
Mac App Store: The Subtle Exodus - milen
http://blog.helftone.com/mac-app-store-the-subtle-exodus/
======
coldcode
As much as I support Apple and have been since 1979, including being an early
Mac developer in 1985 and even working there in the horrible mid-90's, the
major problem is that Tim and Jony don't care (and Steve didn't either for
that matter) about developers enough to do anything more than what works for
Apple. Whether the people in charge have no budget or don't care or are
hamstrung by politics, nothing will change until and if the top people start
to care. Apple makes so much money even with all the crap we have to put up
with as developers they clearly have no reason to change and sadly I don't
expect them to. You don't tell the world's most valuable company how to run
their business. It didn't work for people telling Microsoft in the 90's or
Apple today.

Sorry for the brutal truth but it is what it is.

~~~
Tloewald
The problem with the App Store isn't that Apple is making too much money from
developers (they're not making more money than anyone else who retails
products for you). The problem is that the App Store doesn't support stuff
developers need, like upgrades, migration from previous licensing schemes,
free trials (vs. in-app purchases of functionality). This was very much a
Steve-ism (let's keep things simple for customers) but they need to treat
developers as customers too.

~~~
byEngineer
I like the idea of making it easy on customers. I'd rather go through
additional pain as a business/developer and make more money (better product)
than have an ecosystem that is unfriendly for paying customer but nice for
geeks like me. What I love as a consumer in my iPhone (compared to Android,
etc.) is no upgrades -- annoying like hell. No messages about license changes
(thanks God!).

Why you guys insist on making sure that your software is annoying to people
who use it?! I don't get it. Where is Steve?!

~~~
milen
The whole point is that nothing will change, as far as the consumer experience
is concerned. You won't get bothered about upgrades or anything like this. All
that would happen is you might see an "Upgrade" button in your list of apps
you purchased. That's it.

Note that while the notion of paying once and getting infinite updates forever
is quite nice, it's not rooted in reality. Either the app you're using will
get abandoned or you will have to pay up at some point in the future, somehow
- ads, IAP, etc.

~~~
tormeh
Or the developer makes a sequel app, and you have to pay again to get the new
one.

~~~
byEngineer
I like that concept. I paid to go from MS DOS 3.5 to MS DOS 5.0. Have no
problem doing the same with your app bro!

------
api
I can only hope. App stores are a horrible thing for developers-- you are
utterly beholden to the app store and a rule change could destroy your
business. They're also a horrible thing in the long run for all of us, since
they lead us down a path toward a computing ecosystem where true universal
computing is prohibited to ordinary users and only signed code will run.

The convenience factor is real, but it could be addressed by a better app
installation and upgrade model. Apple is already way ahead there by
encouraging all components of most apps to live in their .app "folder-file."
What if the OS had baked-in support for update feeds from the app's developer?

The security factor though is a bit of a tragedy. Open desktop OSes have
serious security issues around the installation of software. Instead of
solving those issues in a way that does not degrade capability or restrict
freedom, OS vendors have decided that it's easier and cheaper to sidestep them
by just using the app store model and forcing all code to be signed. Your OS
is no more secure... they're just limiting what can run on it. It's part
security theater and part just punting on the problem.

Maybe if the app store model fails on the high end we'll get real solutions to
these problems.

~~~
jtokoph
It's unfortunate that the Mac App Store most likely won't fail in it's current
state. There are too many people that don't realize that they are purchasing
the outdated or degraded experiences and are perfectly happy.

~~~
milen
What's quite interesting is that a few years ago, when you bought from the
MAS, you assumed you will always be able to install the software and it will
be kept up to date. Nowadays, the unfortunately reality is the opposite - it's
very likely the MAS version is seriously lagging behind.

What's worse, as you say, is that there's absolutely no indication that some
of those apps have been abandoned (apart from the very old Last Update date).
The vast majority of consumers will just buy the software and not go
researching whether the app they're acquiring has been left collecting dust.

And at the end, both consumers and developers lose out.

------
gozmike
Interestingly this weekend at Cingleton, Rich Siegel announced that BBEdit was
leaving the Mac App store... not for any one technical issue with it but for
"sanity".

Essentially, the app store dynamics add stress to the process of shipping mac
software for most developers and they add this stress at the end of the
release cycle when a developer is already at their most tense moment.

Having deployed many products on Apple's stores, I can say that I completely
relate to this and so did the crowd at Cingleton. I expect many other apps to
follow suit...

------
heychristian
I'm the CEO of Paddle
([https://www.paddle.com/sell](https://www.paddle.com/sell)), we're
essentially trying to solve this exact problem for OS X developers, by
providing App Store functionality, and more, for those selling outside the MAS
(IAPs, Analytics, Payments, Trials, Activations/ Licensing).

The lack of trial versions aside (which is still a huge problem), one of the
primary issues with the MAS is the flat-out exclusion of certain categories of
application. For example, system utilities are almost totally banned from the
MAS, and the system tools/ utilities that are currently available in the Mac
App Store tend to just be slimmed down versions of their non-MAS counterparts
with lots of functionality removed.

I speak to hundreds of OS X developers every week, and the sentiment around
the MAS is gradually changing. Typically we're hearing developers just
referring to the MAS as a marketing channel these days, due to the
restrictions enforced on them.

We see a lot of data around MAS vs. Non-MAS sales, and reasons for developers
switching, so if anyone has any questions about this space, I'd be happy to
answer.

