
Ask HN: Why don't big softwares use App Store on Mac OS X? - philshem
It&#x27;s rare that a useful software app is available through the App Store on Mac OS X (Slack and Microsoft Remote Desktop are my only two). For example, Microsoft office has their own tool for updates. Firefox and Chrome have an internal updater.<p>Why don&#x27;t more software not use it?
======
dotdi
If you rely on the App Store, Apple has complete control over your
distribution channel and take a large cut of your income.

Not only do they have control over your distribution channels, but the rules
they impose change over time, forcing people into whatever Apple wants. There
was a blog post on HN a while back where an App update was rejected because
they failed to hype up the new iPad Pro's or another post where an App was
rejected because (by sheer chance) somewhere the description referred to "an
unreleased product".

The only real benefit is that it might bring your software in front of a lot
of eyes, which, as a big player, you don't really need that much.

~~~
ido
I think the "lots of eyes" really only apply to the iOS App Store. sales on
the Mac App Store aren't that great from what I've read. As a Mac user I know
I never use it, expect when some link from an application website sends me
direct to it.

~~~
gutnor
I use it for small utilities, so they are kept up-to-date and I don't need to
fish them out when re-installing (which happens unfortunately every year on my
corporate Mac)

Just missing a Cloud (Dropbox/iCloud) HomeBrew configuration and I would be
set for the essentials.

As parent said big stuff don't need to exposure, and anyway, as a developer
most of those stuff wouldn't make it to the appstore anyway.

edit: also forgot licensing. I rather buy it on the AppStore so I'm also
avoiding having to fish the license email and/or create an account with
whatever utils company.

~~~
btown
`brew bundle dump` will be your new best friend.
[https://github.com/Homebrew/homebrew-
bundle](https://github.com/Homebrew/homebrew-bundle)

------
kitsunesoba
One big reason is that a lot of big, old, monolithic software doesn’t deal
well with the concept of sandboxing, and the Mac App Store requires that apps
have sandboxing enabled. Adobe for example installs junk _all over_ your
system with creative suite apps, and that wouldn’t be allowed with sandboxing
on. Many system APIs are also restricted or unavailable with sandboxing on.

~~~
newsbinator
Since Adobe products aren't strictly necessary for any of my work, that's the
primary reason I use alternatives now: the junk all over the system, the
constant calls home for updates, and the hidden little launchers.

~~~
sneak
What alternatives do you use for Premiere and After Effects?

~~~
newsbinator
This might be peripheral, but I use ScreenFlow not only for screen casting,
but also surprisingly robust video editing (from blank canvas).

------
glhaynes
At WWDC 2018, Apple announced that Office, Photoshop, and several other big
apps would be coming to/back to the Mac App Store. I found this really
interesting because I wondered what had changed, but the companies involved
have been tight-lipped about it so far. To my knowledge, none of these have
been added to the store yet but presumably are still planned to:
[https://appleinsider.com/articles/18/06/04/mac-app-store-
get...](https://appleinsider.com/articles/18/06/04/mac-app-store-getting-ios-
treatment-office-365-bbedit-lightroom-cc-and-more)

~~~
copperx
I bet Apple has agreed to take a 0% cut of big companies's products, just to
incentivize other developers to publish on the AppStore.

~~~
glhaynes
They might have. Does seem like they'd be priming themselves for backlash if
that were confirmed.

------
PedroBatista
Mostly because they don't want to bet their farm on Apple's whims and the huge
tax burden of 30% plus all the tech and rituals Apple imposes.

------
eugeniub
The selling point of the iOS App Store to developers is, “what other choice do
you have?” The Mac App Store doesn’t have that advantage.

~~~
bhnmmhmd
Actually it's not just that. I believe sometimes people forget what enormous
achievement it was to have _one_ centralized repo for all the apps a fragile,
mobile device can have. Without AppStore, the dark ages of Symbian suddenly
come into mind. And sure, Apple has had a number of flaws when it comes to
AppStore policies and regulations, but part of Apple's sternness and rigidness
is well justified, given the myriad of apps it has to serve, and safety and
security of billions of devices that run those apps.

~~~
cimmanom
It’s arguably an advantage for users. But not necessarily for developers.

~~~
davezatch
It's a complicated issue to be sure, but developers also benefit from a
platform that has high trust among users. I think users are probably much more
likely to try out new apps and even pay for them if they know ahead of time
that the apps been vetted, the payment processor is secure (and already has
your details), etc.

Not that there isn't crap on the iOS App Store, but I don't think it's
controversial to suggest that the Good to Bad App ratio is better there than
on the web as a whole.

