

The Mac App Store isn’t for today’s Mac developers - bjplink
http://www.marco.org/1432156914

======
sosuke
My development falls into the giant right circle and I never considered
developing for the Mac OSX until after I created my first iOS game this month
and learned of the Mac App Store opening in 3 months. Now it's as easy as
reexporting higher resolution art from Illustrator and a few UIKit changes and
I can redeploy my iOS game for Mac OSX and find myself in front of another
large app hungry audience that will happily open their wallets.

I'll be one of the first in line to get on the Mac App Store when I've never
before developed or sold software since this month. It is making is so darn
easy to have a chance.

~~~
flacon
You make it sound like porting an app from IOS to OSX is easy. Maybe you could
write up a blog post or something for ignorants like me who would be
interested in doing the same. Thanks for any additional details.

~~~
glhaynes
While Apple hasn't announced anything yet, I _have_ to think that a lot of iOS
APIs are going to show up in Lion to make it easier because, you're right,
it's very non-trivial now. I mean, I'd rather port a UIKit app to AppKit than
a Windows Forms app. But there are a lot more differences than there have to
be.

~~~
irons
_While Apple hasn't announced anything yet, I have to think that a lot of iOS
APIs are going to show up in Lion to make it easier…_

Prepare to be disappointed. Technology stacks aside, if the interaction models
between desktop apps and multi-touch interfaces were in any way relatable,
UIKit wouldn't have been invented.

If you want to write a Mac app for the new store, you'll be using AppKit.

------
brudgers
I think there is something missing from the analysis of iOS applications as
entertainment. Not only can I show you my new Vuvuzela app while we're sitting
in a bar, I can show it to the waitress, your girlfriend, and the guy sitting
next to me. iOS apps are entertaining because they are social.

A macApp is less sharable than an emailed website link. Besides my dog who am
I going annoy with my Vuvuzela? (so to speak).

I suspect that macApps will sell based on utility rather than entertainment
and that the removal of flash and java are expected to generate much of the
initial need.

~~~
cowboyhero
You make a good point about the social-in-the-bar aspect of iOS apps, but I
think you're off the mark about gaming.

This is an area where the Mac has been weak for more than a decade. Imagine an
environment that allows you to purchase a multiplayer networked version of
Civilization: Revolutions (or Quake or Plants vs Zombies or a dungeon crawler
version of Dragon Age) for $20 and you can play it while sitting at your desk,
on the couch with your iPad or out in the world on your phone.

Given the popularity of cheap apps and casual gaming, I expect the App Store
turns into a Jobsian version of Steam.

~~~
brudgers
You may be right, but there are some hurdles. Networked games on individual
devices don't replicate the social experience of the living room with a
console, nachos, Madden and some buds. Sitting at a computer is solipsistic.

An issue with the iPad and iPhone for serious gaming is that unlike a wii
controller, neither is replaceable for $25 after an over enthusiastic gaming
session (durability in general is also an issue).

From a business standpoint, I'm not sure how well games fit into Apple's
strategy. The market for sophisticated games is mature and growth would mostly
come from capturing increasing market share rather than an expanding market
and small games are easily delivered to the desktop via the web. The life
cycle of a game is also much longer than a movie.

------
apl
I'd say this assessment is largely spot-on. By introducing the App Store,
Apple could channel the large community of developers churning out commodity
software for iOS towards the Mac. Now they just need to make porting from iOS
to MacOS X really simple, and the ecosystem will flourish.

One addendum, though: Existing _applications_ won't benefit from the App
Store, yes. Existing Mac _developers_ , though, probably will. If you know
Cocoa forwards and backwards, then making little (store-exclusive!) apps isn't
challenging, but potentially lucrative.

~~~
stevenwei
Yup, brilliant (although unsurprising) move on Apple's part. By bringing iOS
and OS X together (from a developer standpoint), they're able to seed iOS with
Mac developers and Mac OS with iOS developers, and attract more folks overall
to both platforms.

------
jsz0
This is exactly what I was thinking while watching the Lion demo especially
with the full screen applications. AppStore or no AppStore the average Mac
user isn't going to impulse buy an expensive, complex, multi-function
application without an obvious purpose communicated through 2 or 3
screenshots. The key to the Mac AppStore is going to be de-constructing these
multi-function applications into smaller task focused tools with re-invented
UIs (iOS stylized) at lower prices.

