Ondrej Holzman Apple from time to time boasts, how many jobs have been created in the world thanks to it. The vast majority of these positions are related to application development for its products. While it is possible to make a good living developing applications for iPhones and iPads, even with a little luck, the situation in the Mac App Store, where Mac software is sold, is not so rosy. Getting to the top of the US app chart might bring a tear to your face rather than joy.
Anyone who owns an iPhone/iPad as well as a Mac is most likely familiar with this. On iOS devices, the App Store icon usually stays on the main screen, because updates for our apps come almost daily, and it's good to check out what's new from time to time. Even if it is just a description of the update itself. But the desktop Mac App Store has never reached the popularity of its iOS counterpart since its launch in 2010.
Personally, I got rid of the software store icon in the Mac dock more or less immediately, and today I only open the app when I'm tired of the annoying notification about available updates that I can't turn off. There are several reasons why this is so. It doesn't bother the user too much, but it can be a relative problem for developers.
Being first doesn't necessarily mean winning
Proof that working as a full-time freelance Mac app developer isn't all that easy, now submitted American Sam Soffes. What a surprise it was when his new application Redacted within the first day, it climbed to the 8th place in paid applications and the 1st place in graphics applications. And how sobering he was to find that these amazing results had netted him just $300.
The situation on the Mac is still very specific. There are significantly fewer users than on iOS, and the fact that applications on the Mac do not have to be sold only through the Mac App Store, but more and more developers are selling on their own on the web, is also important. They don't have to deal with Apple's lengthy approval process many times, and above all, no one takes 30% of the profit. But if there is only one developer, the easiest way for him is through the Mac App Store, where he and the customer can get the necessary service.
The aforementioned Sam Soffes created a very simple Redacted application used to quickly cover, for example, sensitive data in an image. In the end, he decided on a higher price of $4,99 (Mac apps tend to be more expensive than iOS apps) and then announced his new app on Twitter. That was all his marketing.
Then when he bragged to friends that his app appeared on Product Hunt and occupied the top rankings in the Mac App Store after the first day, and he asked on Twitter, how much people estimated he made, the average tip was over $12k. It wasn't just about shooting from the side, but also guesswork from developers who know how it goes.
The results were as follows: 94 units sold (7 of which were given away via promo codes), of which only 59 apps were sold in the United States and still enough to top the charts. When we talk about the fact that in the Czech Republic only a few dozen downloads are enough to take the first place in the iOS chart, it is not too surprising, because our market remains very small, but when the same number is enough to take the first place in the United States, where the number of Macs sold despite trends are growing, it's truly astounding.
“I almost decided to become an indie developer and be on Whiskey (another Soffes application - editor's note) to work so that I can live from it. I'm glad I didn't,” he finished his comment on the (un)success of his new app Sam Soffes.
Is it a developer fault, on Apple's side, or is Mac application development simply not interesting? There will probably be some truth in each.
Mac still doesn't pull that much
My own experience shows that access to applications on a Mac is much more conservative than on an iPhone. On the Mac, in five years, I have really only included a handful of new applications that I use regularly in my regular workflow. On the iPhone, on the other hand, I try new applications regularly, even if they disappear after a few minutes.
There simply isn't that much room for experiments on a computer. For most of the tasks you do, you already have your favorite apps that usually don't need to be changed. There are always new developments on iOS that take iPhones and iPads one step further, whether it's using new hardware or software capabilities. That's not on the Mac.
As a result, it is harder to create a successful Mac app. On the one hand, due to the mentioned more conservative environment and also due to the fact that the development itself is more complicated than for iOS. The higher prices of the applications are also related to this, although I think that it is not about the prices in the end. More than one iOS developer has already complained how he was surprised when he wanted to try to develop a Mac app as well, how complicated the whole process is.
This will always be the case, at least until Apple completely shuts down OS X as well, and only unified iOS-like apps will be released, although this is hard to imagine on computers now. But the Californian one could work a little more here, towards iOS developers it was the new coding language Swift, and surely there would be improvers on Mac as well.
