←back to thread

Apple Announces App Store Small Business Program

(www.apple.com)
830 points todsacerdoti | 10 comments | 18 Nov 20 11:04 UTC | HN request time: 0.357s | source | bottom
Show context
pja ◴[18 Nov 20 12:43 UTC] No.25136113[source]▶
I’m seeing a lot of positive comments on HN about this: to me it seems to be purely a cynical piece of PR on Apple’s part.

They hope to significantly reduce the pressure on politicians to take a close look at their App store practices by significantly reducing the absolute number of developers suffering the full impact whilst taking the minimum possible hit to their revenue. This has nothing to do with “doing the right thing” or “accelerating innovation” and everything to do with limiting the number of outraged letters to senators from devs, the number of newspaper interviews with prominent indie developers & so on.

Indie devs have an outsize PR impact relative to their revenue contribution, so buy them off with a smaller revenue tax that delivers outsize returns if it prevents the 30% house rake on the majority of Apple’s App Store income coming under scrutiny.

Apple / Google’s 30% take is the anti-competitive elephant in the room here, not a few crumbs thrown to small developers.

replies(33): >>25136142 #>>25136180 #>>25136192 #>>25136194 #>>25136229 #>>25136254 #>>25136310 #>>25136326 #>>25136369 #>>25136392 #>>25136896 #>>25136921 #>>25136932 #>>25136947 #>>25137067 #>>25137364 #>>25137458 #>>25137537 #>>25137558 #>>25137578 #>>25137627 #>>25137982 #>>25138093 #>>25138809 #>>25139232 #>>25139847 #>>25140155 #>>25140160 #>>25140313 #>>25140614 #>>25140958 #>>25141658 #>>25141813 #
1. tabs_masterrace ◴[18 Nov 20 14:11 UTC] No.25136896[source]▶
Are you kidding me? This is great news for indies and small companies, to which I count myself, and I will be making 15% more money. Dude, I'm really happy reading this announcement today, thanks Apple, what else is there to say? I think some of you might have trust issues, and are stuck in a spiral of negativity, it's getting a bit weird. Now Google please follow!
replies(4): >>25137012 #>>25137014 #>>25137058 #>>25141112 #
2. sneak ◴[18 Nov 20 14:21 UTC] No.25137012[source]▶
Unless I am misunderstanding, I believe you will be making 21.4% more money?

(70% share of revenue -> 85% share of revenue)

replies(1): >>25137126 #
3. graeme ◴[18 Nov 20 14:21 UTC] No.25137014[source]▶
You’re actually making 21.4% more!

And for any dev with more than 0% marginal cost the increase in profit is even higher.

4. AltruisticGapHN ◴[18 Nov 20 14:25 UTC] No.25137058[source]▶
Love the spocks answering your comment. Jesus, we understood what you meant by 15%.
5. valuearb ◴[18 Nov 20 14:30 UTC] No.25137126[source]▶
Even better!
replies(1): >>25137178 #
6. sneak ◴[18 Nov 20 14:34 UTC] No.25137178{3}[source]▶
Not for users who wish to use the macOS without engaging in Apple's services business.

It's already impossible on iOS, due to the fact that you cannot install any software except via the App Store, which requires an Apple ID.

At the moment it is possible to continue to use a mac and download and run software without an Apple ID, but if the trend of only releasing software via the App Store continues, that will become more and more difficult.

Even totally free apps in the App Store require that you identify yourself to Apple to download and use them.

replies(1): >>25138316 #
7. valuearb ◴[18 Nov 20 16:02 UTC] No.25138316{4}[source]▶
Apple leadership has repeatedly said they aren't going to further restrict app installs on MacOS. Craig Fredaspaghetti just spoke about this in interviews on the Apple Silicon/Big Sur release. They use MacOS every day themselves, and deeply care about what it's different use case requires.
replies(2): >>25138938 #>>25139684 #
8. tchalla ◴[18 Nov 20 16:45 UTC] No.25138938{5}[source]▶
> Craig Fredaspaghetti just spoke about this in interviews on the Apple Silicon/Big Sur release.

Fredaspaghetti!

9. sneak ◴[18 Nov 20 17:37 UTC] No.25139684{5}[source]▶
There are, as I understand it, certain notarization entitlements for APIs that Apple will only grant for App Store apps, such as VPN apps. This is the first I've heard of functionality being restricted to MAS apps (and prohibited from signed/notarized apps that are downloaded outside of MAS).

I was told this by the WireGuard team when I inquired why the WireGuard macOS VPN app is only available via MAS and not direct download (such as the Windows wg client).

I'm not 100% sure it's true, though, and am testing now. ProtonVPN claims to be working, with packet filtering for non-VPN traffic (kill switch) on 11.x, and they've a direct download, so it's possible that the wg devs are mistaken.

Apple leadership is answering in the implied context of "someone with an Apple ID". I'm never using my Apple ID again on a mac for any reason.

10. paulpan ◴[18 Nov 20 19:18 UTC] No.25141112[source]▶
Not the OP but I think your reaction is exactly what Apple is hoping for here - contentment with more money in your pocket.

But it also shows behavioral economics at work: developers have been so anchored to the 30% split that this change looks amazing, but why isn't the 15% the norm regardless of revenue size? Effectively Apple is "settling" or "bribing" small developers with this change, so they aren't compelled to join the antitrust movement led by bigger players.

From a business standpoint, Apple is trying to splinter the critics into various factions. A bit extreme analogy but it's akin to inciting conflict within the opposition - actually almost textbook monopolistic behavior. Segment the market by offering tiered incentives.

This reminds me a bit of the Netflix stance on net neutrality. They were for until they grew big enough and could pay off ISPs. ISPs essentially created the proverbial moat for Netflix.