Apple issues review guidelines for Mac App Store - Page 2

That may be true for companies that distribute their own software, but the majority of software is still sold in brick & mortar stores, where the discount is closer to 50%.

Even when you use online distribution other than Apple's I doubt if the cut is much less than 30%.

Wow, I could barely get to the end of this rejection list.

Apple is clearly about control these days, and MacUpdate can rest easy. Few developers are going to put up with this (let alone pay 30% for the privilege), and those that do will mostly be iPhone ports.

What a joke

The idea that Microsoft or Adobe would use this is absurd.

In fact, outside of current iPhone developers, I really don't see who would use it.

I really don't understand your point here.

If you don't list your product correctly, you'll suffer the consequences of POed users and bad reviews, or people will just ignore your dumb-ass.

I doubt Apple's paranoia will allow it. The problem is developers will release free demos on the App Store and will NOT release commercial versions because no way in hell is 30% fair.

Apple's solution to this is to eliminate all demos. The failure in this cake is baked-in.

I think your missing the point. They will get that from the Mac App store, so no need to have their own mechanism. Omni is obviously supportive of the current iOS App Store and I would be very surprised if they didn't have at least one App in the store when it opens.

It was interesting that Steve said something to the effect that the licensing would be for the household. Which is basically what they do with iOS if you cross link your iTunes accounts on your multiple machines and move the app files to the others for sharing apps.

I think this will be a very good thing as it will open up Mac Development in a very big way and give more exposure to the companies that do a great job, but don't have the volume needed to support more investment in the platform. Not to mention that all of the iOS developers will have to at least consider the possibility of doing a mac app.

It will probably be more like the iPad store. Higher prices, less titles, longer development cycle, but all that much more value for the user.

Most distribution mechanisms where the developer doens't have his own merchant account (most don't) take anywhere from 10-50%. So Apple's 30% isn't bad. Its not great, but not bad. And I'm writing this with insider knowledge having been and continue to be on the developer side of this both in brick and mortar, OEM, and direct sales distribution.

And its no panacea to have your own merchant account.

"Apps must be self-contained, single application installation bundles, and cannot install code or resources in shared locations. Apps that download or install additional code or resources to add functionality or change their primary purpose will be rejected."



Meaning ... Anything installed in Application support in the root library? LOL Add icons to the Dock ... rejected? LMAO

They just cut out Adobe and Microsoft among a whole host of others. ROTFLMAO

I loved that second comment .. is Apple going into the computer condom business now?

1) Bullshit. Most software is sold online, as are most titles. Digital distribution pre-dates brick&mortar and even when most commercial Mac titles were sold in boxes with either floppies or optical media, most were sold by direct mail.

2) 50% included promotion. Apple's ridiculous cur doesn't.

3) The usual rate for billing and distribution is 2-2.5%. The largest cut I've found online is 7%. Any higher than that would include some form of advertising which Apple's deal DOES NOT INCLUDE

30% is a shitty deal and dead in the water for anyone other than possibly iPhone developers who don't have the initiative to figure it out.

I think that some people would be happy to trade away some control over content for a dramatic increase in perceived security. At the very least the app store might encourage developer to really polish the entire user experience. Lots of developers make sure they have glossy buttons and CGI introductions but then dump files in the most random places in your operating system making it difficult to remove the program. Then again, large corporations already have their own distribution channels and will probably continue on business as usual.

I actually think many big corporations will be all over this like they are with the iOS App Store. Having their applications being easily found with a simple search for their company name, installed, and kept up to date is very compelling. I'm also wondering how many open-source projects will make themselves compliant. While many have their own mechanisms today for update notifications, etc. They may significantly increase their reach to more users by going through this new channel. Plus they won't have to keep up with their own updater, etc.

Many developers for one reason or another will not move to this model. Some will test it, and others will go whole hog. Either way, it is another option. I hope Google puts their apps in the store, because for some reason, I cannot bring myself to trust the Google software updater and have not installed it.

Nobody HAS to use the store. The small developers (and large) get along without it now. But they and Microsoft and everybody else can decide what makes economic sense in the new setup.

They tried. It was called Windows Marketplace. It failed.

Gee, I have never had any problems with regards to licensing or copy protection with anything I've bought from the Apple iTunes store (apps, video, or music). About the worst experience I can think of is having to deregister some old machine and register the new machines I bought to replace them.

