I just don't see this happening. In order to enforce this, it'd need to be enforced across the board. Do you really think they want to make Rovio pick a platform for Angry Birds? Or that that in order for there to be a Facebook app it'd need to only be on the iPhone? If they were to go this route, it'd be the fastest way to kill their app store ecosystem, and promote HTML5 as the platform of choice for developers. It's just not going to happen.
They might require this only for new apps. Besides, the idea that they'll require Amazon to pay up 30% of their book revenue didn't seem plausible either, yet here we are.
I've actually wondered if the next move isn't device subsidies, somewhat similar to console manufacturers. Use their market size to squeeze more money out of app developers, then use that money to subsidize increasing the size of the market, which in turn keeps the app developers on side, in a virtuous circle. It could also act as a strategic blocker on Google, as it would work against their openness narrative if they tried to do the same thing, as well as changing device prices.
In terms of devices, I'm thinking beyond just phones that are already subsidized with contracts, etc.
I can see Apple offering monetary subsidies to a select few applications, granting them special access to engineers, to get exclusive access, but sorry, I don't see them doing this.
The last thing Apple should want to do in these times, where their superiority over competitive devices is growing ever thinner, and there is a growing risk of actual shrinking market share, is force developers to choose between Apple or all other platforms.
Outright removing and/or rejecting non-exclusive apps is a recipe for a huge backlash, but I could see maybe giving better terms for exclusive apps - maybe only taking 20% instead of 30% of the sale. I'm sure there are a fair number of app developers that would jump at the chance to sign an exclusivity agreement if it led to higher profits.
I don't know if that is necessarily ideal for Apple or any of the other platforms for that matter. What is to stop the next platform from offering 19%, 20% or even 25% non exclusive cut and 15% Exclusive? Competing over the percent of profits taken per app could start a chain reaction race to the bottom that ultimately reduces profits for all platform makers and moves it into the hands of the developers. Which is a good result for developers but not so ideal for the platform makers. So they may all choose to not steer things in that direction for as long as possible.
Also I may be missing something but I don't think reducing margins is typical Apple. They have no problem charging you more with the backing that the experience you get will be top quality and polish compared to the competition. No matter that you are user, developer or publisher.That is their leverage. Their brand is associated with quality, heck given their image of vigorously (note use of vigour v rigour) curated excellence, exclusivity might even be a positive signal to consumers and some developers.
These two points make it so I would actually be more surprised by a reduced percentage trade for exclusivity than outright requirement of exclusivity.
I don't think it's as simple as comparing the percentages - the App Store generates much more revenue than the Android market and other, similar stores on other platforms. As it stands now, the decision of whether or not to port a successful iOS app to other platforms is based on whether or not the revenue generated is worth the time and money to do the port. However, if there's an exclusivity deal in place, you also have to factor in lost earnings from the iOS version as well.
However, you're right that it's not a typical Apple move to reduce the margins, but nevertheless I think it would be a very effective strategy for keeping high-quality, high-revenue apps exclusive to the iOS platform.
You're right and make an excellent point. But the other platforms are also going to have to work on increasing the revenue per app for the developer or obsolete themselves. So the current state of affairs might only hold for a few years or so.
As well, there are a whole host of factors considered when a developer chooses platforms and while I don't know about how people weigh decisions, its possible that this number could come to irrationally? dominate considerations. So platforms competing over that number will have unpredictable, possibly undesirable effects to the outcome of the current equation for the leader at first and then everyone else.
Just considering the other side, but I do agree with your above point.
Apple doesn't need to do this to keep competitors at bay. I don't think they will do it, but that's a different story. Right now Apple's biggest strength is their ecosystem. Developers creating high quality applications and users willing to put up actual cash to get them in large enough numbers to create a vibrant platform. The systems map with reinforcing and dampening actions is much larger than this, but those are the essential interactions.
In the early days it was about features, but once you have an ecosystem in place, they are very hard to displace. Examples: Microsoft and the windows platform. US Dollar as the world's reserve currency. Amazon Kindle.
With IOS, people have purchased all these applications. If they move to Android they will have to find a way to get those again. When you have a substantial investment into an ecosystem, you don't rush out and jump on the next one because it's a little better. Or even if it's close. The larger your investment, the larger the switching cost, the more compelling the alternative has to be. From a strategy point of view, those are the most important factors governing the market right now imo.