~~~
cimmanom
And for some devs and some apps that’s worth giving up a 30% cut and dealing
with Apple’s processes and restrictions. For some it won’t be, if they can
distribute the app any other way.

------
moviuro
Wild guess:

2.5.6: Apps that browse the web must use the appropriate WebKit framework and
WebKit Javascript. -> Firefox is No-No

5.2.5: Apple Products: Don’t create an app that appears confusingly similar to
an existing Apple product, interface (e.g. Finder), app (such as the App
Store, iTunes Store, or Messages) or advertising theme.

[https://developer.apple.com/app-
store/review/guidelines/](https://developer.apple.com/app-
store/review/guidelines/)

~~~
michaelmcdonald
Yet Slack is an app you can download directly from the App store...

~~~
Ndymium
There is a difference, though (not related to the subject matter in GP's post,
but related to sandboxing). You can download Slack from the App Store, but you
can't give mouse access to viewers when screen sharing unless you download the
app from their site. Just something I ran into last week.

------
wild_preference
One reason is to bypass the sandboxing requirement of the App Store.

And once you're off the App Store, users won't be nagged to update your
application, so you're responsible for getting your users to update all by
yourself. At which point some form of over-the-air update is more ergonomic
than making users hit your download page to pull in the latest version.

------
s_kilk
I'd say that the app store works best for relatively small apps and
developers, where the 30% tax is worthwhile when weighed against all the
infrastructure they would need to roll themselves.

By comparison, Ableton, Adobe, etc, aren't having any trouble shifting units
as it is, they have more than enough labour power to run their own infra, and
they don't stand to gain anything by handing 30% of their revenue to Apple.

Perhaps the question should be flipped, what would these companies gain from
distributing via the app store?

~~~
shagie
Several of the games that I’ve purchased through the Mac App Store are from
big developer houses and weigh in at well over a gigabyte.

------
Finnucane
Why give Apple money if you don't have to?

~~~
oneplane
Because the choice is between spending it on your own infrastructure or
Apple's infrastructure. There is no free lunch.

~~~
IshKebab
Your own infrastructure doesn't cost 30% of revenue.

~~~
oneplane
Often it costs much more indeed.

------
gameswithgo
The bigger questions is why do any software developers agree to take part in
app stores that attempt to lock users and developers into their operating
system?

~~~
oneplane
No, it's not, because an app designed for multiple operating systems can be
distributed in whatever way you like. On distribution method doesn't exclude
another, just like running it on one OS doesn't exclude it from another.

At the same time, you can also put your app in the AppStore and provide a non-
AppStore version on a website.

------
donretag
I have been using a Mac exclusively for years and I have never once even
logged into the App Store. Don't need it. Never once did I need something that
was found only on the App Store.

My Mac complains that I need to log in in order to update apps that I never
use such as Pages.

~~~
thomasedwards
You can just delete those apps.

------
ninjakeyboard
The cut off the top is the biggest reason. See fortnight as an example - this
is an excellent case to look at to understand incentives of skirting around
Google and Apple's stores, even if inconvenient to end users. If a user wants
the software (eg if the demand is significant enough) the inconvenience to the
user may not be a factor. For the rest of us... The App store as a platform is
too powerful to ignore. [https://www.theverge.com/2018/8/3/17645982/epic-
games-fortni...](https://www.theverge.com/2018/8/3/17645982/epic-games-
fortnite-android-version-bypass-google-play-store)

------
Spooky23
The same reason many apps don't use the iOS AppStore to monetize... Apple's
tax and the high friction of your business customers doing business with them.

If you sell software for businesses, it's pretty painful to actually buy
software with their volume programs.

Both Slack and Remote Desktop are free apps that access non-free resources on
the back end.

~~~
jonathankoren
But the App Store isn’t exclusive. I know that 1Password had multiple version
depending on if you download it from the App Store or download it from the
web. (ie The license keys were different.) You can always sell the large
packages via the web, and the small ones through the App Store.

~~~
Spooky23
Depending on the app, that's problematic. For a low cost thing like 1Password,
you can do that and even benefit as customers who are price sensitive will buy
Apple gift cards at a 10-20% discount.

