Developers Union urges Apple to allow free app trials, make it easier to earn a living

135

Comments

  • Reply 41 of 90
    SpamSandwichSpamSandwich Posts: 33,407member
    nunzy said:
    Soli said:
    I'm all for the free app trials, but the cut Apple gets seems fair and is much better than what existed before the iPhone and its App Store hit the market.

    That said, the 30% cut may not be ideal today as it was back in 2008 now that the platform is mature. That isn't to say that is should be lower than 30%, but that the optimal cut could be higher or lower than 30%. Whatever can strengthen the platform is likely what is best for Apple and their customers.
    Why do you think the optimal cut might need to be greater than 30%? IMO a big issue with the AppStore is most of the money going to a small number of developers.
    We don’t know that .Only Apple does.
    Apple knows exactly how much to charge in order to maximize their profits. They've been doing this for a long time.

    Their pricing structure is not intended to be a gift to developers. It is intended to seize as much profit as possible.

    "Seize as much profit as possible"? They developed the entire system and participation is voluntary. There's no "seizing" involved.
    edited May 2018 watto_cobra
  • Reply 42 of 90
    SoliSoli Posts: 10,038member
    jayword said:
    If someone was going to do this, they should first familiarize themselves with the App Store. It already has free trials.
    The article states that time trials are only available for subscription-based services, like HBO GO, not all apps.
  • Reply 43 of 90
    wizard69wizard69 Posts: 13,377member
    nunzy said:
    Who do they think they are? If Apple is so horrible, then they can simply go somewhere else. Who needs 'em?
    Right, because Apple doesn’t need developers. What’s so wrong with offering trials? I’d love to be able to try an app and see if I like it before I buy it. I’d love to know how indie developers are doing on the App Store. I’ll bet most of Apple’s payouts are going to large companies or game developers with stupid IAP.

    I’m curious, what do eBay and Amazon charge to sell things on their website? Is it comparable to Apple’s 30%?
    In physical stores it used to be 40%
    in most physical stores the prices are often marked up far more than that, sometimes as much as 100%.    The reason is pretty simple it costs money to keep a store running and you always have slow spots.  

    One can argue all they want about Apples cut and frankly it can be any amount Apple wants to charge.   Obviously the people building this so called Developers Union have no business sense at all.   If you aren't making a living off a product you either need to raise the price or offer more products.   If you can't raise the price then the product isn't viable.    Real businesses have to deal with products that fail everyday, they don't go looking for handouts from their distributors.


    SpamSandwich
  • Reply 44 of 90
    rogifan_newrogifan_new Posts: 4,297member
    nunzy said:
    Soli said:
    I'm all for the free app trials, but the cut Apple gets seems fair and is much better than what existed before the iPhone and its App Store hit the market.

    That said, the 30% cut may not be ideal today as it was back in 2008 now that the platform is mature. That isn't to say that is should be lower than 30%, but that the optimal cut could be higher or lower than 30%. Whatever can strengthen the platform is likely what is best for Apple and their customers.
    Why do you think the optimal cut might need to be greater than 30%? IMO a big issue with the AppStore is most of the money going to a small number of developers.
    We don’t know that .Only Apple does.
    Apple knows exactly how much to charge in order to maximize their profits. They've been doing this for a long time.

    Their pricing structure is not intended to be a gift to developers. It is intended to seize as much profit as possible.

    Um Apple has no problem generating profit. It’s a little sad though that some AI posters view Apple through only one metric: how big their profits are. I’m reminded of this Steve Jobs quote from Walter Isaacson’s book:

    http://www.businessinsider.com/steve-jobs-products-versus-profits-2011-10
    "My passion has been to build an enduring company where people were motivated to make great products," Jobs told Isaacson. "[T]he products, not the profits, were the motivation. Sculley flipped these priorities to where the goal was to make money. It's a subtle difference, but it ends up meaning everything."
    nunzymuthuk_vanalingam
  • Reply 45 of 90
    nunzy said:
    Who do they think they are? If Apple is so horrible, then they can simply go somewhere else. Who needs 'em?
    You can apple the same logic to Apple-Qualcomm case. If Qualcomm is so horrible then they can just buy chips from Intel. Who need 'em?
    nunzy
  • Reply 46 of 90
    nunzynunzy Posts: 662member
    nunzy said:
    Soli said:
    I'm all for the free app trials, but the cut Apple gets seems fair and is much better than what existed before the iPhone and its App Store hit the market.

