Apple To Offer iOS Developers 85-15 Revenue Split; Debut Paid App Store Search Ads (theverge.com) 84
Apple says it will now take a smaller cut of commission from app developers provided they have customers who stick with their subscription model for longer than a year. Phil Schiller, Apple's Senior Vice President of Worldwide Marketing, told The Verge in an interview that the company will revise the 70-30 split for such developers to 85-15. In addition, the company will also begin showing search ads for apps in its iOS App Store search results. Also, the company says it is speeding up app review times "to the point where 50 percent of submitted apps are now reviewed in 24 hours, and 90 percent are reviewed within 48 hours." From the report: If the new subscription model becomes widely adopted, it will represent a fundamental shift in the economics of the App Store. Developers will be incentivized to sell their apps for a recurring fee instead of a one-time cost. It could change the way consumers pay for certain apps, but it also presents a massive opportunity for developers, many of whom feel the app economy has been become moribund in recent years. And as iPhone sales growth slows, a move to app subscriptions is another way for Apple wring more profits from its existing user base.Apple columnist John Gruber has more details.
Will that push Google to do the same? (Score:3)
Re:Will that push Google to do the same? (Score:4, Insightful)
Shush. That amount is only horrible when Apple does it, even if the developers do end up making more money than with Google for it.
Re:Will that push Google to do the same? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
30% is huge, except for penny apps. Dealing with payments is not worth more than 2-3% (what visa and mastercard currently charge, and I'd argue that even that is too much). What Apple is selling is access to the customers, much like a store on a busy street. In a competitive market, I wouldn't expect these fees to be higher than 5%, which is more than enough to cover costs and make a normal profit.
Re: (Score:2)
Econ 101 might lead you think those fees should approach the overhead costs and wouldn't be higher than 5% - but out in the real world, shops selling "access to the customers" (i.e. consignment stores) typically charge anywhere between 20%~50%, with better-performing shops tending towards the higher end of that.
Re: (Score:1)
It's huge, except for what they were before Apple started their app store.
Before that, you had:
1) a carrier would preload your app on a phone, and give you a few pennies for each one sold. Of course, you have to trust their accounting department, which took lessons from the accounting departments of the major music labels. But even so, this is the 'lottery win' case.
2) you sell your app through a carrier. 80/20 or 90/10 split. guess which one you get.
3) third party app store. win! you are up to 30%.
4)
Re: (Score:2)
So in short, if Apple charged 10 for every email sent it would be fine, since the older alternative (regular mail) would cost more?
That's not how it works. An electronic store can be operated with much lower fees. A competitive market would reflect that. The fact that Apple can charge 15 or even 30% is just a proof that this isn't a competitive market.
Re: (Score:1)
Those were all "electronic" stores listed except for the line about retail software sales. Developing software for mobile devices sucked, it was much harder to do and you made a lot less money compared to when Apple entered the market.
And yes, there isn't a much of a competitive market for where you can get software for iOS devices, as you can only buy it via the Apple Store (technically, you can also jailbreak and buy apps from a couple of 3rd party stores as well).
And everybody copied Apple: Google, Mic
Re: (Score:2)
You basically confirm that Apple is charging 15/30% because they can, not because that is a reasonable rate considering the operating costs and normal profit.
There isn't only competition on a platform. There is competition between platforms. I'm glad the less closed one is winning, because at least you are allowed to side-load applications without giving that 30% to Google.
Re: (Score:1)
Well, how the hell do you know what a "reasonable rate" is? You seem to think Apple should charge 2-3%, so effectively operate it at a loss, which is ridiculous. It costs real money to review apps, do the bandwidth for unlimited downloads of the app, keep track of everything, make and update the sdk, keep their web site from being hacked.
If anything, you should complain that google is charging the same, while doing a lot less work [their review system regularly lets malware through], crappier tools, a lot
Re: (Score:2)
As an App developer who lives off my App's proceeds I agree that 30% is "hardly bad", in fact I'd gladly pay 30% to any affiliate who can bring me customers like Apple does.
Apple does more than than an affiliate though.
They handle payments, local taxes, customer support (to a limited extent), they provide me with a superb development environment, Xcode and they host in-app content which I use in some cases.
That's all the good.
The bad is Apple hands out refunds without telling me which transactions were refu
Re:Will that push Google to do the same? (Score:5, Interesting)
But with Apple, the only way to distribute your app to users is via their App Store, where you have to pay the Apple tax (be it 30% or 15%). In any other industry, this would be an illegal market restriction [competitionbureau.gc.ca]. What if you could buy gas for your Ford car only from Mobil gas stations? Not for any technical reason, but because Ford said they needed to do it to insure the quality of the gasoline you put into your Ford vehicle?
