Outlet for Mac Apps

Richard Gaskin ambassador at fourthworld.com
Wed May 30 13:22:44 EDT 2012


Peter Haworth wrote:

 > On Tue, May 29, 2012 at 2:01 PM, Richard Gaskin wrote:
 >> That's not Bodega's choice, that's an Apple restriction.
...
 >> I've seen a few developers offer a "light" version in the Mac app
 >> store, with a "Pro" version at their web site.
 >
 > Hi Richard,
 > Yes I realise it's Apple's doing that, not Bodega.  I've emailed
 > Bodega about the issue but it doesn't seem true to me.
 >
 > For example, Coda 2 is available on the Mac App Store.  It's also
 > available on the Panic web site, either through the Mac App Store
 > or directly from Panic, with the comment that direct purchase is
 > "For volume licensing, and Mac App Store haters.".  The only
 > difference listed is no iCloud availability.  I guess it's possible
 > that Panic are expected to remit 30% of their web site sales to
 > Apple but doesn't seem likley somehow.

My apologies for repeating Bodega's apparently false claim about Mac app 
store exclusivity.

I've since reviewed the Mac app store license terms, and while the NDA 
Apple requires developers to sign prevents us from having a candid 
discussion about its terms, I hope I'm not risking jail to note that I 
was unable to find anything requiring the sort of exclusivity Bodega 
wrote about.

Interestingly, though, I do see a number of developers who offer 
different versions of their products in the app store and on their web 
sites, as you noted with Coda.

For demos, developers have no choice but to post them at their web site, 
since Apple has made it clear that they don't want customers to be able 
to try out a software before paying for it.

But for the full app, I don't know why so many developers like Coda 
offer different versions depending on purchase venue.


I guess Bodega's claim sounded plausible because it makes business 
sense, even if it doesn't make social sense - yet:

Monetarily, it doesn't serve Apple's interests to allow developers to 
use the Mac app store as an advertising venue for products which are 
also available on the dev's web site, perhaps even at a lower cost. 
This just inflates Apple's expenses without ensuring any return.

But socially, it's important that this migration toward bypassing the 
Web be done in stages, weening the Mac audience in carefully measured 
steps over time.

First, the MAS was purely an option.  Slightly more convenient, but no 
penalty for choosing to get software from any other source.

Then Apple added dire warnings with Gatekeeper to all users who choose 
to get their software from independent publishers about how it "may 
damage your computer":
<http://livecodejournal.com/blog.irv?pid=1329426585.725072>

Stigmatizing independent publishing by describing it in the most 
frightening terms possible (never mind that it's how the Mac ecosystem 
has lived well for decades) may be all that's needed to make the MAS the 
only place to get software in the minds of a majority of users.

Will Apple explicitly require exclusivity?

It doesn't make business sense not to, so I would be very surprised if 
we don't see that clause in a new version of the MAS dev agreement 
within a couple years.

The only thing which may prevent that might be antitrust laws, but since 
those don't seem to apply to mobile OSes it'll be very difficult to 
apply it one category without affecting the other.  After all, as form 
factors continue to diversify, what is the difference from a legal 
standpoint?

Attempting such distinction becomes especially difficult in a world 
where Apple is the only major OS vendor that currently provides two 
different OSes for different types of devices, while Microsoft and 
Ubuntu use a unified approach across all form factors.  And more than a 
few believe iOS and OS X will eventually become integrated into a single OS.

So it seems reasonable to suggest one of two outcomes:  either the Mac 
app store will become exclusive for developers who use it, or if 
antitrust laws prevent that then iOS will be pried open by those same 
laws to allow multiple app stores.

If those laws aren't applicable, don't be surprised if continued malware 
activity "forces" Apple to require that the Mac app store become the 
only way anyone can get software for their computers.

Only a few ol' timers will mind.  The current generation is already used 
to this sort of thing.

--
  Richard Gaskin
  Fourth World
  LiveCode training and consulting: http://www.fourthworld.com
  Webzine for LiveCode developers: http://www.LiveCodeJournal.com
  LiveCode Journal blog: http://LiveCodejournal.com/blog.irv





More information about the use-livecode mailing list