Microsoft didn't change the rules every 3 months, sure they drive netscape out of the market but they never said that netscape couldn't run on windows. If you develop for windows you could be absolutely sure your app would install and work on it in 12 months time, can anyone say that about iPhone?
But developers make money you say? Well there are people out there tonight who were making money with subscription based apps who presumably aren't going to now apple is taking their 30%.
So apple has a big userbase, but for how long? Android comes in cheaper, it iterates faster, from personal experience I know people who are avid apple users who have droid phones because their cell providers offered them a great deal and their droid phone gives them what they need in terms of apps, (facebook, twitter e.t.c.)
All it takes is one killer app on android but not iphone and suddenly apple are on the back foot.
Your argument is based on tangential statements relating to your mores. I made no moral or value judgements, just a simple analysis of the situation. None of what you said even addresses my central premise, that the ecosystem is the issue now. One killer app on the android will do absolutely nothing to the IOS ecosystem.
If history is any guide, the only way to kill a functioning ecosystem is through some type of fundamental shift in technology, paradigm shattering change, or through long attrition with a competing ecosystem.
Sure I know numerous people that have gone to Android based phones. I also know that the app ecosystem on android is not vibrant right now. There are a lot of factors involved, but before android can build a sustainable competitive advantage, they have to build a functional ecosystem. I have questions about how android can do that with the fractured market places. Android came out in 2007, four years is a long time to not have any killer apps. Given their wide distribution, I am frankly surprised that android is not much more prevalent. The reality though is that ecosystems are incredibly hard to build. Phones are one thing, I have yet to see a single android based music player or iPad competitor. How do you attack a fortified, focused competitor with more cash, better design aesthetic, and an innovation pipeline that is the envy of the world? I honestly have no idea, but I'm fascinated watching it all unfold.
I wasn't talking about seeing advertisements or pictures. I mean literally see one. I don't see them in the stores anywhere, and I certainly have never seen one in someone's hands out in the wild.
Because requiring applications to use your in-app purchasing API and sacrifice 30% is "outrageous and hardly qualified as news" before it was confirmed. I'm not saying this is being rumored as happening, but it doesn't seem impossible to have a discussion about.
I think they'll move to capture new slices of more pies, rather than a larger slice of the pie they already have.
If people are bothered by the 30% subscription take, wait until iPhone users start buying gas and groceries using near-field communication on iPhone 5+ (with a cut going to Apple)...
The reason film and music operate like this is because consumers have loyalty to individual actors and musicians. It is also very hard to imitate having a specific actor in your movie. It isn't hard to imitate another developers application style, and I don't think consumers have too much loyalty towards their app developers. I don't see it happening.
"Greedy" is such a misused word. Businesses are supposed to be, for lack of a better word, avaricious. That is neither good nor bad; it's basic capitalism. That greedy system spawned the very computer which the author used to type his rant and the electricity that powered it.
Well, isn't it what they already did by deprecating Java on MacOS? Make sure you develop for iOS/MacOS and not for all available platforms? The exclusivity will come naturally,
I had a comment I was prepared to make, a complaint if you will about the tactics of Apple bashing. However, upon reading the article, I see that this fits into an entirely different category: just making up lies out of nothing.
Does this guy work for Fox news? <- please don't attribute this to me being 'a hate filled Democrat'. (A) I'm more close to libertarian on the political scale (NB: tea-party is a bunch of racist corporate-shills, so wrong again if that was your second guess) and (B) The Democrats are a bunch of complete pussies. All those complaints about how the Republicans halted congress and wouldn't let you pass any bills? That was EXACTLY what you should have been doing the previous 8 years. And here's a heads up: if you're not on their 'team', you are supposed to oppose them. But no, you went along with what the other team was doing, because you didn't want the dreaded label "not a team player". If the other team is raping the dead and rotting corpse of your beloved constitution, you're not supposed to help them!!! Pussies.
Uh, I'm no Apple fan, but I doubt Steve Jobs is so out of creativity that he has to resort to such tricks to stay in business. It's not like he's still working for the money.
Well, for a lot of apps exclusivity, will mean that everyone else could do a clone of the app for another platform, but not you yourself. Which would mean that you can do it too, only under a different name.