Being an independent developer is, of course, everyone's choice, and everyone must carefully calculate whether it is worth it. But the example of Sam Soffes can be a good proof of why many applications remain only for iOS, although often a Mac version would be more than useful. Although these applications would certainly find their users, in the end it is not so interesting for developers to invest so much in the development and subsequent management of the application.
300 dollars for one day and one application WITHOUT any marketing will be enough for me anyway. IMHO the biggest problem with the Mac AppStore is that some of Apple's conditions are unfulfillable for some apps. For example, GraphicConverter is from the AppStore has a restriction regarding plug-ins, whereas an application distributed outside the AppStore does not have this restriction.
Apple should mainly do something with the mac App store in terms of store level. There is a lack of video presentations of the programs and, above all, there is a lack of options for program licenses and other things limiting the developer's business model. The Mac app store is also quite slow, doesn't have a very reliable search and doesn't really tune into Yosemite (see the top bar). A large fee is a chapter in itself, and as for the difficulty of programming, maybe swift should improve it, I think someone wrote that it is already halfway there (according to the swift beta). If Apple wants to start the Mac app store, it should start supporting developers in creating applications (even by reducing the fee for the first few programs) and try to attract big players to the Mac app store, such as Microsoft office, Adobe programs or big game titles that are available on steam but not anymore on the Mac App Store. This would make the Mac app store look much more presentable and also inspire more trust. I would also like it if plug-ins for various programs were also available in the Mac app store (e.g. safari plug-ins are only available via Apple's website, the same applies to Mission Control, etc.). It would be nice to be able to embed the store, for example, in Safari, where one could buy the program without having to click through to the Mac App store, if the Mac App store was more prominent, more people would definitely notice it and start researching the programs it offers. I believe that if Apple manages to put the store in a new modern, fast and reliable coat with programs of big players, then the Mac app store will be successful.
I also don't install anything from the Mac App Store. There are several reasons:
1) Prices. For example, paying $30 for the cheapest disk defrag software just seems too much to me. If I were to install apps as often as I do on the iPhone, then after such sums, I won't be making money on anything other than software.
2) The speed of the App Store - the App Store launch itself and its loading is so slow compared to the mobile Store that I simply do not enjoy using it.
3) Clarity - I don't find it anywhere near as intuitive as the iOS App Store.
4) Lack of applications. The Mac App Store is simply a gaping hole.
I still have the option to download applications via Torrent. I wouldn't say if the apps cost 0,99 or 1,79, but maybe that much money for clear? I don't make enough money to buy both the Mac app, where they tend to be more expensive, and the iOS app.
So don't use them, no one is forcing you if you don't feel like it. But to steal them… you really are a pig…
And who will make me not do it? It sounds like the style: don't do it if you don't feel like it, otherwise the devils will take you away!:D
Thanks for letting me install what I want, when I want and for how much I want :)
Should the conscience...?
Fuck it :) I've never been to this :)
That's why he also wrote you that you are a pig :)
I can live with it:) is there anything?:)
To the question of music or movies. Personally, I don't have a problem paying for an album when I know it's a really high-quality thing and that the money will go to support the artist's work, but I have a problem paying for the works of people who are already dead. I just don't want to pay exorbitant amounts of money to unscrupulous recording studios who have no stake in the creation of the work and just want to make money. As for programs, I also have no problem paying for licenses and legal copies if I know that a quality developer is behind the given software and that his product is of high quality and has an appropriate price, but not for example paying for exorbitant Adobe programs or eating until recently Microsoft office...
Since then, we have iTunes Match, which would like to legalize your library. I've paid for it since the beginning and it's better than Spotify :)
Peter, I only complain about one thing: "but I have a problem paying for the works of people who are already dead."
Maybe it's about not understanding that intellectual property has a value that needs to be paid for. Someone builds a house and rents it out and collects. If he dies, the children inherit the house, rent it out and collect. There is nothing incomprehensible about that. Someone can't build a house because they have alder hands, but they can compose a song that, like a house, serves and has its own value. If she didn't, we probably wouldn't have headphones. And it has its value even after the death of the author. If its owner, now the heir, wants to collect for it, he can, that's up to him, because he is the owner of the work, and if we want to use something that someone else created, we have to pay tribute for it.
