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

245

Comments

  • Reply 21 of 90
    MplsPMplsP Posts: 3,608member
    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.
    Completely agree. I don’t know what the economics of app sales and marketing so I can’t say for sure if 30% is high, low or just right. Microsoft charging less may be because they are trying to lure developers, or that could be the going rate.

    The article doesn’t specify if they are talking about the Mac App Store or the ios App Store. I assume the lattter, since there is nothing from preventing the developers from doing what they request on their own for Mac apps. A big difference with iOS vs android or windows is that you are required to use the App Store; they either accept Apple’s terms or take a hike. 

    Personally, I think having a trial option would be awesome. Many times I’ve looked at apps, trying to figure out if they meet my needs but not wanting to shell out $20 or more for something that wouldn’t work. A free trial option would make the decision much easier and likely increase sales.
  • Reply 22 of 90
    asciiascii Posts: 5,941member
    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.
  • Reply 23 of 90
    rogifan_newrogifan_new Posts: 4,297member
    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?
  • Reply 24 of 90
    SpamSandwichSpamSandwich Posts: 33,407member
    asdasd said:
    nunzy said:
    Who do they think they are? If Apple is so horrible, then they can simply go somewhere else. Who needs 'em?

    nunzy said:
    Who do they think they are? If Apple is so horrible, then they can simply go somewhere else. Who needs 'em?
    Me. I need apps that Apple don’t supply. Apple also needs developers to supply those apps. That’s why they have SDKs and court developers at the WWDC. 
    If you choose to install apps which Apple does not provide through their own app store, then you are risking the use of your phone and your security. Don't expect Apple to provide things which fit your every individual need.
  • Reply 25 of 90
    SpamSandwichSpamSandwich Posts: 33,407member

    Today, I'm forming the AI Readers Union.  I hope you will all join me.  Today we ask AI to give back 25% of the ad revenue to the readers.  It should be possible to make a living wage just reading AI all day.  After this is provided, we'll make other demands.  This non-union union is a community, so share your ideas for what's next.
    If I could get paid for posting comments here, I'd be a multimillionaire.
    watto_cobracornchip
  • Reply 26 of 90
    zompzomp Posts: 57member
    Nobody ever complained when the software maker set the wholesale and retail price of software. 30% is the norm - go and try to sell your software at Bestbuy, they will mark it up to $20.00 when you sold it for $1.00. It's the developers fault for not setting a profitable price for themselves. Too many newbies in business these days. Maybe apple should host a software business class to all the newbies.
    Apple also pays the cost of credit card transactions.
    Developers, Apple calculated a cost for profit and the cost to operate their systems to host your software, years ago there wasn't a chance your software would have ever been seen at a big box store. Learn to price.
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 27 of 90
    SpamSandwichSpamSandwich Posts: 33,407member
    This fake union, which is probably composed of just the few people promoting their dreck, needs to be immediately ignored.

    And besides, good developers are immediately rewarded by the marketplace. Bad or uncompetitive developers deserve nothing. They have to provide something people want. Pernicious collectivist ideals poison every industry in which they take hold.
    edited May 2018 entropys
  • Reply 28 of 90
    rogifan_newrogifan_new Posts: 4,297member
    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.
    Yep. Good idea.  I’ll be curious to see if Apple shows off any AppStore changes at WWDC.
  • Reply 29 of 90
    bb-15bb-15 Posts: 283member
    There are already free trial game apps on the App Store.
    I’ve used them. You download the free trial app which is a limited version of the game and then you pay to upgrade to the complete game. 
    It works. 

    Second, As for developer revenue, I recall the makers of Monument Valley saying that almost all their revenue came from iOS and that was due to pirating on Android.
    iOS is good for developers.