~~~
kylec
I'm a Mac user and went to check out what Paddle offers users, so I went to
[http://www.paddle.com/](http://www.paddle.com/). It wants me to immediately
log in or sign up, something that I'm not particularly inclined to do as I
have no idea what you're offering. If you want to create a credible
alternative to the Mac App Store, you're going to want to make it really,
really easy for prospective users to see what Paddle is, what's available to
buy, and what the process is like for managing their software library,
updates, etc. This should be your #1 priority, as the best way to convince app
developers to use your service is to be able to say that you have lots of
users.

~~~
heychristian
Thanks for the feedback. I completely agree.

Paddle initially started as a marketplace for all types of digital content,
and we've slowly transitioned into this toolkit for developers, offering
payments, trials etc...

What you see at Paddle.com is reminiscent of our consumer-facing marketplace
days, and we're close to pushing out a new homepage (this week).

One thing we're not trying to be, is a marketplace in a similar fashion to the
MAS, we're trying to be the technology layer that empowers developers to not
need a marketplace, own their customer, and take back some of the control that
they typically give up by relying so heavily on a marketplace.

I do completely agree with you that the current homepage being what it is, and
what we actually do being located at
[https://www.paddle.com/sell](https://www.paddle.com/sell) is confusing for
potential customers who might want to work with us.

This is changing this week. :)

------
benaiah
> As a consequence, developers producing high quality apps reduce their prices
> significantly to levels that consumers can afford to take a gamble on.

I wonder if this is Apple's entire point in taking this stance. The cheaper,
more numerous, and better the apps, the more attractive the platform, and
Apple may be betting that developers will just put up with it, at least on
iOS, due to their massive market share. The MAS system might be the way it is
simply to keep in ideological step with the iOS App Store. That's the only
explanation I can come up with for their bizarre behavior WRT the MAS.

~~~
milen
jessep is right - you cannot have a large amount of cheap and high quality
software.

Note that there are some very large difference between the software on iOS and
Mac. On mobile system, the vast majority of apps are more akin to small
consumables - like having a can of coke or a cup of coffee.

On the Mac, you have much more complex software, that can take years (and even
decades) to develop. This software requires serious investment of resources
and time. If the ecosystem cannot support it, it won't exist.

You're right that the iOS store is designed to encourage a lot of choice at
low prices - that's what sells iPhones. This might be okay for consumables but
a non-starter for professional software that exists on the Mac.

~~~
michaelt
If Apple could persuade Adobe to sell Photoshop for $0.99 it would be good for
Mac adoption. Then once Adobe goes out of business, Apple could buy the
Photoshop IP at a knock-down price, make it Mac-only, and give it away with
the OS.

~~~
TylerE
What if Adobe gave Photoshop away for free and charged for
support/integration? That's really the defacto situation now... Photoshop has
always been very widely pirated.

~~~
hollerith
No, the de facto situation now is that Adobe makes a lot of money from sales
of Photoshop and no money from support/integration.

I.e., nonwithstanding the piracy, Photoshop makes Adobe a lot of money, and
all that money comes from sales, and none of it comes from support or
integration.

------
mmuro
Ok, so Coda 2.5, BBEdit, TextExpander and other developer-type apps can't be
in the App Store because they can't be sandboxed. Fine, if it's a developer-
type tool that has to do things most everyday users aren't going to need, do
it outside the Mac App Store. For everything else, the Mac App Store is great.

In fact, I'm such a fan of the Mac App Store that I wish every app could
conform to it's rules so I wouldn't have to dig out a lame license key, or
heaven help me, email the vendor for some time sensitive generated key thing.

