Not a fan of Apple's rent seeking, but this is the exact same situation with Audible, who therefore ask users to go through the website to make purchases. No idea why Spotify gets the spotlight or expects any difference in treatment.
Aren't Apple allowing links to website stores now? Or are they just doing that just in some select jurisdictions? I've lost track of it all.
Apple literally invented the modern App Store paradigm, requiring developers to meet quality, stability and security standards, along with consistent UI standards. They also provide a stable, secure platform on which to run applications. This creates a market of consumers who are ready and willing to download and pay for apps without hesitation, because they don’t have to worry that a new app will crash their device or have compatibility problems, or will surreptitiously load spyware and bloatware onto their device. They also know how to easily and completely delete an app if they don’t want it any longer, and the App Store provides an easy way to cancel any subscriptions, no questions asked.
Prior to the iOS App Store, online (and offline) app stores were a Wild West that provided none of those benefits. Particularly online, buying apps was a crapshoot.
Apple literally built an entire new market for software developers that did not exist before and continues to provide a stable, reliable continually improving platform and market that brings paying consumers to those software developers.
Apple is not “rent seeking.” “Rent seeking” is collecting a cut from a market while providing no added value. Apple is charging rent from developers who are building their wealth on top of Apple’s platform.
Apple invented the modern platformrestricted app store paradigm. App stores existed before, most notably, and influentially, Steam.
The platform restriction is the whole point. It's a feature, not a bug. Despite all the gnashing of teeth, the App Store is still the preferred outlet for app developers who want to make money from mobile apps, because Apple delivers the platform that brings a customer base that is willing to spend money on apps. It is not rent seeking for a company to charge money for value they create. If it wasn't worth it, app developers would simply not offer their wares on Apple devices.
Also, Steam is a game store, and while it existed first, it didn't release an SDK until after Apple's App Store released its SDK. Also, also, steam takes 30% of sales made through their store (less for big-money top-sellers). Is that rent-seeking?
Not a fan of Apple's rent seeking, but this is the exact same situation with Audible, who therefore ask users to go through the website to make purchases. No idea why Spotify gets the spotlight or expects any difference in treatment.
Aren't Apple allowing links to website stores now? Or are they just doing that just in some select jurisdictions? I've lost track of it all.
Apple literally invented the modern App Store paradigm, requiring developers to meet quality, stability and security standards, along with consistent UI standards. They also provide a stable, secure platform on which to run applications. This creates a market of consumers who are ready and willing to download and pay for apps without hesitation, because they don’t have to worry that a new app will crash their device or have compatibility problems, or will surreptitiously load spyware and bloatware onto their device. They also know how to easily and completely delete an app if they don’t want it any longer, and the App Store provides an easy way to cancel any subscriptions, no questions asked.
Prior to the iOS App Store, online (and offline) app stores were a Wild West that provided none of those benefits. Particularly online, buying apps was a crapshoot.
Apple literally built an entire new market for software developers that did not exist before and continues to provide a stable, reliable continually improving platform and market that brings paying consumers to those software developers.
Apple is not “rent seeking.” “Rent seeking” is collecting a cut from a market while providing no added value. Apple is charging rent from developers who are building their wealth on top of Apple’s platform.
Apple invented the modern platformrestricted app store paradigm. App stores existed before, most notably, and influentially, Steam.
Didn’t Palm, Blackberry, and Nokia have a store? And weren’t they restricted pay up or else?
You could sideload on the Palm devices I used and I don't remember there being a PalmSource store pre-Apple App Store. I might be wrong, it was a long time ago. The others I don't know about either way, maybe.
Not a fan of Apple's rent seeking, but this is the exact same situation with Audible, who therefore ask users to go through the website to make purchases. No idea why Spotify gets the spotlight or expects any difference in treatment.
Aren't Apple allowing links to website stores now? Or are they just doing that just in some select jurisdictions? I've lost track of it all.