A company like Abobe has high value software and large customers who will not
accept a single source fulfillment vendor for software. A school district, for
example, is usually required to get competitive bids on a state or other
contract from multiple resellers. Usually companies drive revenue by bundling,
so putting product A with Apple and product B with the channel is complex and
doesn't add value, particularly when Apple wants 4-6x more dollars to do that
fulfillment.

~~~
jonathankoren
While I understand bundling, what I don't understand is why bundling is
relevant here. If you're at the position to be placing bids, you've already
chosen a bespoke price for the product (either by explicitly stating a price,
or throwing stuff in for "free").

None of the precludes simply selling the very same code product (sans bundle)
on the App Store at a price that's higher than your bid price. Doing so,
increases sales (perhaps marginally, but more is more, and the opportunity
cost is trivial), and it makes your bid price appear even lower.

The reason why Adobe doesn't bother is because they're a household name.
People that want Photoshop, will just google it and go to their page and
download it directly. The 30% acquisition cost simply isn't worth it when
you've already cornered the market.

But Adobe is an outlier. They own a verb. Most people aren't in that position.

------
ulucs
Apple can update the guidelines anytime, sometimes forcing you to drop some
features. Expo's iOS client had to drop QR code reading:
[https://blog.expo.io/upcoming-limitations-to-ios-expo-
client...](https://blog.expo.io/upcoming-limitations-to-ios-expo-
client-8076d01aee1a)

------
AdmiralAsshat
Doesn't Apple take a substantial cut of anything sold through its app store?

~~~
NietTim
30%

~~~
copperx
30% of $0 is $0. The App Store is a great way to distribute freeware.

------
newscracker
TL;DR The app stores are messy to deal with and come with many restrictions
that shouldn't be there, considering they're completely Apple's solutions, and
Apple could do a whole lot more within its control (but has not been doing so
far after all these years). Conversely, the only reason the App Store on iOS
and tvOS are used is because there's no other way to distribute the apps to a
large base of customers (at least for non-jailbroken devices).

Why many apps don't use the Mac App Store:

1\. It's primarily because software distribution on the Mac had different
mechanisms maintained by developers for decades (or from before the iOS App
Store and the Mac App Store came to be). Many old time customers are used to
buying direct from developers and having a way to have a direct contact with
the developer. For example, AgileBits (maker of 1Password) had to go back to
retaining its own sale/distribution mechanisms after declaring that it's going
MAS only because of long standing customer backlash (and probably
acknowledging that it was anyway forced to maintain this for its Windows app
at that time).

2\. The App Store on iOS is deficient in many ways, when you consider that it
doesn't allow (easily implemented) trials, upgrades, etc., that many users
from the PC/Mac computers side are used to. The Mac App Store is even worse
than that. Read this mess about free trials on the App Store (iOS) from a few
months ago (June 2018), written by developer Daniel Jalkut of MarsEdit fame.
[1]

3\. The sandboxing restrictions that just don't work for several apps, means
it's too much of a hassle to change (or cripple) one's app just so it can be
distributed by/through Apple.

4\. The 30% cut that Apple takes is probably a lot higher for developers who
already have had a system in place for a long time. But some newer developers
have moved to the Mac App Store as the only means of distribution (Pixelmator
is a popular and notable example that went MAS only and has stayed that way).

5\. For developers who care more about customer relations, Apple's country
restricted stores and the lack of portability mean that a user who moves from
one country to another would usually have to go through some confusing ways of
updating apps bought from a previous country. As for subscriptions and in-app
purchases, those cannot even be transferred, AFAIK. Even now, subscriptions
cannot even be canceled before they expire (you'd have to contact Apple for
that and try to work it out). The app stores are completely Apple owned and
controlled, but yet they don't have any easy solution for people who travel or
move to another country (or to other countries) either temporarily or
permanently.

[1]: [https://bitsplitting.org/2018/06/06/ersatz-free-
trials/](https://bitsplitting.org/2018/06/06/ersatz-free-trials/)

~~~
jonkaye68
+1 I am a small developer with a niche audience (firefighter training,
simsushare.com) that has a cross-platform app. Most of my audience is Windows
and iOS, but I do need Mac as well.

I don't really need Apple to help with marketing the app, so paying 30% on the
Mac App store is way too much for me. On iOS, it is necessary because there is
no alternative. Also, my simulation tool has an enterprise subscription, which
means Apple can say yes or no and meddle with my business model. Too many
restrictions!

Now Apple is saying I have to get my app notarized for Mojave. I don't quite
understand why I have to do that in addition to the $99/year I pay for the Mac
code sign. Bottom line is that I'm not making a killing by any means and Apple
is hurting me by adding all the technical restrictions and financial
constraints.

------
bitwize
Because if you're a platform for general purpose computing, it's a really bad
idea to restrict what kind of software ISVs may write and _then_ charge them
for the privilege. This is also why so few major apps are available for or
bought through the Windows Store. If Apple and Microsoft try to force the
issue... well, the year they try will become the long-awaited Year of the
Linux Desktop.