~~~
smackfu
It's not just developer-type tools that can't be sandboxed. Dropbox can't.
BackBlaze can't.

~~~
heychristian
Also, any service where it isn't viable to give 30% of their revenue to Apple,
Spotify for example (who have to give 70% of their revenue to record
companies).

Not that Apple would want Spotify in the store anyway, with it being an iTunes
competitor.

~~~
vitd
Wait - so what do they do on iOS? There’s a free Spotify app for iOS. Why
couldn’t they do the same on the desktop?

~~~
14113
Because they _have_ to allow it for iOS, otherwise iOS becomes "the platform
without Spotify". Imagine if iOS wouldn't allow a native Facebook app - what
would happen then?

With OSX it's a little different, as there are alternative channels for
installing Spotify, which prevents OSX from becoming "a platform without
Spotify", and also allows Apple to ignore them entirely, and push their own
product in the store.

~~~
giovannibajo1
No, Spotify is not an exception to App Store rules.

There are hundreds of apps that allow you to use subscriptions made outside of
the App Store. The rules for digital goods and digital subscriptions are:

* If you want the actual payment/checkout to happen ON the phone THROUGH the app, it MUST be an In-App Purchase (subject to 30% cut). * Appendix: redirecting to a website for the payment is forbidden, because it would be a too easy workaround to the previous rule. * If you want the app to just connect and use an existing subscription made elsewhere, go ahead, nothing is owed to Apple.

Dropbox for instance happily works with the subscription made on the website.
A couple of years ago, they ALSO added a way to subscribe to their paid plan
through the app, in which case the 30% cut is paid to Apple. I can see they
doing it because probably they don't want to lose customers that feel like
upgrading with a single tap is much easier than going to the website and
inserting credit card details. As everybody in marketing knows, when you're
potentially one tap away from buying something, the sole idea of having to go
to the computer and taking the wallet is enough for a turndown for most
people; impulsive buying is a strong force.

~~~
14113
Ah, I wasn't really commenting on the pricing - more on the idea of having a
"competitor" on your own store.

------
dchuk
I've complained about the lack of app trials via the mac/iOS app stores for
years now. It would be SO EASY for them to incorporate this functionality for
developers to allow, where I can try a full version of an app for a certain
amount of time and then it would lock me out until I purchased it.

Not having that feature has easily stopped me from giving at least 50% of apps
I've found a shot simply because I don't want to make a blind purchase based
on 5 screenshots.

~~~
warfangle
That's a pretty great thing about the android market - you can 'return' an app
for a full refund.

~~~
milen
While having the ability to return an app is necessary (most non-App Store
places have 30/60-day money back guarantees), it's not a replacement for
trials.

For example, there might be 4-5 apps in the $30-50 range that I want to try.
I'm not going to spend $150 and then having to request a refund for the rest -
it simply won't happen.

~~~
vitd
I haven’t purchased boxed software in years, but there was never the ability
to return software once it had been opened. If you realized you got the wrong
application and hadn’t opened it, OK, you could return it. Otherwise it was
assumed that you installed it and then returned it to get your money back.

------
credo
I agree with all four points mentioned by the writer, IMO of those four
reasons, the biggest problem is the absence of "paid upgrades"

Not being able to charge for updates is a problem that affects almost every
single paid app (assuming the app is supported across multiple versions and
major updates) in all the app stores. This is an unsustainable proposition for
most developers.

At a recent Seattle Xcoders meeting in Redmond, our speaker spoke about how he
had given up his indie business and had now switched to contracting
(disclosure: I run this meeting and had asked the speaker to speak).

At the meeting, I noted that Apple made its profits through hardware and they
could therefore afford to make their software free. Similarly, Google is an
ads company and so they don't need to charge for their software. However, the
dominance of these companies means that most users/consumers expect all their
software to be free (and the small minority that downloads paid apps wants
upgrades to be free).

It is going to be an uphill battle for any "software" company to survive in
the future. IMO that applies primarily to indie devs (I'm one myself) who sell
apps in the app stores, but the problem also extends to large companies like
Microsoft.

~~~
M4v3R
Maybe I'm missing something, but couldn't you use In-app Purchases for "paid
upgrades"? As in, release the update for free, but have an additional in-app
purchase to unlock the new functionality?

Of course that wouldn't work for all upgrades (like a whole-app rewrite or
interface revamp, etc.), but for some cases I imagine that could work.

This would also solve the problem of no free trial (release the app for free
and then add in-app purchase to unlock the full functionality).

These are of course only workarounds, and I would greatly appreciate if Apple
would come up with a complete solution for these problems.