Apple literally invented the modern App Store paradigm, requiring developers to meet quality, stability and security standards, along with consistent UI standards. They also provide a stable, secure platform on which to run applications. This creates a market of consumers who are ready and willing to download and pay for apps without hesitation, because they don’t have to worry that a new app will crash their device or have compatibility problems, or will surreptitiously load spyware and bloatware onto their device. They also know how to easily and completely delete an app if they don’t want it any longer, and the App Store provides an easy way to cancel any subscriptions, no questions asked.
Prior to the iOS App Store, online (and offline) app stores were a Wild West that provided none of those benefits. Particularly online, buying apps was a crapshoot.
Apple literally built an entire new market for software developers that did not exist before and continues to provide a stable, reliable continually improving platform and market that brings paying consumers to those software developers.
Apple is not “rent seeking.” “Rent seeking” is collecting a cut from a market while providing no added value. Apple is charging rent from developers who are building their wealth on top of Apple’s platform.
Apple invented the modern platformrestricted app store paradigm. App stores existed before, most notably, and influentially, Steam.
Didn’t Palm, Blackberry, and Nokia have a store? And weren’t they restricted pay up or else?
You could sideload on the Palm devices I used and I don't remember there being a PalmSource store pre-Apple App Store. I might be wrong, it was a long time ago. The others I don't know about either way, maybe.
Only remember them being mentioned on other forums (maybe even on this one) when discussing the ..... "first app store" and have no first hand knowledge about them. But did find this interesting article written back around 2011, while googling.
There's not a lot of info about them. Probably because they were privately owned and didn't have to answer shareholders questions every quarter or report to the SEC.
Not a fan of Apple's rent seeking, but this is the exact same situation with Audible, who therefore ask users to go through the website to make purchases. No idea why Spotify gets the spotlight or expects any difference in treatment.
Aren't Apple allowing links to website stores now? Or are they just doing that just in some select jurisdictions? I've lost track of it all.
Apple literally invented the modern App Store paradigm, requiring developers to meet quality, stability and security standards, along with consistent UI standards. They also provide a stable, secure platform on which to run applications. This creates a market of consumers who are ready and willing to download and pay for apps without hesitation, because they don’t have to worry that a new app will crash their device or have compatibility problems, or will surreptitiously load spyware and bloatware onto their device. They also know how to easily and completely delete an app if they don’t want it any longer, and the App Store provides an easy way to cancel any subscriptions, no questions asked.
Prior to the iOS App Store, online (and offline) app stores were a Wild West that provided none of those benefits. Particularly online, buying apps was a crapshoot.
Apple literally built an entire new market for software developers that did not exist before and continues to provide a stable, reliable continually improving platform and market that brings paying consumers to those software developers.
Apple is not “rent seeking.” “Rent seeking” is collecting a cut from a market while providing no added value. Apple is charging rent from developers who are building their wealth on top of Apple’s platform.
Apple invented the modern platformrestricted app store paradigm. App stores existed before, most notably, and influentially, Steam.
The platform restriction is the whole point. It's a feature, not a bug. Despite all the gnashing of teeth, the App Store is still the preferred outlet for app developers who want to make money from mobile apps, because Apple delivers the platform that brings a customer base that is willing to spend money on apps. It is not rent seeking for a company to charge money for value they create. If it wasn't worth it, app developers would simply not offer their wares on Apple devices.
Also, Steam is a game store, and while it existed first, it didn't release an SDK until after Apple's App Store released its SDK. Also, also, steam takes 30% of sales made through their store (less for big-money top-sellers). Is that rent-seeking?
This is what a lot of people don't get. Though there are restrictions in the Apple App Store that are obviously there to protect revenue (profits), there are also restrictions that are there to protect iOS. iOS is one of the features that Apple uses to promote their hardware, over Android hardware. Therefore, Apple have a direct interest to making sure iOS is not compromised or degraded by third parties, whose only interest is to make money on iOS. As though it's their inalienable right. The most mentioned restrictions, not being able to side load and the Apple App Store being the only allowed app store, are restrictions to protect iOS, not Apple App Store revenues (profits).
