that the app store is over saturated with apps.

  6. A good idea regardless by laughingcoyote · · Score: 3, Informative

    The Google store used to do this. They'd allow you to uninstall an application within, I think it was an hour or two, and you'd be refunded for it.

    When I think about it, I was more willing to try paid applications at that time. I don't mind paying a buck or two for something that's going to serve me well, but I do mind paying a buck or two for a steaming pile, or even for something that works okay but isn't really to my taste.

    I don't know why they quit doing that. I'm a lot more willing to try something out if I can kick the tires a bit before I'm committed to paying for it. I hardly think I'm the only one.

    --
    To fight the war on terror, stop being afraid.
  7. The Apple store doesn't have free trials? by mcmonkey · · Score: 2

    I have several apps on my Android phone that I first installed for free and then upgraded to the paid version.

    It boggles my mind that Apple wouldn't have this.

  8. Marketing by Thelasko · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Don't call it a union. The republican political machine will try to destroy it. Call it a trade group, and fund political candidates that will fight for protections for app developers. It's a much easier path that can get support from both sides of the aisle.

    --
    One of our competitors trademarked the term "hypothesis". From now on, we will call them "boneheaded ideas".
  9. It's not robbery, it's a fair return by SuperKendall · · Score: 2

    I don't think 30% is high at all for what you get in return.

    Apple has hundreds of millions of customers around the globe with payment information on file, so all they have to do is click on you app and confirm they want to pay.

    You don't have to worry about hackers messing with your payment system to grab customer payment info. You don't have to worry about complying with privacy laws across scars of countries.

    You also don't have to worry about standing up servers that can take any amount of traffic from anywhere 24x7, for both fetching the app itself and application related resources.

    They also handle the update process without you doing any work or having to send out notices of new versions.

    It's crazy to me to complain that everything an application developer gets in return is worth less than 30% of revenue... if that's really a problem can't you just charge more? No? Well I guess you were never a serious business to begin with if you were entirely dependent on that whole infrastructure making your application possible to begin with and can't survive when you charge customers the amount you need to survive.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
  10. The basic problem I see with this is by oldgraybeard · · Score: 2

    whether it be a Guild, Trade Group or Union the only ones guaranteed to make a good living are those running the organization.
    Because if they don't, the organization shuts down. But while the ride lasts they get paid first, regardless of their performance.

    As a self employed contract computer programmer with 30+ years in, I do hope I am wrong and wish them success in their efforts.

    Just my 2 cents ;)

  11. Good for them by rsilvergun · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I always wondered why techies don't organize. In America We've been getting screwed since 2000 when the outsourcing started. And offshore I see guys working 16 hours a day 6 days a week (7 during crunch time). It's not like we don't all have the internet.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
  12. Re:iOS apps made over 5x Android apps by perpenso · · Score: 3, Informative

    has to target the last 4 major version of Android

    Google's adding requirements that apps need to be targeted to the last major release (e.g., as of October (?) this year they need to target Oreo). It's just for updates and new apps for now but they know this problem and are working on it.

    If I understand things correctly that change does not really address this problem. Many of those phones cannot upgrade, this includes phones currently sold. Last I checked a few months ago an inexpensive pay-as-you-go phone at Walmart could be stuck at Android 4.4 KitKat. Plus this change is only addressing the lazy developers that just targeted 4.4 KitKat and use an ancient SDK and libraries and rely on that running everywhere. While google may require that apps target the current major release and use a current SDK and libraries they will still allow compatibility with the old versions. The developer will have to target Android 8 Oreo and add conditionals as necessary to support deprecated and other 4.4 targeting code. Google is not making anyone drop support for old versions. If they did that many phones would become unreachable to developers. I believe google is just requiring that developers use current SDKs and libraries, and at least indirectly have better "native" support for the current Android version. Yes "native" is a somewhat overloaded term here but I hope you get my meaning, current SDK/libs better support for current Android. And I'm sure that google also hopes developers will be a little less lazy and perhaps support some feature only offered in the current OS. There are probably also newer things that developers will be forced to support, for example newer security models.