~~~
drewcrawford
Suppose you have a video converting app. Further suppose your headline new
feature is converting 2x as fast as the old version, pretty much the holy
grail of video conversion software.

In the MAS you have a set of bad choices:

A) Release the upgrade free to everybody. Great for them, bad for you.

B) Make the new encoder an IAP. Problem is, now you are maintaining "old" code
that you may not want to maintain anymore. You may need to wrestle with the
old encoder to get it compile for new versions of the compiler, etc. You have
to fix bugs that occur with the old encoder and new, unanticipated changes in
OSX. If you're still compiling and uploading it every month you can't
plausibly claim that it's no longer supported.

C) ship the new encoder, but cripple it so it's slow until users upgrade. This
seems capricious. Also, you can't get exactly the performance of the old
encoder; you'll either overshoot or undershoot. And the nature of the MAS is
that user's can't effectively downgrade, so they'll be SOL if you're wrong.

D) Remove the app from sale and submit a new app. You're wiping your slate
with links, app reviews, etc. You also lose customers, who don't find out
about your shiny new version. OmniGroup pursues this strategy, and they lose a
lot of revenue from me (an avid user) because I completely miss certain
upgrades because I don't hear about them. I can't imagine how it is for
marginal users.

E) Don't update the app after all, because in spite of the fact that 2x video
encoders obviously add value to the world, the MAS adds too much friction to
make it a viable business. I would argue that the majority of iOS and Mac apps
face this sad reality at some point in their lifecycle.

I submit to you, that if you manage to write a video encoder that is 2x
faster, that should be the hard problem. The hard problem shouldn't be to
figure out how to structure your upgrade pricing. But with the MAS, it is.

~~~
yaeger
>D) Remove the app from sale and submit a new app. You're wiping your slate
with links, app reviews, etc. You also lose customers, who don't find out
about your shiny new version

Um, how about this: Since your encoder is 100% faster you obviously did some
substantial engineering on it. So why would this be just an update to the
existing app? Even if you could charge for it?

The easy option you didn't mention is: F) Keep the old app in the store and
start selling your "Encoder2" as well. "But I wrote 'customers don't find out
about your shiny new version' you are now thinking" Well, you know there is
the option of having users of the old app being notified about your new
offerings, right? Don't tell me you have never seen such a popup in an app
telling you about that companies new app.

So now you have two apps in the store and it is up to you to make sure how
they differ and how the new one is an improvement over the old one. Now the
customer has the choice which to get. For them nothing changes.

------
stdgy
Has any team ever tried to put together a system equivalent to Steam for
Desktop application distribution?

I'm imagining a cross-platform(Well, for desktops) store that would make it
easy for developers to release applications, distribute updates, distribute
trials and manage payments using a number of different models(single purchase,
upgrade discounts, weekly/monthly/yearly subscriptions, all kinds of things).

It's upsetting that good software doesn't have a good way to be distributed
and searched for in 2014. I feel like we, as developers, should be taking the
initiative here, not sitting on our haunches hoping Apple and Microsoft give
us something that works.

~~~
gozmike
Yup, the guys at Paddle are:
[https://www.paddle.com/](https://www.paddle.com/)

~~~
heychristian
[https://www.paddle.com/sell](https://www.paddle.com/sell) for the developer
solution.

FD: I work at Paddle, and would be happy to answer any questions. It's exactly
these types of headaches we're trying to solve for developers.

~~~
jdhendrickson
Any comment on the problems with the Macaw launch?

~~~
heychristian
Sure! We worked with Macaw to power their pre-order sales, and did several
thousand pre-orders of their application prior to the launch. It was Macaw's
intention for the duration of the pre-order to use Paddle's SDKs on Mac and
Windows to distribute their application (provide trial version, license codes
etc...)

A few weeks before the pre-order ended the Macaw guys decided, that users
having an account with Macaw would be a better way for users to license the
application (to be fair to them, they've made the product registration/
activation process really nice).

Unfortunately, we weren't given much notice of the switch away from Paddle,
and the process of giving access to pre-order customers wasn't handled in the
best way. Which resulted in some pre-order customers not getting their copies
of the application until a few days after the launch. -- We weren't actually
powering the app, or their licensing at this point, but given more notice of
the switch/ their launch, we could have assisted in getting the pre-order
customers copies to them more seamlessly.

That said, and although Macaw aren't a customer of ours anymore (and haven't
been since the pre-order), they seem to be killing it, have made a truly
stellar product, and we wish them all the best! :)

~~~
jdhendrickson
Thanks for the great reply it reset my personal views on your service (which
were based on previous experience). I was one of those pre-order customers. I
wish you and your company luck!