But it's Apple, so people's eyes glaze over and their brain shuts down. Even Apple's argument that it "needs" to do it for security doesn't fly. They're responsible for securing their hardware and OS. If people want their apps secured, there should be multiple companies competing to provide that service. And the people can choose which of these protection services they prefer to use. Exactly like Google does - you can use their Play store and whatever screening/protection they provide, or you can use someone else's store, or you can choose to use a store which doesn't purport to offer any protection at all. In an ideal world, Google would have their own iOS store, and Apple would have an Android store, and other companies would have their own stores for both platforms. And whichever company provided the screening and protection services customers want most would end up gaining a larger share of the market. (Apps would also be interchangeable between stores too, like it doesn't matter if you buy your TV from Best Buy or Target, but that's another argument.)
Re: Will that push Google to do the same? (Score:2)
I find it amusing that when the latest report of malware for Android comes out because of using third party stores, the first response from Android users is that they wouldn't have these issues if they stuck with Google Play.
But how popular will your app be if you try to distribute it on your own site and you have to tell users to go into settings and allow downloads from your website?
Re: (Score:2)
That's a limitation with Android's current security settings - not enough granularity for "unknown" sources, and binary (all or nothing) settings. If I try to sideload an app via USB or a website download, it should have a different setting than if I'm getting it via an app (a store). Right now there's only a single setting for both - allow "un
Re: Will that push Google to do the same? (Score:2)
I think it's exactly the way it's supposed to be. The option to use alternative installation sources is there, but you have to manually enable it and you most definately don't get to bitch about it if you get into trouble.
Re:Will that push Google to do the same? (Score:4, Informative)
Even Apple's argument that it "needs" to do it for security doesn't fly. They're responsible for securing their hardware and OS. If people want their apps secured, there should be multiple companies competing to provide that service. And the people can choose which of these protection services they prefer to use. Exactly like Google does - you can use their Play store and whatever screening/protection they provide, or you can use someone else's store, or you can choose to use a store which doesn't purport to offer any protection at all.
You say Apple's argument "doesn't fly", yet we can link the fact that Android accounts for 99% of malware on smartphones [infosecuri...gazine.com] directly back to Google's choice not to lock-out other stores. The malware is rarely from Google Play: it's almost all from other sources.
It's pretty hard to suggest that Apple doesn't have valid security concerns, given the above. You can argue that users should have the ability to make those choices, and you'd have a valid point, but given the evidence, Apple would have no-less-valid of a point in suggesting that the best way to secure the device is to lock that ability off to begin with. And the evidence backs them up.
Mind you, I'm not suggesting Apple got it right or Google got it wrong. Not at all. I'm merely pointing out a logical incongruity in the arguments you're presenting. Apple's approach is certainly heavy-handed, but the effects are obvious. It's fine and well to talk about "an ideal world", but in practice what we see is that there's a real cost to the security of the platform if you allow untrusted apps onto your OS. Neither approach is right. Both approaches have benefits and drawbacks, and different companies weigh them differently.
Re: (Score:2)
Your car, game console, and DVD player find your Hatorade amusing, and would like to subscribe to your walled-gardens-are-only-a-problem-when-it's-Apple newsletter.
Re: (Score:2)
Difference is an Android developer doesn't have to pay Google 30% if they don't want to
Exactly. They can chose to pay Amazon 30%. Or go to a store that only offers free apps - all of nothing! Or have their app distributed by a pirate store, where they don't have to pay anything no matter what the app costs there.
Re: Will that push Google to do the same? (Score:1)
Yes, i already did (Score:2)
I can't find the link, but I read earlier today Google announced they were dong the same thing as Apple.
Missing from all of this: the customer (Score:1)
Like hell I'm going to "subscribe" to an app.
Re: Missing from all of this: the customer (Score:2)
Not even an episodic game with new content released regularly?
Re: (Score:2)
There are two applications that I would pay a subscription for. They are very expensive (think several thousand dollars), very complex, and they are key ingredients to how I make a living. When this software is updated, there's a strong potential for my productivity to increase and should I master those new features I could get end up getting a pay raise.
So there are two reasons I would consider (emphasize the word 'consider') a subscription model for these apps. First is that I would like that company to
Re: (Score:2)
yeah, nobody pays for subscriptions to consumer grades software.... except for anyone who plays WOW.
