Apple highlighting App Store benefits to customers & developers in new promotional push

Posted:
in General Discussion
In a new promotional effort within its developer site, Apple touts how with one App Store that gets 500 million visitors weekly, app makers can reach 1.5 billion Apple devices across 175 regions.

Detail from Apple's developer promotion
Detail from Apple's developer promotion


Alongside its more public-facing promotions of both the App Store and the Apple Developer Program, Apple has now updated its official developer site to promote the benefits of working with the company. The new page contains little that isn't also on the new public pages, but does specify how developers can leverage Apple's business and marketing options, as well as its technology ones.

Stressing that its single App Store means reaching five platforms -- iPhone, iPad, Mac, Apple Watch, and Apple TV -- Apple says that it supports 40 languages and distributes apps to 175 regions around the world.

"We provide a powerful range of cutting-edge tools and configurations, so you can focus on creating innovative apps that influence culture and change lives using the latest Apple technologies," says Apple on the new page. "And we make sure that App Store services are always available, thanks to our hundreds of sustainability and reliability engineers who maintain our dedicated data centers (powered by 100% renewable energy)."

The new page repeatedly underlines how a developer in the Program can concentrate solely on creating their app, and leave the rest to Apple.

"Apple verifies user accounts to check that your users are real, helps to see that you get paid, and ensures that your intellectual property is protected," Apple says. "We also assist with tax obligations in over 60 regions and support any dispute process to help you protect your trademarks and copyrights."

On the technology side, Apple promotes how it has "250,000 APIs" in its various SDKs. "And with 92% of iPhone devices issued in the last four years running iOS 13, you can confidentially [sic] deliver features using the latest technologies."

Apple is promoting how one App Store gets developers onto five different platforms
Apple is promoting how one App Store gets developers onto five different platforms


A recurring complaint that developers and other Apple content creators such as Apple News+ publishers, is that the company keeps all user data for itself. The new page doesn't directly address this issue, but does promote how it provides information about customers to developers.

"Each month, we analyze billions of anonymized data points that give developers valuable business insights," it says. "Measure your app's performance with data you won't find anywhere else, view sales and trends, and view and download payments and financial reports."

The Apple Developer Program usually costs $99 per year, whether you're a one-person operation or a large company. Earlier in 2020, Apple introduced fee waivers where nonprofit developers could apply to have that fee dropped.

Apple's focus on Thursday comes following many criticisms of the App Store, including antitrust allegations, plus previous attempts to defend its fees and practices.

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 11
    I think it's time we customers let the developers know that we appreciate the App Store as it is. I for one, do not want alternate payment methods. I do not want alternate stores. I want restrictions on things like alternate browser engines. All these things are a benefit to users.

    Alternate payment methods means that Apple loses control of their enforcement of privacy. I do not want to trust 100s of companies to protect my credit card and personal information. Not to mention the loss of the easiest payment system for customers on the planet.

    Alternate stores would be a disaster. What other company makes any attempt to maintain the privacy of personal information? No alternate store would because selling the information or ads based on the information is a profit center.

    Alternate browser engines gives all the power to Google with Chrome and Chromium. Then we are back with Microsoft IE6. Right now the only thing forcing web sites from just requiring Chrome is that there are billions of iOS & iPadOS users who would be unable to access 100% of a site. Can you imagine going to a site with Safari on your iPad just to have a notice saying you must download Chrome to access it. So much for my privacy.

    Apple's restrictions are good for users. I want a way to let these greedy, whiny, entitled companies know that I don't appreciate what they are doing.
    camcGilliam_BateslitoloopgenovelleBeatsradarthekatwatto_cobrah2pDetnator
  • Reply 2 of 11
    jdb8167, well written.
    I really need to add that I completely agree with you.


    Beatsradarthekatwatto_cobra
  • Reply 3 of 11
    camc said:
    jdb8167, well written.
    I really need to add that I completely agree with you.


    …and me too. So how do we take this a serious step forward? Who can unite us or gather our voices in a joint coalition? Do we need anything more than a shared document which all interested consumers can put their names on? Should we do this independently or in coalition with Apple?
    Beatsradarthekatwatto_cobraDetnator
  • Reply 4 of 11
    camc said:
    jdb8167, well written.
    I really need to add that I completely agree with you.


    I agree with you too. So, just how do we take this further? Is it enough with a petition?
    Beatsradarthekatwatto_cobraDetnator
  • Reply 5 of 11
    jdb8167 said:
    I think it's time we customers let the developers know that we appreciate the App Store as it is. I for one, do not want alternate payment methods. I do not want alternate stores. I want restrictions on things like alternate browser engines. All these things are a benefit to users.

    Alternate payment methods means that Apple loses control of their enforcement of privacy. I do not want to trust 100s of companies to protect my credit card and personal information. Not to mention the loss of the easiest payment system for customers on the planet.

    Alternate stores would be a disaster. What other company makes any attempt to maintain the privacy of personal information? No alternate store would because selling the information or ads based on the information is a profit center.