------
joesmo
The last place I go to get apps for OS X is the MAS. If it's available outside
of the store, I always prefer that. There is nothing compelling about the MAS
and there never has been. It's ridiculous that I have to sign in to get free
apps or OS updates. For OS updates and apps that offer no other way of
installation, it's a concession I make grudgingly. Why should Apple be a
middle-man in my software purchases/downloads while offering absolutely
nothing over more traditional methods of installation, not even convenience?

~~~
Terretta
> _while offering absolutely nothing over more traditional methods of
> installation_

On the contrary, I (who happily use brew and brew cask) have _re-_ purchased
anything that is available in the app store, even if I'd already purchased it
elsewhere, just for the app store conveniences.

It's really amazing to dump an old Mac for a new one and just click from your
purchased inventory, no serials, no nonsense. Not to mention having that work
on both your laptop and your desktop.

The old days of having to take a day off just to move to a new or additional
machine are long gone, thanks to the app store.

~~~
72deluxe
Isn't that the joy of Time Machine too?

------
tree_of_item
Software is a service industry, not a product industry. Expect to see more
software in the style of [http://chrome.blogspot.com/2014/09/adobe-joins-
chromebook-pa...](http://chrome.blogspot.com/2014/09/adobe-joins-chromebook-
party-starting.html) or
[http://aws.amazon.com/appstream/](http://aws.amazon.com/appstream/) or even
[http://www.playstation.com/en-
us/explore/psnow](http://www.playstation.com/en-us/explore/psnow) in the
future.

This developer is upset about the difficulty of securing a continuing revenue
stream. This is exactly the problem addressed by streaming software to users
instead of just giving it to them. What this developer really wants to do is
_rent_ their program: when users stop paying, they stop having the software as
well.

~~~
archagon
Software "is" not anything. It's what we make of it. Many users and developers
are staunchly opposed to a software service industry. Personally, if my only
option is ever to make products that require subscriptions and continuous
upkeep to use, I'd probably go work in another field altogether.

~~~
ninjaplease
Saying something like that makes me believe that you must work deep within the
bowels of an entrenched corporation, insulated from revenue needs. Anyone who
has ever had to pay employees, sacrifice time from other projects to do
unplanned-for maintenance, or scrounge around for tedious grunt work during a
slow season would never say something so ridiculous. I bet you also swore
you'd move to Canada if Bush/Obama got elected.

~~~
archagon
I should have clarified: by "continuous upkeep", I don't mean patches and
feature updates; I mean the type of perpetual update model you see in things
like Creative Cloud and Facebook games.

I make software because I enjoy it, and the type of software that I enjoy
making either takes the form of one-off entertainment (games), or tools that
expand your range of abilities (apps, mainly non-networked). If I couldn't
hope to make money off these anymore, I'd probably lose my creative drive. (I
am also a one-man developer. A corporation would obviously have different
priorities.)

This is basically the Chromebook version of the future, and it's why I support
Apple's native-first model over the alternatives. If I buy a hammer, I want to
_own_ it, not have it streamed to me over crappy H264.

------
jnem
This is especially interesting for me because I am on the cusp of a
technological coup in my own home. I've been a "PC" my whole life, and have
somehow gotten away with never buying an Apple product, and never felt the
lack.

However, many of the reasons I avoided Apple in the past are now irrelevant,
as all but Linux now attempt the same fascist business model (The rings/rules
of Apple QA for software, and One store with which to rule them all). My go-to
argument against Apple in the past was:

"In order to get an application or piece of software into the Apple ecosystem,
you have to go through Apple. Apple has a strict QA process, every app that
gets into the store has to vetted by one of Apples legions of QA staff. This
sounds good; we want quality apps. However, a great deal of Apple’s QA rules
for acceptance aren’t just about app quality, but also nebulous ideas of
morality and ethics. The problem with that is, when only one agency is in
control of what is proper and what isn’t, we are left with a situation where
one agency gets to control what you see, use, and by environmental
influence—think. Now, imagine everyone exclusively owns an Apple product…”

Ironically, this notion is very 1984, and my stance on it was a bit extremish
to be sure, but hey, I’m a PC. Anyway, ever since Windows 8 and Windows Phone,
it seems Microsoft has seen how completely Apple controls its own ecosystem,
and wants a piece (complete with its own app ecosystem). Suddenly Babylon had
arrived on my desktop. My initial thought was, “are we going to reach a
situation where there are no more open platforms to develop for? Are we going
to get to a point where software can only be deployed through stores run by
the same folks who run my OS? Do I have to learn Linux?!”

So, long ramble short, I’m thinking of joining the cult. A few years back I
was given an iPad as a present. I initially resented it, labeling it a
glorified TV-ala-Netflix device. I have since spent hundreds on app purchases.
Is now a good time to put on my robes and worship at the altar of Jobs?