Re: (Score:2)
yeah, nobody pays for subscriptions to consumer grades software.... except for anyone who plays WOW.
Yeah, and that subscription rate has been going down for the last few years.
There is also a BIG difference between paying for a subscription to a MMORPG that can be played on your computer, and an app that can be played on a phone or tablet. I played WoW for several years until I got bored of the game, and the lack of any new or interesting game play. I have yet to see any game for the phone that would be worth paying a subscription for, and if I am going to pay for a game, I don't want to be limited t
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, good luck with that. As far as I can tell, there's even less incentive for the company to care a
Re: (Score:3)
Which means the game is never, ever finished which will lead to really crappy games. I will never subscribe to an app on a phone, it's ludicrous.
I never bought into the DLC on other platforms for the same reason. And for those that say DLC makes the game better: Sure it does, because they finally finished the damn game!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That's what the in app purchase is for.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Missing from all of this: the customer (Score:2)
I'm sure Adobe and Microsoft are worried about random Slashdot poster who won't subscribe to an app while they are making millions on subscription fees.
Re: (Score:3)
Ok, then don't. Few of us actually want to pay anything, but at the same time, most of us can also recognize that there are whole categories of features and apps that have intrinsic, ongoing costs...costs which developers have few ways to recoup now, meaning that those apps never get built and those features never get added. It's lose-lose.
In some cases, we've seen successful launches of promising, niche apps get released to great acclaim, only to have few or no additional updates because the revenue dried
Re: (Score:2)
Like hell I'm going to "subscribe" to an app.
Yeah, this "World of Warcraft" thing will never catch on.
Re: Missing from all of this: the customer (Score:2)
I don't pay for app subscriptions (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Pretty sure they're talking about Netflix, Hulu, HBO, etc.
Re: (Score:2)
My bad, my reading comprehension is bad today. You're right, they are talking about subscription of apps.
Welcome to the future, folks. Software companies feel as though they don't generate stable enough revenue through one-time sales. They feel they should share the success you endure with the software you use.
Re: (Score:2)
Eh, fine, whatever. I didn't read the summary very deeply because I thought this was in response to Amazon's blocking of AppleTV sales. They don't want to sell the AppleTV until it can play Amazon Prime video and they don't want to pay the thirty percent. I thought maybe they had finally gotten through.
Oh well.
Re: I don't pay for app subscriptions (Score:2)
Amazon could release Amazon Prime Video on the AppleTV...just as it is now available in iPhones and iPads without giving Apple 30%. You just have to subscribe from Amazon's website like you do now.
You can already AirPlay Amazon Prime Video to AppleTVs now.
App review speedup is real, and it's spectacular (Score:5, Interesting)
You might look skeptically upon Apple's claim that review times have sped up. How could they possibly have sped up to the process to a day from a week?
Yet, it is the case. Every single person I know submitting iOS apps has had every app approved within a day, sometimes just a few hours.
And it's not like they are just not looking at anything, in one case I head about someone who submitted an app update, the reviewer found a crashing bug, the developer fixed and resubmitted and it was approved - all within the same day!
That alone was a HUGE boon to app development as it made a lot of customers very cranky a change could not go out quickly. It should also eliminate a ton of emergency review requests developers were sending to Apple, so it probably helps Apple also.
Re: (Score:2)
And it's not like they are just not looking at anything, in one case I head about someone who submitted an app update, the reviewer found a crashing bug, the developer fixed and resubmitted and it was approved - all within the same day!
Wow, it's faster and I can lay off my QA guy?
Re: (Score:2)
Well since QA tells you when things suck in addition to when they crash, probably not...
App Store Reviewer is not going to tell you when a screen is annoying slow, he'll just figure you meant to have it poorly done.
Not to mention a really good QA person will find 100 crashes to every one the App Store Reviewer catches.
Re: (Score:1)
I submitted a 1.0.3 version of an app last week and was surprised when I got a notification on my iPhone the next morning to say that it was "ready for sale" already. Previous versions took several days, and the first version took over a week!
Re: Wow (Score:2)
You mean instead of paying for every update that gets published as a new app because you couldn't charge for updates which meant either a new app or no updates or updates with no money earned.
Selling apps for a buck with free updates forever just doesn't work. Charging a buck a year may work.