    That said, the 30% cut may not be ideal today as it was back in 2008 now that the platform is mature. That isn't to say that is should be lower than 30%, but that the optimal cut could be higher or lower than 30%. Whatever can strengthen the platform is likely what is best for Apple and their customers.
    Why do you think the optimal cut might need to be greater than 30%? IMO a big issue with the AppStore is most of the money going to a small number of developers.
    We don’t know that .Only Apple does.
    Apple knows exactly how much to charge in order to maximize their profits. They've been doing this for a long time.

    Their pricing structure is not intended to be a gift to developers. It is intended to seize as much profit as possible.

    "Seize as much profit as possible"? They developed the entire system and participation is voluntary. There's no "seizing" involved.
    Maybe I'm reading too much DED lately. That's how he puts it.

    Change it to "earn". That's closer to what I meant.
    SpamSandwichmuthuk_vanalingam
  • Reply 47 of 90
    mac_dogmac_dog Posts: 1,070member
    So let me get this straight...there are only four members of this union?

    i guess the quickest way to get members is to stage a public request like this. 

    I go go back to what I said about all the “musicians” that were poo-pooing streaming music: put out good work and you will be successful. 

    What a a bunch of crybabies. They need to move out from under their parents care and start dealing with the real world. 
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 48 of 90
    sflocalsflocal Posts: 6,099member
    sflocal said:
    As a software for 30+ years, these "developers" are an embarrassment.  They do not represent me, or countless others that live in what is generally known as "Reality".

    They are more than welcome to create software to sell independently.  Go right ahead.  Code the software, set up a website to sell it, hire the people to run it, handle billing, merchant accounts, fraud, hire a security team to make sure your website doesn't get hacked and inject malware/ransomware/viruses into your app binaries, and hire a marketing person/team to actually sell your product.

    And don't forget to maybe create physical copies to sell in retail stores that no one visits anymore.

    Morons.  

    30% is a BARGAIN considering what Apple does by handling everything, freeing the developer to focus on their product.  I'll bet these are 20-something whiners that have zero clue what it takes to run an actual business.  It's because of ecosystems like Apple's App Store that gives the Joe-developer access to literally hundreds of MILLIONS of potential customers all over the world.  

    Face it... if you can't make a living on 70% of the revenue, then you're not going to make that living on anything higher.  In business-speak, it means your "app" is crap.  

    Unbelievable the arrogance that people like these have.  Last time I checked, Android doesn't have those "limitations".  They're more than welcome to give Apple the finger and go elsewhere.  Oh yeah.. I forgot.. no one pays for Android apps.  smh. 
    One of the leaders behind this is Brent Simmons who’s been writing apps for Apple computers for almost 40 years. I find it amusing that AI posters who think Apple can do no wrongs are calling others arrogant. And if you think 30% is a bargain then why isn’t Apple charging 40% or 50%? And why did they make changes to subscription apps taking only 15% after the first year?
    And so what? If he's been writing apps for 40+ years, and he's still chiming that he can barely get buy on whatever apps he's creating, sounds to me like he's doing something wrong. The App Store is 10 years old.  That's given him 30 years doing things the old-fashion way.  What was his overhead when he was doing it himself selling all these pre-iOS apps?  Did he have a side job?  Did he do all his work as an employee at another company, having others to deal with the headaches of running that business?

    It is arrogant because in essence what they're doing is blaming Apple for their apps not making the kind of money they want.  It would take at LEAST 30% if not more of one's resources to do it themselves.  Perhaps Apple will some day drop the rate, and if they do, great!  I personally think it's still a bargain considering what they do and in return getting access to millions of people in an easy way.  I do know how much work is involved in running a software business.  I've been a contract software engineer for 30+ years.  It's brutal, and I don't even do much iOS work!

