cropr

About

Username
cropr
Joined
Visits
160
Last Active
Roles
member
Points
3,373
Badges
2
Posts
1,149

Reactions

804Like4Dislike350Informative

  • Apple could lose all App Store revenue in EU and only take 1% hit

    croprcropr
    iqatedo said:
    cropr said:
    Being an app developer myself, I might share  what I will do when 3rd party app store and payment engines will become available for iOS apps. I don't develop games, only business related apps linked to a cloud service.  My apps are all available on iOS, Android and the Web (for PC and Mac)
    1.  I will move all my apps to an app store that gives me much better marketing.    From a developer point of view the marketing of the Apple App Store sucks.   I did a survey among my customers and none of them have discovered my apps in the App store.     This is the main reason to move away from the Apple App Store.  In the first few years of the App Store the marketing was OK, but now there are so many apps on the App Store, that I have to provide my own marketing.
    2. My ideal app store should not impose business restrictions as the Apple App store does currently:  it should allow me to give discounts to my clients who buy multiple apps from me, it should let me distribute vouchers, it should allow special "launch offers", it should allow to have another main currency (e.g. the Euro) so that when the exchange rate changes the cost in Euro does not change, but the cost in $ does.
    3. My ideal app store should distribute iOS and Android versions of my apps, and should allow me to link the web version of my app.  I basically don't care which version of my app is downloaded.
    4. For payments I would use Ingenico, a well respected payment service provider, that I am currently using for the web version of my apps (I never had any fraud issue with Ingenico).   As such I will have 1 single payment service provider for all my apps on all devices..  Operationally this will lower the cost of my accounting and my help desk.
    I might assume that Apple after a while might react when more and more app stores becoming available.  Especially on point 2 Apple might move a bit to become more developer friendly.
     
    Such interesting points. Thanks for the opportunity to look into the thinking of a developer. What is your take on App Store security (in respect of potential third party stores)?
    I assume that Apple will still want to sign an app before it is distributed on any app store.  As such on the iOS device there will be no change: only apps signed by Apple are allowed to be installed.  This means that Apple will still have an app approval process where some requirements should be met. 

    The requirements for an app approval for 3rd party stores should include all technical and security features as Apple has now, but the business restrictions should be gone.   I myself don't want to have lower technical and security requirements:  it would be easier to sell the app, if there is an Apple verification stamp on it.   One of my apps is an electronic voting system, where it is crucial that the customers trust the system. 

    So I don't mind that Apple would charge for the app approval service.  This could only be a fixed fee and no longer a percentage, as Apple should no longer have any business with the pricing. 

    It sounds logical that a 3rd party app store provider would also want to be sure that the apps it is distributing, are secure.  Only criminals want  to download from a dodgy app store. The marketing of Apple wants  us to believe that Apple is the only one who can provide well trusted and secure environment and that there will be a lot of insecure app stores: but that is fake news.
    muthuk_vanalingamwilliamlondoniqatedo

  • Apple could lose all App Store revenue in EU and only take 1% hit

    croprcropr
    Being an app developer myself, I might share  what I will do when 3rd party app store and payment engines will become available for iOS apps. I don't develop games, only business related apps linked to a cloud service.  My apps are all available on iOS, Android and the Web (for PC and Mac)
    1.  I will move all my apps to an app store that gives me much better marketing.    From a developer point of view the marketing of the Apple App Store sucks.   I did a survey among my customers and none of them have discovered my apps in the App store.     This is the main reason to move away from the Apple App Store.  In the first few years of the App Store the marketing was OK, but now there are so many apps on the App Store, that I have to provide my own marketing.
    2. My ideal app store should not impose business restrictions as the Apple App store does currently:  it should allow me to give discounts to my clients who buy multiple apps from me, it should let me distribute vouchers, it should allow special "launch offers", it should allow to have another main currency (e.g. the Euro) so that when the exchange rate changes the cost in Euro does not change, but the cost in $ does.
    3. My ideal app store should distribute iOS and Android versions of my apps, and should allow me to link the web version of my app.  I basically don't care which version of my app is downloaded.
    4. For payments I would use Ingenico, a well respected payment service provider, that I am currently using for the web version of my apps (I never had any fraud issue with Ingenico).   As such I will have 1 single payment service provider for all my apps on all devices..  Operationally this will lower the cost of my accounting and my help desk.
    I might assume that Apple after a while might react when more and more app stores becoming available.  Especially on point 2 Apple might move a bit to become more developer friendly.
     