Even the Google Play Store, when it comes to protecting revenues (profits), have about the same restrictions as the Apple App Store. But Google can only go so far to protect Android as Android is offered as open source. But Google do offer a plan to better protect Android users, by (when enabled) making restrictions to Android so it's more like iOS. The plan only allow apps from the Google Play Store (and the trusted app stores installed by the phone manufacturers.) and prevents side loading.
Google knows that Android is safer if it have the same restrictions as iOS. Apple knows that without restrictions, iOS will end up more like Android (without enabling the protection plan.) and no longer be a feature unique to Apple hardware.
Not a fan of Apple's rent seeking, but this is the exact same situation with Audible, who therefore ask users to go through the website to make purchases. No idea why Spotify gets the spotlight or expects any difference in treatment.
Aren't Apple allowing links to website stores now? Or are they just doing that just in some select jurisdictions? I've lost track of it all.
Apple literally invented the modern App Store paradigm, requiring developers to meet quality, stability and security standards, along with consistent UI standards. They also provide a stable, secure platform on which to run applications. This creates a market of consumers who are ready and willing to download and pay for apps without hesitation, because they don’t have to worry that a new app will crash their device or have compatibility problems, or will surreptitiously load spyware and bloatware onto their device. They also know how to easily and completely delete an app if they don’t want it any longer, and the App Store provides an easy way to cancel any subscriptions, no questions asked.
Prior to the iOS App Store, online (and offline) app stores were a Wild West that provided none of those benefits. Particularly online, buying apps was a crapshoot.
Apple literally built an entire new market for software developers that did not exist before and continues to provide a stable, reliable continually improving platform and market that brings paying consumers to those software developers.
Apple is not “rent seeking.” “Rent seeking” is collecting a cut from a market while providing no added value. Apple is charging rent from developers who are building their wealth on top of Apple’s platform.
Apple invented the modern platformrestricted app store paradigm. App stores existed before, most notably, and influentially, Steam.
Didn’t Palm, Blackberry, and Nokia have a store? And weren’t they restricted pay up or else?
You could sideload on the Palm devices I used and I don't remember there being a PalmSource store pre-Apple App Store. I might be wrong, it was a long time ago. The others I don't know about either way, maybe.
Only remember them being mentioned on other forums (maybe even on this one) when discussing the ..... "first app store" and have no first hand knowledge about them. But did find this interesting article written back around 2011, while googling.
There's not a lot of info about them. Probably because they were privately owned and didn't have to answer shareholders questions every quarter or report to the SEC.
My recollection of handango is that it was pretty clunky. It also was just a store shelf. There was no QC of the content you bought through them. Apps weren’t 99¢, and there was always the risk that even if they were ‘legit,’ there could still be conflicts with other apps, your OS version or your hardware configuration.
As with so many other cases, Apple’s App Store wasn’t first, but was profoundly different and better than what came before it.
It's not uncommon for companies to clash over App Store rules and regulations. It seems like Apple and Spotify are currently at odds over the issue of directing customers to purchase audiobooks outside of the app. It's interesting to see how this will play out, and whether or not Apple will change its stance on the matter.
@FredHenders said: It's not uncommon for companies to clash over App Store rules and
regulations. It seems like Apple and Spotify are currently at odds over
the issue of directing customers to purchase audiobooks outside of the
app. It's interesting to see how this will play out, and whether or not
Apple will change its stance on the matter.
Speaking of audiobooks, have you ever thought about making money with Audible? There are actually quite a few ways to do this, like narrating audiobooks or creating your own audiobooks to sell on platforms like Audible.
Comments
Also, Steam is a game store, and while it existed first, it didn't release an SDK until after Apple's App Store released its SDK. Also, also, steam takes 30% of sales made through their store (less for big-money top-sellers). Is that rent-seeking?