    He's more than welcome to sell his apps on the Android platform.  By your logic he'll make way more since they don't take any percentage of sales.

    70% of something is better than 100% of nothing.  Sounds like he's forgotten his history on how cut-throat that business was before the advent of app-stores.
    SpamSandwichwatto_cobra
  • Reply 49 of 90
    chasmchasm Posts: 3,347member
    These four developers (that's quite a union ya got there) apparently never had to offer a product for sale in the retail space, or they would know that the percentage Apple charges as very fair in lieu of the services provided are dramatically lower than back in the days of boxed software. I'm all for their idea of allowing different sorts of "free trials" above and beyond the current "in-app purchase" model, but as for trying to get a bigger cut ... good luck with that fellas, there's the door ... let's see how much it costs you to go out on your own ...
    SpamSandwichwatto_cobra
  • Reply 50 of 90
    jbdragonjbdragon Posts: 2,311member
    Apple getting a 30% cut is fair.  I do think Apple should have allowed free trials of software.  I think because Apple doesn't is the reason why there's so much freemiun apps. I'd rather just pay for something once after trying it and seeing if I like it.
  • Reply 51 of 90
    Rayz2016Rayz2016 Posts: 6,957member
    jbdragon said:
    Apple getting a 30% cut is fair.  I do think Apple should have allowed free trials of software.  I think because Apple doesn't is the reason why there's so much freemiun apps. I'd rather just pay for something once after trying it and seeing if I like it.
    The problem with a free trial is that the developer doesn't learn anything. Download an app; if you don't like it then you just stop using it. The developer doesn't have a clue why you stopped using it.

    On the app store, I buy an app, play around with it, and if I don't like it then I get a refund, filling in the form saying why I didn't like it. Since I know there is a time limit on getting a refund, then I will spend the time to kick the tyres and then offer some useful feedback if I don't get on with it. In a few instances, I've got the refund and then, a few months later, gone on to buy the app when the developer has made improvements. 

    I suspect that one reason that Apple doesn't like free trials is that all that leads to engagement. For apps costing a few hundred quid then I see the point; for an app that sells for the price of a Starbucks …?
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 52 of 90
    Rayz2016Rayz2016 Posts: 6,957member
    rogifan_new said:

    One of the leaders behind this is Brent Simmons who’s been writing apps for Apple computers for almost 40 years. I find it amusing that AI posters who think Apple can do no wrongs are calling others arrogant. And if you think 30% is a bargain then why isn’t Apple charging 40% or 50%? And why did they make changes to subscription apps taking only 15% after the first year?
    And what's equally amusing are the AI posters who think that Apple can do no right, and this especially gobsmacking when the poster in question doesn't really know what they're talking about. 
    Before Apple opened the app store, the going rate for this sort of service was 60% upward, leaving 40% for the developer. When Apple joined the party, rates dropped across the board.

    Writing apps for Apple computers for 40 years doesn't automatically mean you're right; more often than not it means you're unwilling to adapt to the realities of the market place. If this union is having difficulty making a living from doing this then it's possible that they're writing the wrong kind of apps and/or the business model they're hoping to make a living from is woefully out of date. Either way, Apple tickling the percentages isn't going to help them.

    The reason Apple has more favourable terms for subscription apps is obvious: they're trying to encourage developers to adopt this model because it is the only way they can sustain themselves when software is now a cheap commodity. That's the reality, no matter how many people wail how they're rather be stabbed in the face than pay a yearly fee for software they find useful.

    watto_cobra
  • Reply 53 of 90
    Rayz2016Rayz2016 Posts: 6,957member
    nunzy said:
    Soli said:
    I'm all for the free app trials, but the cut Apple gets seems fair and is much better than what existed before the iPhone and its App Store hit the market.

    That said, the 30% cut may not be ideal today as it was back in 2008 now that the platform is mature. That isn't to say that is should be lower than 30%, but that the optimal cut could be higher or lower than 30%. Whatever can strengthen the platform is likely what is best for Apple and their customers.
    Why do you think the optimal cut might need to be greater than 30%? IMO a big issue with the AppStore is most of the money going to a small number of developers.
    We don’t know that .Only Apple does.
    Apple knows exactly how much to charge in order to maximize their profits. They've been doing this for a long time.