    InspiredCodewilliamlondoniqatedomuthuk_vanalingamdarkvader

  • Twitter Blue will cost more on an iPhone, than through a browser

    croprcropr
    tomowa said:
    Just asking, as I am not a Tesla car user. 
    Does Tesla sell subscriptions for "enhanced features".  
    Does Tesla allow 3rd party software/firmware access to its car's operating systems? Or does Tesla control the whole environment?
    Is there any irony in Musks position, regarding Apple here?

    A more relevant question is: Does Tesla allow other chargers than the Tesla superchargers?.  And the answer is YES, so stop whining

    williamlondon

  • Apple & Spotify now fighting over audio books

    croprcropr
    davidw said:
    If you wrote a book and sold a hardcover of it in a retail bookstore, the bookstore will take about 50% of your cover price, on each sale. That is the standard practice. You think the 50% the bookstore charges is only to cover their cost of processing the payment? If you want to sell your book to the customers that the bookstore draws into their store (ecosystem), you have to pay the bookstore for that "privilege" of having your book for sale on their shelves.

    You think you should be allowed to set up a kiosk inside the bookstore to handle the payment process for bookstore customers that buys your book? Or put a barcode on the cover of your book, that links to your website where the payment can be processed? And once paid for, the bookstore customer is allowed walk out of the store with your book by showing the receipt?  And this would allow you to avoid paying the bookstore their 50% because they did nothing to deserve that 50%?

    The fact that the bookstore had nothing to do with the payment process of the sale of your book doesn't means that you are entitled to have your book on their shelves, in order to sell to the customers the bookstore attracts to their store and then pay the bookstore nothing for that "privilege" when a sale in made.  

    Get a clue. Apple 15/30% commission is not only for processing the payment. 


    The issue with your bookstore story is that it is in incomplete.  You forgot the most important part:  the Apple bookstore is the only one allowed to distribute books for iOS.  So when Spotify wrote its book for iOS, it is forced to the sell it via the Apple iOS bookstore.  It cannot choose another, more competitive, more secure bookstore which better markets the Spotify book (there are rumors that the Apple bookstore marketing  is only good for games and its own books).   Spotify is not even allowed to run its own bookstore.  In other words this  bookstore business leaves a bad smell in the mouth.

    BTW the standard commission of a bookstore is between 25% and 35%, not around 50%.

    williamlondon

  • Android amps up campaign to push Apple into adopting RCS

    croprcropr
    entropys said:
    i-john said:
    JP234 said:
    Note to Android: Put on your big boy pants and develop a platform people want. Give up the doomed attempt to get Apple to cram your flaws into iOS.
    Android are using an industry standard that all carriers use.  It's Apple that are being proprietary, refuse to provide access to the iMessage platform and are refusing to adopt the current industry standard in messaging. 
    And make their own variation. Not always the same in different countries either.  It is not a “standard” anymore than iMessage.

    SMS is a standard.

    The SMS standard was invented by 3GPP, a consortium of telecom operators and telecom equipment vendors.  France Telecom was the major contributor for SMS.  SMS is a teleocm service, requiring telecom equipment in the network of the telecom operator.

    iMessage, Whatsapp, signal, ... are smartphone apps , needing no equipment from the teleocm operator.   All these apps are encrypted end to end. IMessage has a neat feature that it redirect to SMS service for phone numbers not known in its system.  iMessage is by no means a standard.

    In the same 3GPP consortium RCS is defined as the successor of SMS.   It is again a telecom service, requiring again some telecom infrastructure to function.    While almost all telecom operators support the idea the RCS is the successor of SMS, a lot of them are much more reluctant to do the investments, unless it is general considered as the standard.

    Exchanging RCS messages between telecom operators has some still  interoperability issues, very similar to the issues that SMS initially had.   RCS is encrypted gto end user to the telecom operator, not end to end.


    Apple has limited interest in RCS, because 2 reasons: Apple has iMessage, which offers the same functionality as RCS and Apple does not like a possible shift in the power balance to the telecom operator

    Google does promote RCS: It has no app as successful as iMessage, so it has nothing to loose and in the US, it would reduce one of the advantages of the Apple ecosystem, making Android more competitive

    Governments will prefer RCS, because it is not owned by a single company and because it allows, just like with SMS  legal intercept.  Meaning that with a court order the telecom operator must provide the content and the metadata of the data.  

    This means that criminals (drugs traffic, international terrorism, child porn,  ) won't us it    
    dewmewatto_cobra