38 comments
[ 2.8 ms ] story [ 96.1 ms ] threadConsider it done.
In terms of devices, I'm thinking beyond just phones that are already subsidized with contracts, etc.
That's an interesting definition of virtuous you've got there.
It's a common idiom: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtuous_circle_and_vicious_cir... - and it would be virtuous from Apple's perspective.
Also I may be missing something but I don't think reducing margins is typical Apple. They have no problem charging you more with the backing that the experience you get will be top quality and polish compared to the competition. No matter that you are user, developer or publisher.That is their leverage. Their brand is associated with quality, heck given their image of vigorously (note use of vigour v rigour) curated excellence, exclusivity might even be a positive signal to consumers and some developers.
These two points make it so I would actually be more surprised by a reduced percentage trade for exclusivity than outright requirement of exclusivity.
However, you're right that it's not a typical Apple move to reduce the margins, but nevertheless I think it would be a very effective strategy for keeping high-quality, high-revenue apps exclusive to the iOS platform.
As well, there are a whole host of factors considered when a developer chooses platforms and while I don't know about how people weigh decisions, its possible that this number could come to irrationally? dominate considerations. So platforms competing over that number will have unpredictable, possibly undesirable effects to the outcome of the current equation for the leader at first and then everyone else.
Just considering the other side, but I do agree with your above point.
In the early days it was about features, but once you have an ecosystem in place, they are very hard to displace. Examples: Microsoft and the windows platform. US Dollar as the world's reserve currency. Amazon Kindle.
With IOS, people have purchased all these applications. If they move to Android they will have to find a way to get those again. When you have a substantial investment into an ecosystem, you don't rush out and jump on the next one because it's a little better. Or even if it's close. The larger your investment, the larger the switching cost, the more compelling the alternative has to be. From a strategy point of view, those are the most important factors governing the market right now imo.
But developers make money you say? Well there are people out there tonight who were making money with subscription based apps who presumably aren't going to now apple is taking their 30%.
So apple has a big userbase, but for how long? Android comes in cheaper, it iterates faster, from personal experience I know people who are avid apple users who have droid phones because their cell providers offered them a great deal and their droid phone gives them what they need in terms of apps, (facebook, twitter e.t.c.)
All it takes is one killer app on android but not iphone and suddenly apple are on the back foot.
If history is any guide, the only way to kill a functioning ecosystem is through some type of fundamental shift in technology, paradigm shattering change, or through long attrition with a competing ecosystem.
Sure I know numerous people that have gone to Android based phones. I also know that the app ecosystem on android is not vibrant right now. There are a lot of factors involved, but before android can build a sustainable competitive advantage, they have to build a functional ecosystem. I have questions about how android can do that with the fractured market places. Android came out in 2007, four years is a long time to not have any killer apps. Given their wide distribution, I am frankly surprised that android is not much more prevalent. The reality though is that ecosystems are incredibly hard to build. Phones are one thing, I have yet to see a single android based music player or iPad competitor. How do you attack a fortified, focused competitor with more cash, better design aesthetic, and an innovation pipeline that is the envy of the world? I honestly have no idea, but I'm fascinated watching it all unfold.
http://www.google.com/search?q=android+tablets http://www.google.com/search?q=galaxy+player+50 http://www.google.com/search?q=archos+32
If people are bothered by the 30% subscription take, wait until iPhone users start buying gas and groceries using near-field communication on iPhone 5+ (with a cut going to Apple)...
If they than limit this program to popular apps they can negotiate prices one by one (e.g. give Amazon a great deal if they don't sell on Android).
You'd end up with an ecosystem where the key apps are exclusive and the rest of the apps pay 30%.
Does this guy work for Fox news? <- please don't attribute this to me being 'a hate filled Democrat'. (A) I'm more close to libertarian on the political scale (NB: tea-party is a bunch of racist corporate-shills, so wrong again if that was your second guess) and (B) The Democrats are a bunch of complete pussies. All those complaints about how the Republicans halted congress and wouldn't let you pass any bills? That was EXACTLY what you should have been doing the previous 8 years. And here's a heads up: if you're not on their 'team', you are supposed to oppose them. But no, you went along with what the other team was doing, because you didn't want the dreaded label "not a team player". If the other team is raping the dead and rotting corpse of your beloved constitution, you're not supposed to help them!!! Pussies.