Yes, I wanted to point out that you should at least pay for the music of living authors. I don't like it with the dead ones because the money for the album sold probably won't even be received by the artist's relatives, but only by the recording studio that owns the rights, which usually sets the price high enough to be able to profit from someone else's work. For that reason, downloading such a work seems fine to me.
"...and that the money will go to support the work of the given artist" Support for work? Well, actually, yes, because they buy rolls and pay bills for it, so yes, support for creation... But I would call it more like a salary, i.e. what most people receive every month.
And the money for the works of people who are dead does not go to the recording studios, or rather only to a small extent to them as publishers, but above all to the heirs of the author. Is that also a problem? If so, go throw away whatever you inherited from your relatives.
But Adobe - that's the chapter, so yeah...
So it depends, music/film, if you have not shared them (you must not use a torrent, they will be automatically shared), then you can download and listen to it for free for your own needs. And if you buy, CD, DVD, BlueRay, HDD, Flash, etc.... then you pay for it in CR too!
That is You can legally download and use music/film for your own use.
So if I pay for something and use it, it's definitely not theft!!!
Another thing is that artists and those who simply work around multimedia do not get anything (or not much) from it, and that is primarily bad. That's why I sometimes buy the album for reasonable money. It's pretty crazy how many times it's cheaper on CD than online :-(.
Now to the programs:
You cannot download programs, i.e. SW, for free, the law does not allow that. So you need a DVD, BlueRay with an interactive menu, you shouldn't download it either ;-).
That is That's theft.
Anyway, it would be good to think about the fact that if no one will buy the SW, then no one will make it, and then you will have to cry that you would like to buy it for that money, but you won't be able to anymore.
You also probably wouldn't like it if you went to someone's brigade and dug a hole for him in 5 hours and he then told you that he wouldn't pay you because he could have dug it himself.
But you are badly mistaken, that "for your own use" you can download music/movies freely as you like. You mustn't. The only thing you can do is copy what you bought for your own use, for example as a backup. Copyright law does not allow anything else.
Find it somewhere on the net. It definitely is :-).
If you use pirated copies for your own personal use, this is not, with the exception of making and using copies of computer programs and databases, an illegal act, see the Treatise on Free Use for details. However, you are taking a risk as a consumer. First of all, you are not guaranteed to get a copy of the film in the quality you expected. E.g. a so-called kinorip – a pirated copy of a film filmed during its screening in a cinema, is often of very poor image and sound quality, the image is shaky, you can hear laughter, popcorn crunching and lemonade sipping from the audience, sometimes even a part of the film is missing. The copy is often deprived of language versions, subtitles and accompanying and bonus materials. At the same time, there is also a moral aspect to the whole thing, if you use pirated copies, even if you are not acting illegally, be aware that you are directly supporting the illegal actions of other people.
I also use torrents, I steal. If I had to pay only for my music library, which is about 1300 albums in FLAC format, if I take into account that the album costs at least 200CZK, I have already "stolen" 260.000CZK, and this does not count the applications for Mac, of which there are only a few, but also throws in a crown. But to summarize, I have albums that are freely available and I paid for them anyway, because I think they are worth the money. Currently my money is going towards Ethiopia / Rwanda for their coffee harvests. And I'm quite satisfied. Of course, you have to understand that if you don't have the ability to use torrents (and the associated VPN servers, seedboxes and a lot of time looking for invitations to private trackers, you still have to buy it directly from the App Store once in a while. :)
I have half of my installed applications from the Mac App Store.
Positives that I perceive:
– automatic updates
- lower prices - for example, OmniGraffle is cheaper via the AppStore than directly from the authors
- generally forced paid upgrades to a new version are much less frequent than for software distributed in other ways
– option to install on all Macs under your management (= within the family)
– greater security (thanks to the fact that the signature is checked during installation, there is no risk that I would install a program to which someone had packaged malware along the way)
– functions that other distributed applications cannot use (specifically iCloud)
Cons:
– dependence on the Apple system – if the Mac App Store stops working or is unavailable for a long time, applications cannot be installed or even started
– app authors have some functions prohibited for security reasons (the app cannot work directly with the hardware, restrictions due to the fact that it must run in a sandbox...), therefore certain apps will never appear in the App Store
– new versions reach users with a delay given by the approval process on Apple's side
Otherwise, it would definitely be interesting to learn the actual number of apps sold from the AppStore top charts.