------
geoffpado
While I think Marco probably has it right long-term, I think he's actually
pretty wrong in the short-term. The difficulty of porting an iOS app (or even
writing a Mac app from scratch, given that a developer only has iOS
experience) and the nature of the device (mobile is clearly a growing market--
is the same true for the desktop?) means that I think we'll see a lot more
trepidation in entering the Mac App Store.

Traditional Mac developers (Panic, Omni, etc.) will obviously move their apps
onto the store, but I don't think we'll see a whole lot of new entries--most
iOS apps don't neatly transition onto the desktop, besides some games. I know
my couple iOS applications don't have an obvious Mac version, just as my Mac
applications didn't have an obvious iOS version. If the Mac App Store is to
reach anywhere near the popularity of the iOS App Store, it's going to take a
long time for companies to decide that the desktop is even worth it.

~~~
yakisoft
If Panic and Omni find that all they have done is reduce their revenue by 30%
then they won't stay long. I'm not at all sure the extra volume will be enough
to offset the cost, especially if the store becomes full. It is going to be
interesting.

~~~
crs
Your ignoring the other things you get from the app store. You need to compare
the 30% cut apple takes off the top to the possible increased volume of sales,
the money saved from not having to host the app yourself or having to run your
own payment system. Apple is not just taking 30% off the top to just to be
greedy, it is more of a payment for the service they are providing.

~~~
yakisoft
If you have anywhere near a reasonable volume your payment processing
shouldn't cost more than a few percent, nowhere near 30%.

Hosting costs aren't going to go away, you will still need a web site, you
might be able to save a little download bandwidth but that hardly breaks the
bank nowadays.

I don't think Apple are being greedy, I'm sure that is a reasonable reflection
of their costs, I just wonder how it will add up for developers like Panic or
Omnigroup. If their volumes double then it makes sense, if they only increase
slightly or not at all then it doesn't.

~~~
netcan
I think that's entirely the wrong way of looking at it. This removes payment
processing, download costs and (critically) installation support and serial
number issues hassles.

But that isn't really what you're paying Apple for. You're paying them for the
creation of a new market that may (or may not) be better for you. Discovery
(formerly marketing) is going to largely be their thing. Customer education
will become standardized. Trust - they will teach people that apps are safe
and hassle free to install & uninstall. They will teach consumers what an app
is.

This will probably amount to far more then an increase/decrease in sales. It
will determine which apps succeed and fail. These will be different from the
winners and losers in the existing, "natural" market. It will determine
aggregate demand for apps. This will also be different. It will affect
consumers' expectation for what an app should be. For example, I think that
learning curves will need to be reduced. The concept of learning software will
be reduced.

A lot of existing software (the big names: MS Office, Adobe CS, etc come to
mind immediately) probably won't fit into the app mold comfortably. Developers
will have strong incentive to create apps that do. It will be interesting how
much software can be "apps."

------
philwelch
_Will there be any good ways to “crossgrade” buyers from the retail edition of
an app to the App Store edition without making them pay again in full? (My
guess: No.)_

You can gift someone an album on the iTunes Store. When you buy a DVD the DVD
can "gift" you the iTunes version of the movie ( _The Dark Knight_ did this,
though it just copied over from the disk). Why can't a software company gift
someone an app on the Mac App Store when they buy the app elsewhere?

~~~
geoffpado
Because there's no existing way to handle that. Traditional "gifting" costs
the full purchase price of the product, and the "promo codes" developers have
to give out for free copies are extremely limited--only 50 codes are given out
per upgrade submitted to the store (this is for iOS, I assume the same is true
for the Mac).

EDIT: What I don't understand is why there's a need to do so anyway. If I
recall correctly, there's no such thing for Steam, and game developers have
long sold applications both in retail and via Steam with no problem.
Supporting two separate applications (one with the traditional purchase and
one via the App Store) shouldn't be too difficult, especially if the developer
switches over to App Store-exclusive when it hits. He'll simply have to
continue to perform upgrades/support however they were before, but will be
able to ditch their old payment processing entirely.