~~~
robin_reala
I’m typing this on an Macbook in a house with just Macs and iDevices after
getting back from work where everyone uses Macs, but honestly what’s wrong
with just going down the Linux road? It’s politically better, hardware is as
good as you want to buy and there’s no app store vetting (unless you install
Steam).

~~~
72deluxe
There may be no app store vetting but is their developer fascism? (No offence
meant). I only ask because I have seen the decline (in my opinion) of the
desktop from GNOME2 to GNOME3 as they bin the traditional and usable desktop
paradigm in favour of writing a WM for my mum to use, where desktop
interaction is designed around "joy" and making window management "fun and
refreshing" instead of flexible. Anything outside of this paradigm and
simplification appears to be vehemently rejected (perhaps the CADT development
model?), so isn't it just the same?

(Of course, I may be subject to downvotes for this, but it is just an
observation and not meant as a "flame"; from a developer perspective, aren't
we just subject to the same bunch of rules but from different overlords?)

And BTW, I was a happy Linux app developer until last week when I retired my
crusty old VM, and have been using Linux since RedHat Apollo, so it's not a
whimsical motion. I love Linux for my servers, just not desktop anymore.

~~~
frio
Sure, GNOME may have changed direction. The difference in Linux is (as you're
probably aware) there are many, many usable alternatives. If Microsoft or
Apple introduced some bad behaviour to their desktop environment, you'd be
looking at changing your whole OS (and even hardware?) to find something new;
not just `apt-get install kde`.

~~~
72deluxe
Ah yes very true.

For the major projects that 80% of Linux users actually use though, there are
strict guidelines. A regular viewing of planet.gnome.org shows the sweeping
interface changes taking shape. And that's not to mention the underlying Linux
dependencies that GNOME seems to be embracing due to Lennart Poettering's time
at the helm. Arguments against sweeping changes appear to be trampled on, from
what I can see? Unless I am misunderstanding it a bit?

Of course, WindowMaker probably doesn't have the same problem!

------
duaneb
I agree with most of the points (pricing on the app store is the worst pricing
model of any I've ever used), but I like that the apps are sandboxed. If an
app requires functionality outside the sandbox, I'm happy to purchase and
install a (signed) version straight off the browser.

~~~
dmix
Agreed, sandboxing is important. I don't mind vetting a company externally of
the App Store if they intend to run outside of a sandbox.

------
serve_yay
There are problems with the iOS app store, but the Mac one is really a
disaster. It's kind of shameful actually.

------
grimtrigger
Its hard for me to imagine ever selling an app for a lump sum single payment.
Software development is an iterative process and there needs to be a payment
system reflecting that.

~~~
michaelt
Really? Because that's how pretty much all software was sold for many years.
Recurring revenue meant improving the software enough that users decided to
pay for an upgrade.

When the path to profitability is to improve the software so users choose to
upgrade, the interests of the users and the developers are aligned; better
software is good for everyone.

With subscriptions, users keep paying whether the company improves the
software or not - so the less the company spends on development, the more is
left over to take as profit.

As a developer, I think the traditional sale option sounds much healthier for
the industry, and hence much better for me.

Edit: I interpreted the comment I was responding to as lump sum vs ongoing
subscription, rather than paid vs free upgrades. In that light, perhaps the
parent poster and I actually agree!

~~~
Robadob
This was also set in stone before everyone had a internet connection capable
of downloading regular and possibly large software updates. The convenience
and feasibility of smaller/incremental updates (rather than yearly large
version updates) has completely changed the distribution possibilities, and
with that one has to expect changes to the way such software is
bought/sold/rented.

~~~
72deluxe
This is very true - I wonder if the majority of Windows "enterprise" software
is embracing this or whether they are still waiting for purchase orders before
shipping out CDs?

------
mstolpm
While I agree with a lot of points regarding the weaknesses of the MAS, I
doubt there is an exodus in sight. Two reasons: normal users and EU tax laws.

1\. I know a lot of Mac users that use the MAS as the only (!) source for
their software (even Scrivener and other software has come to the MAS that
before was only sold through the developer website). These are "normal" users
that are not developers or hardcore nerds. And they never see any problems
with sandboxing (they don't even know what this is). But - and that is the
beauty of the MAS for normal users: Apple has their payment info on file,
allows easy browsing the catalog, easy installation, easy payment and easy
canceling of the order just in case. In addition: iTunes gift cards that are
sold with a discount.

2\. With the new VAT laws in the EU starting 2015, it will be a pain it the
ass for small developers to sell software and services through their website
on their own - at least for developers in the EU.

Of course, developers of business-related software for developers might see
advantages selling on their own. But an exodus?