Perhaps you can elaborate on the problems *you've* had with the iTunes store?

I don't know what you mean by this - it's a trial, not a free app. All Apple needs to do is say that the buy button in the app goes to their App store. That way their revenue is protected and the user can try before they buy.

Regarding the 30%, sure that's a bit of a cut, but if I consider them as an affiliate, we pay our affiliates a 30% commission, and we still have to pay the CC processing costs, so it's better for us than having an affiliate send people to our online store. And if you look at it in comparison to other advertising, I'd spend that much on Google adwords + processing costs, so it's pretty much equivalent there. And they reach customers I wouldn't be able to reach on my own. So I'm happy enough to share the 30% with them in exchange for them bringing me all these new customers. I think people who are seriously into selling their software commercially will see this as a good deal.

Just *where* is the majority of software sold in brick & mortar stores? We have our software available in boxed versions in USA, Canada, Europe, including Apple stores, and still 99% of our sales are online from our web site. It's hardly worth the cost of producing boxed versions any more - we just think of it more or less as an advertisement that may or may not pay for itself in actual sales, but is worth it for raising awareness of the product.

I suspect you don't understand what the phrase "digital distribution" means here. The phrase is implying electronic distribution over the internet, which certainly doesn't predate brick and mortar.


I've been in this business since 1978 when I delivered 8" floppy disks to a local Computerland store in my car. I can assure you that distributors (like Ingram Micro at the time) demand 50 points. Direct sales to retail stores cost you 45 points. And they expected *you* to back this up with your own promotion or they wouldn't carry the title. You're way off base here.


Gee, my credit card processing costs me more than that. If I could get some company to handle all the billing and related processing for the numbers you're quoting, I'd be in heaven.


And exactly what do you get for that 7%? My guess is that they collect the credit card information you send them from your web site and send you a check now and then. Not very impressive compared to what the app store is providing.

And you're completely wrong about advertising. Dude, the app store *is* one big advertisement. People wanting to spend money go there and browse the store looking for things to buy. Without knowing a thing at all about your product, they stumble across it and buy it. What do you think the likelihood is that they'd stumble across your web page accidentally and make an impulse purchase of your product? Not very great. You've got to spend a heck of a lot more than 30% just letting people *know* about your web site so they can go there and order your product. Sure, being in the app store with 300,000 other apps doesn't guarantee that they'll find your app, but millions of people browse that store each day looking for an excuse to spend money. That's worth 30% by itself. And if the developer has a problem with the 30%, no big deal, they can raise their price from $0.99 to $1.99 and come out even farther ahead :-).


I've sold a lot of software through publishers, distributors, and direct sales. 30% is a great deal. You haven't sold much software and accounted for all your costs if you think that 30% is a bad deal.

The biggest problem I've had is my Apple ID being disabled because someone else tries to hack it or guess the password. This happens about once a month, and I have to go to the iForgot web site and re-enable it just about every time I want to purchase anything. Have complained multiple times to Apple support, but they don't even bother replying. It is so annoying that I have pretty much given up on renting movies from them or buying apps, unless I *really* want something.

Just because something is true for your particular product doesn't mean that it's true in general. Do you think most copies of Microsoft Office, for example, are purchased in electronic form or via a boxed version?

Clearly, some niche products aren't going to do well in a brick & mortar store (or even via mail-order) because they require educated customers to purchase them (that is, people have to know why they'd want to purchase "WebKnocker II" before they'd slap the money down for it). OTOH, if you had a product with genuine mass appeal *and* you advertised it properly, it would probably sell quite well in a B&M store. Of course, the advertising alone would cost you a lot more than 30%.

The real question I'd ask you is: how do you think your product would sell via the app store and would it be worth 30% to you? How many people visit your web site each day? Would your product sales benefit by having millions of people browsing the app store each day? (granted, only a small percent might see your product, but is that number greater than those who would otherwise find your website?)

Wow. If this happens once a month to you, you might want to consider purchasing an automatic password generator program and use that :-) You obviously don't know how to choose good passwords :-)

I saw no mention of in-app purchases. I wonder if they'll provide support for that?

Indeed some products are going to do better in stores than others, but I can't remember the last time I bought any software in a store, and none of my staff can either, and I can't think of anyone I know who has bought any software in physical form for the last several years. Even the big ones like the Adobe suite, I downloaded and purchased online.