~~~
jbrennan
Most of the games on Steam are developed and maintained by relatively large
teams. Compare to most iOS developers and my guess is the teams are much, much
smaller. So for the Mac, I'm guessing it would be non-trivial to be supporting
two SKUs, cross grading, upgrading, etc with such smaller teams of people.

------
sammcd
The mac app store is the end of an era. For a while the mac was the most user-
centered AND developer-centered platform that existed. When I bought my first
mac apple was actively recruiting developers by having free conferences around
the US.

Apple has decided to go more in the user-centered direction then the
developer-centered direction. This is definitely the right move for them.
However it makes me a little sad, its the end of an error. Now I see linux as
the developer centered OS with OS X as the most user-centered OS. Its a hard
call to make.

Mostly I think I am harboring some resentment. "Back in my day we had to write
our own licensing code, host a web payment code, and host autoupdates. All the
kids these days do is launch the darn app." I think I almost believe its not
fair.

I guess at the age of 24, I am running into one of the first big changes that
I have to accept if I want to stay relevant. I knew this market changed quick,
I just always assumed it would be in the way that I wanted it to change.

~~~
msbarnett
In what way is the presence of a Mac App Store making the Mac less developer-
friendly?

If anything, the creation of yet another possible revenue channel only makes
the OS more friendly to me, not less.

"Back in my day, we had to roll our own blitter if we wanted to do anything
serious" could also be said, but that doesn't mean modern graphics libraries
and hardware are _less_ developer friendly. Eliminating the need to do
repetitive grunt-work is always a good thing.

~~~
sammcd
Because of these things:

\- Apple decides which apps go and which don't.

\- I have to read a list of rules to know if I can actually sell my
application

\- Apple takes 30% of my money.

\- Apple decides what programming language I can use.

I thought it was agreed upon that the app store is not overall good for
developers.

~~~
msbarnett
Agreed upon by whom?

An App Store isn't that great for developers (in the "developers being free to
do whatever they want" sense of "good for developers") when it's the _only_
option available.

That is not the case with the Mac App Store. If you don't find any benefits in
the tradeoffs that particular option provides, don't pursue it. Write your
"own licensing code, host a web payment code, and host autoupdates" like the
"good old days", if that's what floats your boat. But it's still better to
have another revenue option at your disposal than to not, even if you don't
choose to use it.

~~~
scrod
>An App Store isn't that great for developers ... when it's the only option
available. That is not the case with the Mac App Store.

I keep hearing this, but I've yet to be convinced.

Over the last 5-10 years Apple has pushed developers more and more
aggressively. They put giant efforts into things like Classic and Rosetta,
only to strip them from the OS entirely a few years later. They repeatedly
trumpeted the full equivalence of Carbon and Java to Cocoa, and now it's
infeasible to use either as the basis for any full-featured application. They
developed all kinds of new APIs for QuickTime in 10.5, and then in 10.6
introduced "QuickTime X" as the only 64-bit native solution, effectively
deprecating everything else. And most recently there's this unusual attack on
the Flash plugin of all things. It's as if they now revel in actively
destroying backwards-compatibility.

All of these decisions had the effect of reducing Apple's support and
maintenance overhead while strengthening their control over the direction of
their platform.

I would be surprised if Apple's very clearly demonstrated zeal for taking
control and eliminating developer options did not extend to the new Mac App
store.

~~~
geoffpado
Seems to me that putting giant efforts into things like Classic and Rosetta
prolonged the ability for developers to move over before dropping legacy
support. The other options would be:

a) support the legacy systems forever. b) don't support them at all.

Option A leads to a Windows-esque environment where support for older
platforms actively holds back development and innovation for newer ones.
Option B kills everyone's existing apps. Neither of those sounds like a very
developer-friendly or even user-friendly option.

Frankly, the fact that they built those at all shows that they're willing to
go the extra mile to make sure that their developers have the heads up to
upgrade their applications before breaking them entirely.

~~~
glhaynes
Developers are mostly irrelevant in this calculus to Apple: it's what the user
sees that matters. They put out Classic and Rosetta not to help developers —
they were with both _very_ clear: the train is pulling out of the station,
you'd better get on board with the new thing immediately or you're dead — but
to help users have _something_ to run on the new systems. Get users buying new
systems, developers will follow... especially when essentially forced to.