~~~
milen
Thanks for your feedback.

1\. I totally agree with you on this point - the MAS is a fine store for
something that costs $1-10 and maybe took only a few months to develop, maybe
a hobby project. But building a serious business for apps that cost $30-50+ is
much harder - it's possible but it won't be ideal (talk to the developers
behind the apps in those categories). The point behind the article is that it
doesn't have to be that way, the tools can be easily made available.

2\. Only if you're the selling directly to customers (and even then it's not a
massive deal as you can just signup for the VAT MOSS, which means you only
deal with a single VAT entity, which you have to do if your sales exceed the
VAT threshold). Furthermore, if you sell via a reseller, your sales lie
outside the scope of VAT (as the sale is technically made by the reseller).
For example, that's the case with FastSpring, as they're a US company and you
will be receiving proceeds from them (assuming you're in the EU). FastSpring
themselves handle all VAT related issues (they comply with all EU laws and
will pay it out) - you don't have to lift a finger.

------
LCDninja
I've not read anyone mention "discoverability" as part of Apple's value
proposition to developers.

Years ago I experienced great traction with the free download site Apple
provided.

Prior to that - much more significant traction from the hundreds of PC
download sites.

It's amazing to see how much the world has changed in 13 years for software
developers. It's probably better not to look back. :/

------
bvogelzang
This article does a great job hitting on a lot of the pain points for
developers in the MAS. While not all of these are experienced by every
developer all of them hold some weight.

I've had a real tough time dealing with sandboxing especially. In my app HD
Cleaner ([https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/hd-
cleaner/id836769549?mt=12](https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/hd-
cleaner/id836769549?mt=12)), users need to "open" their user folder in order
for the application to get the proper access to files. Unfortunately this is a
large hurdle for some users because they have no idea WHY they have to choose
their user folder. This has lead to confusion as well as some bad reviews. The
app could be a lot more efficient and convenient if these rules weren't in
place. Despite this I think it's great Apple is taking security seriously. I
just wish there was a better way.

------
72deluxe
I could never get over how slow the App Store or Software Update system was. I
have a quad core Ivybridge i7 MacBook, and I still sit wondering if the
Software Update program is working. I know it is frustrating in Windows land
to have to repeatedly click "check for updates", particularly on a fresh
install of Windows 7 but I was surprised how sluggish the App Store app was.
Behind the scenes it is a HTML browser embedded I think, which I found
particularly odd given the encouragement for Obj-C native development on the
native platform. Just an observation - correct me if I'm wrong!

------
ommunist
Unfortunately, Apple is always right and in this case you cannot even help
yourself, like Apple hardware consumers do in Apple discussion forums. This is
indeed soft and smoky dead end for many businesses.

------
Terretta
> _" Supporting app trials would be trivial" ... "zero additional complexity"
> ... "Supporting paid upgrades does not require much additional complexity,
> if any at all."_

These remarks sound suspiciously like those software development clients who
think their nephew could do the work for free in his spare time while cleaning
the garage and playing Halo.

It's not about relabeling a button. Apple has enough talent to solve these,
but these problems are _not_ trivial.

~~~
milen
Please note that I was not referring to technical complexity, rather cognitive
/ UX complexity.

I've been creating software for many years, I'm well aware that feature
requests that look quite simple on the surface can require significant
development efforts.

Having said that, implementing trials / upgrades is no a technical problem per
se, it's more a question of spending the development resources required (yes,
obviously there will be assumptions in the whole infrastructure that would
require a bit of work but nothing that should have taken years to implement).
In-App-Purchases were introduced a few years into App Store's existence, so
it's certainly possible for them to implement major features when the
willpower exists (and I'd wager implementing trials / upgrades would be easier
than IAPs, although that's my guess, I have no internal information).

In any case, I very much doubt the reason for not having those features
implemented is because they don't have the available development resources -
it's more likely a decision was made that those feature do not align with
Apple's vision of how the MAS should work.

------
tn13
I think this is a good thing. Problem with these distribution channels is that
more popular they get Apple might be tempted to make it the "only" channel
eventually dictating to us what software we can use and can not much similar
to iPhone.

Of course what worked for iPhone would not have worked for Mac and hence there
was no incentive for Apple to make Mac Store popular. Apple cares little about
developers, it cares about itself.

------
72deluxe
I heartily agree with the devaluation of apps, the race to the bottom, the
cheapest is the only one to install. The scourge of 99p apps on the App Store
has spread to the other market-based ecosystems, where actual developer time
and effort is considered very cheap indeed; most people I know who use Android
will not ever ever pay for an app, for example. (Your experience may differ).

------
asherdavidson
Another possible metric for rating apps could simply be how many users use an
app on a consistent basis and how many hours they've logged in the app. If you
get an app that has 5 negative reviews and 1 positive review, but you have
over 100 people using it everyday for a few hours it should be rated highly
regardless of the negative reviews.