My feeling on subscriptions for apps (Score:3)
Re:My feeling on subscriptions for apps (Score:5, Insightful)
It sounds like you have trouble paying for people's work at all. But here's the thing: nobody cares and you won't be missed. You weren't paying ANYWAY.
I have a few apps that I immediately buy when they have to put out a new revision to fund their development. The one that comes to mind most immediately is tweetbot. I always buy the new version because I want them to make more of them and keep up with Twitter's API. That doesn't come for free. I will absolutely pay a subscription to that app to make sure that there's always a new version ready for me.
I also use an RSS reader called Newsify that I really like. They monetize by providing a subscription to a bunch of services that I have absolutely no interest in. I don't pay that subscription fee. But if they have a subscription option--say, $5/year--that I can pay that just makes sure they stick around and make changes to the app, I'll pay that.
I don't know why you have such trouble paying people for their honest hard work for applications that you actually use. The other option is to let them fill the app with ads, and we've seen how well that's been going for the web in general. No thanks.
Re: (Score:3)
But if they have a subscription option--say, $5/year--that I can pay that just makes sure they stick around and make changes to the app, I'll pay that.
I might buy into this, but....
1) You must update the app significantly at least once during the subscription period. Not just fucking bug fixes.
2) No ads, spam, tracking or unnecessary permissions
3) A means of exporting any persistent data I create in the app
4) a contact email for the app that actually gets responses. I don't care if its the actual developer or some kind of customer service team. I've bought apps where the dev was responsive and I've bought them where their was no support or response when
Nice theory. Non-starter. (Score:1)
No ads have stayed away with pay. Once paid, their explanation "Those were tier 1 ads. They are gone now. These are tier 2 ads."
Paying money for damaged rental code that can be pulled, deleted, broken, and just never finished is not a valid path forward. Paying to a company that keeps it's products from working with other companies products is self-torture. Seeing how little goes to the actual crteators is reason enough. Paying a company for anything when they refuse to hire reasearch, or quality control, a
Re: (Score:2)
How little goes to the creators? 70% goes to the creators, currently. 85% in the new scheme, after customers have stuck around for a year.
In return, app creators get hosting and payment services. For small developers, that surmounts a massive barrier to entry--trying to negotiate those payment systems on your own is terrible.
I've heard generally good things about this split, and the majority of complaints come from larger companies that might be able to do this stuff effectively on their own, but balk at pa
Re: (Score:1)
And you may make a good corporate recruiter, but 70% of potentially underreported anything is too low for working in an environment completely out of your own control. Spending time and energy making something for a platform that is killed or altered beyond your project, is 70% of nothing. Losing customers because they hate the walled-garden ads wrapped around your project is more nothing. Being limited to only the customers inside the garden, and then seeing the garden shrink is not a future.
Give me a real
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
An app you paid a dollar for once (or got for free) was abandoned by its developers? Why on earth might that be?
Evil Apple (Score:2)
You must be joking, opposite is true (Score:3)
Using iphone apps reminds me of being in America, with all the horrible street side advertising billboards
Wha?
Pretty much ALL Android apps are like that. The only option they really have is ads so all have them.
SOME IOS apps also have ads. But there are still a great many you can simply pay for, and have no ads at all.
Now with subscriptions, there need be no ads for many more apps because the recurring revenue ads were providing can be replaced by user revenue - meaning FEWER "billboards". Yet you are wh
How much is 85% of zero? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
According to Verizon "0.002 cents per kilobyte" math, 85% of zero is 1700%
Not good enough... (Score:1)
What about other media types? (Score:3)
Suddenly, it would make more sense to sell books as apps. Is Apple considering doing this for books, too? If they did, it would hit Amazon pretty hard.
Apple is feeling pressure (Score:2)
And that is a good thing. iPhones sales have slowed, Android is becoming the dominant platform (>80% market share). It's nice to see this competition forcing Apple to give back a little more. 15% makes a lot more sense than 30%. In a truly competitive market, that would be even lower.
Re: Apple is feeling pressure (Score:3)
Apple isn't going down to 15% universally. It's only for subscriptions and only after the first year. Apple could care less about competing with a no profit margin $70 Android phone.
Market share means nothing without profit.
Apple still dominant (Score:2)
Note that Google decided to do the same thing as Apple, the same day....
Who is dominating who?
Just because a lot of users have crappy devices means nothing. I have an Android device myself, but I don't use it nor buy apps for it... and that is reflected in the broader market by people still making apps for iOS first. That's where the users are, that's where revenue is. That will not change anytime soon.
Not really news, just opening up to all app classe (Score:2)