    Third, the App Store has close monitoring to find malware. That costs money on top of the other things it takes to run it.  
    SpamSandwichwatto_cobracornchip
  • Reply 30 of 90
    racerhomie3racerhomie3 Posts: 1,171member
    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.
    edited May 2018
  • Reply 31 of 90
    nunzynunzy Posts: 662member
    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.

    edited May 2018
  • Reply 32 of 90
    brucemcbrucemc Posts: 1,541member
    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.
    You mean like how subscriptions are already handled...?
    cornchip
  • Reply 33 of 90
    bonobobbonobob Posts: 325member

    Today, I'm forming the AI Readers Union.  I hope you will all join me.  Today we ask AI to give back 25% of the ad revenue to the readers.  It should be possible to make a living wage just reading AI all day.  After this is provided, we'll make other demands.  This non-union union is a community, so share your ideas for what's next.
    If I could get paid for posting comments here, I'd be a multimillionaire.
    Not if you were paid what they are worth.
    croprsingularity
  • Reply 34 of 90
    brucemcbrucemc Posts: 1,541member
    Would be interested to know why free trials (broad based) are not allowed.  Seems like a good idea for all - say the trial period is 15 days.  Is there a technical hurdle?  Legal?

    As for “livable wage” - spare me the SJW BS.  No one is owed that - the individual is responsible for their own livelihood.  Make good career choices, work hard, change course if necessary, move to a better location, etc.  And a liveable wage is completely subjective - it is considerably different if you live in San Fran vs Milwaukee. 
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 35 of 90
    entropysentropys Posts: 3,392member
    I would go along with free trials in returning for killing off in app purchases.
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 36 of 90
    SoliSoli Posts: 10,033member
    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.
    Just spitballing…

    • Maybe if they invested in more heavily in internal app testers/auditors and/or SW that can analyze code better they may be able to keep bad actors out of the store.
    • Maybe if they made the level for access more costly it would help bad actors out of the store, especially if it means that means they force developers to update apps to support new HW (specifically in terms of displays) without it being a problem because they developers that stay have both the expertise and manpower to keep their apps so fresh and so clean, clean.

    Remember when being an Apple developer was $500, or when you had to buy separate developer licenses for both macOS (nee Mac OS X) and iOS? They lowered the cost of entry and keep working to make developing apps easier for developers, so I'm not saying that increasing their cut (or raising the annual developer fee) would be an optimal solution, but I certainly can't rule it out.
  • Reply 37 of 90
    HeliBumHeliBum Posts: 129member
    mike1 said:
    So, do what everybody else does. Offer a free game with an in-app purchase to get the whole magilla.
    Exactly. Apple does allow free trials in this manner. Yes, it means the developers have to structure their apps modularly so that functionality can be enabled as purchases are made.
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 38 of 90
    SoliSoli Posts: 10,033member
    mike1 said:
    So, do what everybody else does. Offer a free game with an in-app purchase to get the whole magilla.
    HeliBum said:
    mike1 said:
    So, do what everybody else does. Offer a free game with an in-app purchase to get the whole magilla.
    Exactly. Apple does allow free trials in this manner. Yes, it means the developers have to structure their apps modularly so that functionality can be enabled as purchases are made.
    Developers employ that option because they have no other choice, but it's not necessary an optimal choice. Surely you can think of examples where getting use of the full app for a timed duration is the only decent way in which to experience the app, over having some stripped down version where the consumer isn't able to experience the app the way the developer intended. Do you not see how that could be a problem for certain types of apps?
    edited May 2018
  • Reply 39 of 90
    wizard69wizard69 Posts: 13,377member
    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. 
    This so called Developers Union apparently is populated by complete idiots.   Seriously they must not have any experience at all running a business, if they did they would understand some of the value Apple provides to each developer.   There is a simple answer for developers, raise you prices if you think there is value in your software.  
    SpamSandwich
  • Reply 40 of 90
    jaywordjayword Posts: 13member
    If someone was going to do this, they should first familiarize themselves with the App Store. It already has free trials. The app is free, and then you start a free trial. That mechanism is available to all apps as of mid-2017. These morons are living in the dark ages.

    The main problem, if they had been smart enough to highlight it, is that Apple always features the same apps. PCalc, and 50 other apps are basically on rotation. Mostly games. If you are not in the top 100 apps, you will never be featured. I've made a living off the App Store with multiple employees for 7 years and still never been featured one time because it's just an app that is a little more involved than PCalc. Look at the nonsense Apple gives awards to every year. Useful apps people really get things done in are rarely given any credit or featured, but if your app just draws a more beautiful circle, you're the new black. So the top 100 thrive and everyone else does not. Start a petition around broader features and broader categorization. Don't form a fricken union, that's a stupid politically charged concept dooming this whole thing.
    cornchip
Sign In or Register to comment.