~~~
jp
I wrote some clever code that fixed a problem on Windows. When running on Mac
the same code leaked memory and blocked the event loop. 1 star - "crashed my
entire computer".

------
nsxwolf
Mac App Store is a software updater for OS X and Apple branded applications.

Don't buy games on the MAS when you could be buying them on Steam instead.

Buy other software directly from the developer's website so you can be
confident you're getting the software they intended you to have, and won't get
burned by the MAS no upgrades policy.

~~~
Shivetya
the difference being that games I download from the app store don't require
the App store to run. I have games not launch from Steam because it could not
connect and the game was locked. Not all games do that, but some do not have
offline modes.

I really don't understand your logic of avoiding Apple's App Store but
supporting Steams version. They both have problems, odd restrictions, and the
like. I do not care for Steam installing all the games I get from them into a
subfolder unlike how other Mac apps are bundled. It makes it very difficult to
find all of the games content

------
chj
The only good thing about App Store is visibility. People aren't going to find
out your own website, but they have learned to search on App Store. Developers
need to have an alternative market place that are equally easy to download and
update applications.

------
Animats
Mac developers, be grateful that Apple still allows you to sell applications
for their platform that don't go through the "Mac App Store". Apple's general
approach to applications on their platforms is "if it's profitable, it's
ours". Try writing a competitor to iTunes.

Apple wants to provide a good out-of-the-box experience. That means their
devices come with what customers really need. Apple now views aftermarket apps
the way Detroit views aftermarket car accessories.

Mac App Store developers, you are in the same business as the company that
makes the little tree-shaped air fresheners for cars. Deal with it.

~~~
jp
Spotify, Lightroom and Skype replaces iTunes, iPhoto and Facetime for lots of
people. Dropbox works better than iCloud when it comes to camera images.

------
rismay
A-men.

------
neillimaye
Interesting...

------
tbrock
I wonder if anyone voting this up has ever thought about what it takes to put
something on the shelves of a traditional store. I think developers in general
should thank their lucky stars that any of this exists.

~~~
Lord_Zero
Thats antiquated. Software besides console games are rarely purchased on
shelves in stores anymore. Any software you can buy from the store can usually
be purchased right off the developers site. In fact who says "Man I really
need a new copy of XYZ, maybe ill run up to BestBuy and see if they have
it..." Yes its nice for developers that this distribution channel even exists,
but its hurting devs and customers more than helping them.

------
wy
Don't blame on Mac App Store, blame on the market instead.

In case of survival, change your business model as well as monetization
approaches.

~~~
wy
Can anyone explain the reason of "Down-vote/Negative" points?

~~~
josephlord
You responded to a well argued post about how Apple could moderately tweak the
market to make things better for all sides of the market and your response was
"blame the market" and "change your business model" which is what people are
doing by leaving the store.

I suspect the down votes were because you added little to the discussion,
educated no one (with that particular post) and people thought it deserved to
be pushed down the page.

------
ianseyer
> The Mac App Store is simply the most convenient way to purchase and download
> software, bar none.

to quote the great Alfredo Kojima, Gustavo Niemeyer and Michael Vogt, "lol"

~~~
cvburgess
I don't see the humor. When I bought a new mac recently, i logged into the mac
app store with my apple ID and instantly had all of my apps on my new computer
within 5 minutes. Over 20 apps _licensed and installed_ in 20 minutes! In
contrast, it took me the better part of a few hours to download and license
Sublime Text and remember the URLs for all of the other software, let alone
find and check the license keys. What could be easier?

~~~
slantyyz
Steam is just as easy. It does take longer than 5m, but that's because the
files for the games tend to be huge.

The problem with Steam is that it has been somewhat typecast as a store for
games only, and that Valve doesn't seem to make a lot of effort to get other
types of apps in there.

~~~
cvburgess
Steam is a pretty nice place to buy games, I didn't know they sold anything
else though. Thanks for the tip!