Will our products be in the App store? Yes, you bet.

Do I think that 30% is a good deal? Yes.

Do I think the model needs to be tweaked for desktop software vs mobile software? Yes, by having try before you buy, so that it's possible for customers to experience the full power of the software and be prepared to pay the higher price for high quality desktop software.

I use 1Password (brilliant software), and have a very strong password. Nobody has ever managed to access my account. All it takes is someone entering my apple id and any random password three times, and I'm locked out and have to go in and unlock it.

It's implied in the app store rules: "Apps that unlock or enable additional features or functionality with mechanisms other than the App Store will be rejected, except in cases where the application hosts plug-ins or extensions."

I don't know what sort of software you're buying, but I can't remember the last time I went into a store and actually walked out with a box of software... Maybe when I bought Leopard. Most of the software I buy is directly from the application developers over the internet. These guys are all going to suffer.

I completely agree. Honestly, as a consumer I can tell you right off that I would feel a heck of a lot safer downloading something from the Apple app store than anywhere else. I may even think twice about downloading from elsewhere. With the amount of malicious software and customer apprehensions, it will be in developers best interests to get the seal of approval.
It will benefit everyone. If another competing app store offered this type attention to consumer protection I would shop there too. The last thing I want is the Android app type mess on my desktop. It's fine for geeks that have too much time on their hands, but not for the general consumer.

This.

You guys are all computer savvy but put yourself into the shoes of the typical consumer who doesn't know who Panic or Rogue Amoeba is. How safe would you feel about buying software from a Dot Com named Rogue Amoeba?

The Mac App Store is going to deliver "instant" credibility with consumer just as the App Store has.

Name three.

The App Store is a step to be able to use your apps on any Mac you log into.

To do that the license needs to be for multiple macs (but probably PER USER), the apps need to be self contained, they need to install very simply and in a standard way so the Mac can do it without user intervention and without restarting the Mac.

It's all linked to an online model (Apple's data centre) that allows people to login anywhere and use their apps with their data.

btw: Apple won't force people to use the App Store, but anyone who wants to move seamlessly between any Macs will be trying to make sure their apps are all from the App Store.

Quite the contrary. In the app store model the developers keep their apps updated, not Apple.

If anything you have demonstrated why the App store will be far more successful than the downloads site could ever be.

Hopefully ones that can assist you with reading comprehension as well

this right here says it all
"Apps that download other standalone apps will be rejected. Apps that install kexts (kernel extensions) will be rejected. Apps that require license keys or implement their own copy protection will be rejected. Apps that present a license screen at launch will be rejected. Apps may not use update mechanisms outside of the App Store.

there is no way anyone like adobe or MS are gonna conform to that. that alone rules out 90% of the apps out there. Even if the app store tags an application simiar to how it does itunes music, it'll never stop people from sharing it illlegally if serialisation is removed..granted people pirate serials too, but not so easily. this would be asking developers to just throw their hands in air and let even the most amature of piraters to share apps like they are MP3s.

the app store is pretty much a front to put your apps on map if you don't already got your own thing going. anyone that already has a strong brand would be giving up substancial profits and control of their product and simply won't do it with these rules.

Probably by (eagerly) dropping their own schemes and using the standard tools provided by Apple.

The fact that people like you see this as a negative just shows how little of the realities of software development you understand.

Sure - those applications just won't be distributed in the app store

The Zune app store for Windows - coming to a photo copier near you

How many developers love proclaiming "Inbox zero!" in their tweets. I think people are underestimating how much "support" costs in time and attention. The Mac App Store isn't going to eliminate support costs but it should reduce the "I lost my serial number" requests greatly.

I think about how easy this Mac App Store could be for the newbie developer that has no street cred. Getting your app on the store means it's at least functioning like you've said it would and you only pay if the app sells. You wouldn't even have to run a huge website ..simply point to the store and let Apple pay your bandwidth costs with that 30%.

It's not going to be a big deal for the larger companies but what they need to beware of is the smaller indie playing David to their Goliath.

Saving this to come back a year from now. Will also give you plenty of time to decide how you like your crow served.

Caw, caw...

AFAIK, nobody can "give you" what you "refuse to take".

That it's successful despite his irrational hate for it?