So I appreciate the fact that it basically provides everything I need. And I kind of hate to install other things there. Mac or For me, OSX has magic in that functional base. Although of course there is something (office from ms, pixelmator and a couple of other programs).
What bothers me, for example, is the absolute absence of CAD programs. Well, they are, but I would only need simple views, dwg, dwf.. And this is very wrong for me. There are equivalents for Windows, but nothing useful.
I bought a few apps (some more expensive ones) but I see these problems:
- price - an application that can do something costs maybe 50 dollars, which is only a difference compared to iOS. A lot of apps do almost nothing and cost like 10 dollars. And I can get a lot of applications for Windows that run virtually for free. So why pay.
- not being able to try out the app - I don't care if a $50 iOS app blows money out of the window, but a $XNUMX app would really piss me off if it didn't do what I needed it to do or wasn't easy to use.
You can return within 14 days ;-).
PS: I'm verified on iOS, I've had my money refunded there several times.
Sure, I know about that, but to try like that with 5 apps, have $200 in it, and then try to return them one by one, so it's probably not optimal. For me, a week would be enough to try it out, so that you know whether you will get along with the application or not.
It will be optimal. If you give a relevant reason, they won't bother you in any way. I returned a couple of things before the return law came out, because they just didn't work as I imagined. However, I responded quickly and usually did not wait more than a week.
Well, I don't know... so every time I'm looking for a certain type of application, I first spend 5 CZK, then I'll try it for a while, I'll keep one and I'll write to Apple to refund the money for the other four applications, saying that I only tested which one suits me . That doesn't seem very optimal to me.
Probably not again ;-). You must first read the reviews or try the demo application.
The Skitch program has been free for 4 years and does significantly more than its single-purpose program for 4.99. Personally, I buy software on OSX either in promotions (macheist and so on) for significantly lower prices or I follow appshopper to see if something interesting is on sale or for free. For Paragon NTFS attacks, a person has to pay more than 10 USD if he needs it, but for home use there is no need to buy a lot.
Another thing besides the price is the market. The number of iPhones/iPads is significantly greater than the number of MacBooks.
I have to agree, when I transferred my experience from iOS to MAC, I was completely confused about what kind of demo OS it is compared to iOS. Half of the things I'm used to doing on iOS were completely missing on the MAC and are still missing.
But the truth is that I'd rather buy software 30% more expensive from the AppStore than directly from the developer on the web. For me, the services that the store offers (simple updates, complaints, transparency, etc.) are worth it. The truth is that 30% is already starting to be quite good, but on the other hand there is some comfort for the user 15% and then maybe another 15% is comfort, services and advertising for developers (? – I am not able to judge that).
The problem with the Mac App Store is the prices. If developers gave programs at prices similar to those on the App Store for iPhone and iPad, people would buy them similarly. Anyone can buy a program for a dollar, even just for a trial. For 30, 50 and more dollars, almost no one will buy it anymore.. and then the developers despair that it does not sell. Unfortunately, the reason why programs are not sold on the Mac App Store is a bad price calculation, a bad estimate of the limit of purchasing power and the purchasing power of customers.
It's the same with music. 1 euro for 1 song? Well, why not, but then they can't be surprised that most potential buyers go to torrent or other places to download the album - that is, steal it - for free. If they put a price of 1 euro per album, the majority will not even bother to search for torrents and will buy it straight away. The question is, how much would the artist get for the album - maybe a cent, which is probably why the prices are so high, and that's why 90% of those who would otherwise buy, don't buy, but take it elsewhere .. and so neither the artist nor anyone gets any of it nothing else.
So which is better? Sell for a little, but a lot, or ask for a lot and sell nothing.. The answer suggests itself..