    Their pricing structure is not intended to be a gift to developers. It is intended to seize as much profit as possible.

    Um Apple has no problem generating profit. It’s a little sad though that some AI posters view Apple through only one metric: how big their profits are. I’m reminded of this Steve Jobs quote from Walter Isaacson’s book:

    http://www.businessinsider.com/steve-jobs-products-versus-profits-2011-10
    "My passion has been to build an enduring company where people were motivated to make great products," Jobs told Isaacson. "[T]he products, not the profits, were the motivation. Sculley flipped these priorities to where the goal was to make money. It's a subtle difference, but it ends up meaning everything."
    And oddly enough, this didn't prevent Jobs from selling some of the most expensive desktop computers of the time.
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 54 of 90
    asciiascii Posts: 5,936member
    Rayz2016 said:
    nunzy said:
    Soli said:
    I'm all for the free app trials, but the cut Apple gets seems fair and is much better than what existed before the iPhone and its App Store hit the market.

    That said, the 30% cut may not be ideal today as it was back in 2008 now that the platform is mature. That isn't to say that is should be lower than 30%, but that the optimal cut could be higher or lower than 30%. Whatever can strengthen the platform is likely what is best for Apple and their customers.
    Why do you think the optimal cut might need to be greater than 30%? IMO a big issue with the AppStore is most of the money going to a small number of developers.
    We don’t know that .Only Apple does.
    Apple knows exactly how much to charge in order to maximize their profits. They've been doing this for a long time.

    Their pricing structure is not intended to be a gift to developers. It is intended to seize as much profit as possible.

    Um Apple has no problem generating profit. It’s a little sad though that some AI posters view Apple through only one metric: how big their profits are. I’m reminded of this Steve Jobs quote from Walter Isaacson’s book:

    http://www.businessinsider.com/steve-jobs-products-versus-profits-2011-10
    "My passion has been to build an enduring company where people were motivated to make great products," Jobs told Isaacson. "[T]he products, not the profits, were the motivation. Sculley flipped these priorities to where the goal was to make money. It's a subtle difference, but it ends up meaning everything."
    And oddly enough, this didn't prevent Jobs from selling some of the most expensive desktop computers of the time.
    But if your starting point is that you're going to make the best computer you can imagine, it shouldn't be surprising that it ends up expensive, regardless of your POV on profits.
  • Reply 55 of 90
    mattinozmattinoz Posts: 2,352member
    Wouldn’t apps on subscription be a similar test to a free trial?

    i mean if your app is good enough to get me to pay $9.99* after month then it should also also be good enough to get me to pay 99c per month and if it keeps improving keep the subscription up year on year in return for that developers time.

    continous delivery systems haven’t done away with the box software mentality of 4 patches one feature release each year one for a one off fee but maybe it should. If the first Monday of the month brought a few bug fixes and a feature or minor improvements then subscription could work. 

    *or more in the case of genuine utility apps on Mac and hopefully more common on pad. 
  • Reply 56 of 90
    mattinozmattinoz Posts: 2,352member
    ascii said:
    Maybe the cut could be 30% initially (for example for the first 3 months) and then drop to something lower for the remainder of the life of the app. 

    It would help developers because they would have a bigger drip drip drip income from their back catalog, keeping them going. And might benefit customers too, because it would encourage developers to keep adding features to older apps rather than abandobing them, because they would have more to make from those older ones.
    Well if Apple want developers to support the lastest os and feature they could offer a lower rate to apps that stay current. Not suggesting apps should add AR to qualify but not keeping the app Mondren should be rewarded. 
  • Reply 57 of 90
    rogifan_newrogifan_new Posts: 4,297member
    sflocal said:
    sflocal said:
    As a software for 30+ years, these "developers" are an embarrassment.  They do not represent me, or countless others that live in what is generally known as "Reality".