    Alternate browser engines gives all the power to Google with Chrome and Chromium. Then we are back with Microsoft IE6. Right now the only thing forcing web sites from just requiring Chrome is that there are billions of iOS & iPadOS users who would be unable to access 100% of a site. Can you imagine going to a site with Safari on your iPad just to have a notice saying you must download Chrome to access it. So much for my privacy.

    Apple's restrictions are good for users. I want a way to let these greedy, whiny, entitled companies know that I don't appreciate what they are doing.
    I have always been on Apple's side, but I want you to clarify some things.
    (1) You say you do not want alternate stores. How would giving you the option of an alternate store hurt your privacy? You could simply choose to not install that store. So are you really looking out for yourself, or are you looking out for the millions of dumb users who don't know how to protect themselves?
    (2) You say you do not want alternate browser engines. What do you mean? iOS already allows alternate browsers like Chrome. Are you asking for Apple to remove these apps?
    (3) You say you do not want alternate payment methods. What do you mean? Apple already allows choices like Apple Pay and payment with a credit card. Are you asking Apple to remove those alternate payment methods?
  • Reply 6 of 11
    I agree with Apple in this. Allowing alternate stores, means going outside Apple's app approval vetting control. Forcibly by Congress. I highly disagree with this because Congress is trying to make Apple like Android or Windows. I chose to be with Apple because I trust that they can protect me and my family of cybersecurity threats from malicious Apps/plugins. I control every credit card purchases used for all my nephew's devices. I authorized them with Apple. Closed gate method have worked well for users since Appstore's inception. Letting this gate open will lead to security issues that Apple can no longer guarantee. This change (if it happens) will get reflected in the user terms of agreement. Like voiding the warranty etc. Apple provides warranty on hardware and software. Their complete control allows them to do that. Without that control, one cannot guarantee. To me that's not something I opted for. 

    I understand that there's a choice issue here. Many would want iOS to be an open system. Having alternate store would not compromise existing Apple's payment system. You can opt to not use it. That argument is true. What I fear though, is that Congress would go beyond that and force Apple to allow side loading etc. What happens if there is a security breach on the alternate store front or 3rd party app that is not vetted? That malicious activities can exploit the loophole in the operating system forced on by Congress for the sake of having it OPEN. Whereas before, Apple controls and would be the one to quickly identify and release the patch as soon as possible. In this scenario, who would be responsible? Do I trust that 3rd party store would be as responsible and quick as Apple? I don't think so. But I trust Apple. I think that's the fundamental here. Trust. One that doesn't come easy, it takes time and years to earn this from its users.

    Apple is no perfect company. But I do believe that this particular issue has security consequences that comes with being open. How much can this be open but do not compromise security is something Senators will have to be careful with. It can really backfire. 
    Beatswatto_cobraDetnator
  • Reply 7 of 11
    I agree with Apple in this. Allowing alternate stores, means going outside Apple's app approval vetting control. Forcibly by Congress. I highly disagree with this because Congress is trying to make Apple like Android or Windows. I chose to be with Apple because I trust that they can protect me and my family of cybersecurity threats from malicious Apps/plugins. I control every credit card purchases used for all my nephew's devices. I authorized them with Apple. Closed gate method have worked well for users since Appstore's inception. Letting this gate open will lead to security issues that Apple can no longer guarantee. This change (if it happens) will get reflected in the user terms of agreement. Like voiding the warranty etc. Apple provides warranty on hardware and software. Their complete control allows them to do that. Without that control, one cannot guarantee. To me that's not something I opted for. 

    I understand that there's a choice issue here. Many would want iOS to be an open system. Having alternate store would not compromise existing Apple's payment system. You can opt to not use it. That argument is true. What I fear though, is that Congress would go beyond that and force Apple to allow side loading etc. What happens if there is a security breach on the alternate store front or 3rd party app that is not vetted? That malicious activities can exploit the loophole in the operating system forced on by Congress for the sake of having it OPEN. Whereas before, Apple controls and would be the one to quickly identify and release the patch as soon as possible. In this scenario, who would be responsible? Do I trust that 3rd party store would be as responsible and quick as Apple? I don't think so. But I trust Apple. I think that's the fundamental here. Trust. One that doesn't come easy, it takes time and years to earn this from its users.

    Apple is no perfect company. But I do believe that this particular issue has security consequences that comes with being open. How much can this be open but do not compromise security is something Senators will have to be careful with. It can really backfire. 
    I agree almost completely. We trust the software that Apple has spent 15 years building. Apple has proven over and over that it has our best interests in mind when it restricts some of our options. Restrictions are often good for most of us. And companies like Epic and Microsoft who are currently on record as disliking "the app store rules" are trying to tear down that trust in Apple and replace it by trust in themselves. I don't trust them, at least not as much as I trust Apple (but a lot more than I trust Facebook.) I want to keep the CHOICE to purchase Apple's curated ecosystem, and several companies and some members of Congress are trying to tear that choice away from me. Epic is declaring their position as the "freedom side" which is quite a spin because they are trying to take away my freedom to have the curated ecosystem that I want. Apple has NOT put up a fight yet, and I hope they will before it's too late. I've put up more words in defense of Apple than Apple has.
    Beatswatto_cobra
  • Reply 8 of 11
    BeatsBeats Posts: 3,073member
    camc said:
    jdb8167, well written.
    I really need to add that I completely agree with you.