    They are more than welcome to create software to sell independently.  Go right ahead.  Code the software, set up a website to sell it, hire the people to run it, handle billing, merchant accounts, fraud, hire a security team to make sure your website doesn't get hacked and inject malware/ransomware/viruses into your app binaries, and hire a marketing person/team to actually sell your product.

    And don't forget to maybe create physical copies to sell in retail stores that no one visits anymore.

    Morons.  

    30% is a BARGAIN considering what Apple does by handling everything, freeing the developer to focus on their product.  I'll bet these are 20-something whiners that have zero clue what it takes to run an actual business.  It's because of ecosystems like Apple's App Store that gives the Joe-developer access to literally hundreds of MILLIONS of potential customers all over the world.  

    Face it... if you can't make a living on 70% of the revenue, then you're not going to make that living on anything higher.  In business-speak, it means your "app" is crap.  

    Unbelievable the arrogance that people like these have.  Last time I checked, Android doesn't have those "limitations".  They're more than welcome to give Apple the finger and go elsewhere.  Oh yeah.. I forgot.. no one pays for Android apps.  smh. 
    One of the leaders behind this is Brent Simmons who’s been writing apps for Apple computers for almost 40 years. I find it amusing that AI posters who think Apple can do no wrongs are calling others arrogant. And if you think 30% is a bargain then why isn’t Apple charging 40% or 50%? And why did they make changes to subscription apps taking only 15% after the first year?
    And so what? If he's been writing apps for 40+ years, and he's still chiming that he can barely get buy on whatever apps he's creating, sounds to me like he's doing something wrong. The App Store is 10 years old.  That's given him 30 years doing things the old-fashion way.  What was his overhead when he was doing it himself selling all these pre-iOS apps?  Did he have a side job?  Did he do all his work as an employee at another company, having others to deal with the headaches of running that business?

    It is arrogant because in essence what they're doing is blaming Apple for their apps not making the kind of money they want.  It would take at LEAST 30% if not more of one's resources to do it themselves.  Perhaps Apple will some day drop the rate, and if they do, great!  I personally think it's still a bargain considering what they do and in return getting access to millions of people in an easy way.  I do know how much work is involved in running a software business.  I've been a contract software engineer for 30+ years.  It's brutal, and I don't even do much iOS work!

    He's more than welcome to sell his apps on the Android platform.  By your logic he'll make way more since they don't take any percentage of sales.

    70% of something is better than 100% of nothing.  Sounds like he's forgotten his history on how cut-throat that business was before the advent of app-stores.
    What’s wrong with trials though? Why is Apple against letting people try software before they buy it? That seems better than making people pay up front and having to offer refunds,
  • Reply 58 of 90
    asciiascii Posts: 5,936member
    sflocal said:
    sflocal said:
    As a software for 30+ years, these "developers" are an embarrassment.  They do not represent me, or countless others that live in what is generally known as "Reality".

    They are more than welcome to create software to sell independently.  Go right ahead.  Code the software, set up a website to sell it, hire the people to run it, handle billing, merchant accounts, fraud, hire a security team to make sure your website doesn't get hacked and inject malware/ransomware/viruses into your app binaries, and hire a marketing person/team to actually sell your product.

    And don't forget to maybe create physical copies to sell in retail stores that no one visits anymore.

    Morons.  

    30% is a BARGAIN considering what Apple does by handling everything, freeing the developer to focus on their product.  I'll bet these are 20-something whiners that have zero clue what it takes to run an actual business.  It's because of ecosystems like Apple's App Store that gives the Joe-developer access to literally hundreds of MILLIONS of potential customers all over the world.  

    Face it... if you can't make a living on 70% of the revenue, then you're not going to make that living on anything higher.  In business-speak, it means your "app" is crap.  

    Unbelievable the arrogance that people like these have.  Last time I checked, Android doesn't have those "limitations".  They're more than welcome to give Apple the finger and go elsewhere.  Oh yeah.. I forgot.. no one pays for Android apps.  smh. 
    One of the leaders behind this is Brent Simmons who’s been writing apps for Apple computers for almost 40 years. I find it amusing that AI posters who think Apple can do no wrongs are calling others arrogant. And if you think 30% is a bargain then why isn’t Apple charging 40% or 50%? And why did they make changes to subscription apps taking only 15% after the first year?
    And so what? If he's been writing apps for 40+ years, and he's still chiming that he can barely get buy on whatever apps he's creating, sounds to me like he's doing something wrong. The App Store is 10 years old.  That's given him 30 years doing things the old-fashion way.  What was his overhead when he was doing it himself selling all these pre-iOS apps?  Did he have a side job?  Did he do all his work as an employee at another company, having others to deal with the headaches of running that business?

    It is arrogant because in essence what they're doing is blaming Apple for their apps not making the kind of money they want.  It would take at LEAST 30% if not more of one's resources to do it themselves.  Perhaps Apple will some day drop the rate, and if they do, great!  I personally think it's still a bargain considering what they do and in return getting access to millions of people in an easy way.  I do know how much work is involved in running a software business.  I've been a contract software engineer for 30+ years.  It's brutal, and I don't even do much iOS work!

    He's more than welcome to sell his apps on the Android platform.  By your logic he'll make way more since they don't take any percentage of sales.

    70% of something is better than 100% of nothing.  Sounds like he's forgotten his history on how cut-throat that business was before the advent of app-stores.
    What’s wrong with trials though? Why is Apple against letting people try software before they buy it? That seems better than making people pay up front and having to offer refunds,
    I don't think they're against trials or samples in principle, for example on the iTunes Store you can listen to a 90s preview, which is almost half the song in most cases, and on the iBooks Store you can download the first 100 pages or so of any book. It's just about what the competition is offering or not offering.
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 59 of 90
    asdasdasdasd Posts: 5,686member
    nunzy said:
    asdasd said:
    rob53 said:
    Apple hosts the servers and provides billing. It also checks apps to (hopefully) make sure they are abiding by the rules, which helps all users. Isn’t that worth 30%? If developers had to do all of this on their own (if App Store was open) I bet the vast majority would never even get more than a handful of downloads. 
    Prior to the Mac App Store there were, probably still are, other payment and download services. Not that’s it too onerous for large devs  to do this either. 

    The mac Mac App Store might be good for discoverability if featured. 
    If Apple wants Mac App Store to be the best for its customers, it should make Mac impossible to sideload with malware. It works great for iPhone. Security is paramount to the user experience.
    I think by malware you mean non Mac App Store apps. They already can stop malware (default settings force the app to be registered and Apple can invalidate the cert). 

    If you mean Mac App Store only that would kill the Mac. 

    (It’s possible to do that in settings though, so you can go wild). 
    edited May 2018
  • Reply 60 of 90
    asdasdasdasd Posts: 5,686member
    sflocal said:
    As a software for 30+ years, these "developers" are an embarrassment.  They do not represent me, or countless others that live in what is generally known as "Reality".

    They are more than welcome to create software to sell independently.  Go right ahead.  Code the software, set up a website to sell it, hire the people to run it, handle billing, merchant accounts, fraud, hire a security team to make sure your website doesn't get hacked and inject malware/ransomware/viruses into your app binaries, and hire a marketing person/team to actually sell your product.

    And don't forget to maybe create physical copies to sell in retail stores that no one visits anymore.

    Morons.  

    30% is a BARGAIN considering what Apple does by handling everything, freeing the developer to focus on their product.  I'll bet these are 20-something whiners that have zero clue what it takes to run an actual business.  It's because of ecosystems like Apple's App Store that gives the Joe-developer access to literally hundreds of MILLIONS of potential customers all over the world.  

    Face it... if you can't make a living on 70% of the revenue, then you're not going to make that living on anything higher.  In business-speak, it means your "app" is crap.  

    Unbelievable the arrogance that people like these have.  Last time I checked, Android doesn't have those "limitations".  They're more than welcome to give Apple the finger and go elsewhere.  Oh yeah.. I forgot.. no one pays for Android apps.  smh. 
    Apple doesn’t do the majority of what you claim it does. It doesn’t facilitate developers websites, nor does it do your marketing unless you are lucky to be featured. 
Sign In or Register to comment.