    …and me too. So how do we take this a serious step forward? Who can unite us or gather our voices in a joint coalition? Do we need anything more than a shared document which all interested consumers can put their names on? Should we do this independently or in coalition with Apple?

    I've been thinking about this lately. The problem is, the public is not educated and doesn't know better. If 1% of App Store customers speak up, lawmakers and other morons will see it as a "small" fraction of users who care and assume the 99% want fragmentation and want Apple's ecosystem to turn into the wild west.

    If Apple loses, what's next? Links to Spotify in iTunes? Amazon links on Apple.com? The Apple Store filled with 3rd party junk from knockoffs and turned into a mini swap meet?
    edited September 2020 watto_cobra
  • Reply 9 of 11
    radarthekatradarthekat Posts: 3,878moderator
    250,000 APIs.  All owned by Apple and not by developers and not by customers/end users.  This is Apple’s watchers to block third-party app stores.  They can simply deny access to any or all of those APIs to apps not submitted through their own App Store.  Go ahead and bold whatever apps you like, the hardware is indeed yours to program on top of.  Ape could even continued to provide the OS for free, but the APIs for apps are available only to apps that are delivered via the App Store.  Case closed.
    watto_cobrah2p
  • Reply 10 of 11
    h2ph2p Posts: 331member
    Wow, I just read the new Apple Developer page! These are a very good series of defense arguments against the current App Store Assaults. The ASA'ers are banding together with PR and lawsuits as we know. (I'm not a developer -- As a user and artist, the Mac has been an invaluable tool since 1987.) Now, the App Store allows me instant access to spectacular (inexpensive) tools for allowing me to work on my iPad Pro, with Apple Pencil, of course... and all of my 11 other Apple devices.

    And still, I thought 30% is a pretty steep price for you Developers to pay...

    Until I read the AD promotion page (culled from different parts of the page):
    • Allow users to pre-order your new app and receive it through automatic download once it’s released.
    • Apple verifies user accounts to check that your users are real, helps to see that you get paid, and ensures that your intellectual property is protected. We also assist with tax obligations in over 60 regions and support any dispute process to help you protect your trademarks and copyrights.
    • Users can restore apps and in-app purchases on a new device to seamlessly maintain access to content.
    • Use TestFlight to share your beta builds with up to 10,000 (! nice beta group) external testers using just their email address or by sharing a public link.
    • This and Much More... Keep 70% of your sales proceeds or 85% for qualifying subscriptions.
    Detnator
  • Reply 11 of 11
    jdb8167 said:
    I think it's time we customers let the developers know that we appreciate the App Store as it is. I for one, do not want alternate payment methods. I do not want alternate stores. I want restrictions on things like alternate browser engines. All these things are a benefit to users.

    Alternate payment methods means that Apple loses control of their enforcement of privacy. I do not want to trust 100s of companies to protect my credit card and personal information. Not to mention the loss of the easiest payment system for customers on the planet.

    Alternate stores would be a disaster. What other company makes any attempt to maintain the privacy of personal information? No alternate store would because selling the information or ads based on the information is a profit center.

    Alternate browser engines gives all the power to Google with Chrome and Chromium. Then we are back with Microsoft IE6. Right now the only thing forcing web sites from just requiring Chrome is that there are billions of iOS & iPadOS users who would be unable to access 100% of a site. Can you imagine going to a site with Safari on your iPad just to have a notice saying you must download Chrome to access it. So much for my privacy.

    Apple's restrictions are good for users. I want a way to let these greedy, whiny, entitled companies know that I don't appreciate what they are doing.
    I have always been on Apple's side, but I want you to clarify some things.
    (1) You say you do not want alternate stores. How would giving you the option of an alternate store hurt your privacy? You could simply choose to not install that store. So are you really looking out for yourself, or are you looking out for the millions of dumb users who don't know how to protect themselves?
    (2) You say you do not want alternate browser engines. What do you mean? iOS already allows alternate browsers like Chrome. Are you asking for Apple to remove these apps?
    (3) You say you do not want alternate payment methods. What do you mean? Apple already allows choices like Apple Pay and payment with a credit card. Are you asking Apple to remove those alternate payment methods?
    I think the issue here is how these alternate stores would affect the Apple App Store. I don’t want a situation where the only way to get certain apps is through these alternate stores. This would happen if a developer, being able to distribute their app on some alternate store then stopped distributing their app in the Apple App Store. 

    If Apple allowed alternate stores but was somehow able to enforce that all apps should still be available on the Apple app stores - for the benefit of the users who appreciate the value and convenience of a single central source for all apps - then perhaps alternate stores would be possible. 

    Same with payment methods. And whatever else.

    Of course the Epics and Spotifys of the world will object to what I’m saying here because their agenda is to monopolize their corners and take away those conveniences from me in the interests of their control over me. If Apple is ever forced to allow that it will be a sad day indeed. 
Sign In or Register to comment.