That is why most "big" software packages these days are either subscription based, or pay-per-update. We've all come to expect apps to get free updates, but it's not a sustainable business model.
I work in the video games industry and access to steam or other first parties (Sony/Microsoft) is 30%, no negotiations.
You could argue that first parties such as sony/microsoft have subtle costs involved such as printing of disks, but that's paid for before market by the publisher.
The thing you pay for is: content distribution (in the case of digital downloads such as steam), 'signing' and access to market.
Apples 30% would seem a lot more fair if it was possible to side load and install alternative app stores
In comparison apples offering is little more than "we have a huge captive audience on a proprietary system. Pay us or miss out on half of the market"
Apple created THE smartphone. Every phone is an iPhone - Apple proved it and everyone else copied it. And Apple springboarded off their first-mover advantage into a platform that users really like, and keep coming back to.
We were already using Symbian, Psion and PocketPC based phones.
The first phone with hardware support for OpenGL ES was the Nokia N95 released in September 2006, one year before iPhone, with Asphalt as their show game.
Even the camera megapixel craze was being led by nokia. You're conflating the current dominance of the iphone for the past. At the time, the best thing about it was the finger only touch screen operation. To the best of my memory, others still needed to fall back to a stylus. Finger usage was a whackamole operation with Nseries and blackerry I used then
The simple act of making a call was so much easier and efficient, even though it lacked cut and paste.
Comparing it to feature phones is really curious because they were completely different markets. I don’t think it’s very useful in describing the iPhone’s success to point out individuals features that were also available in various existing phones.
It took Android phones many many years to even approach feeling as responsive and smooth and indicative of whether input has actually registered as the original iPhone, just scrolling through stuff and navigating around the OS. Tech at the time didn't even try on that front.
Featureless yes, but it could do enough to almost right away replace my iPod, Palm, and Nokia. One device instead of three was just too good to pass up.
You couldn't copy and paste text on an iPhone.
The camera was worse than any contemporary mid range camera phone.
Copy and paste didn’t work, but it didn’t work on any phone at the time. A few attempted it (eg, win mobile, blackberry) but it really sucked.
The camera was quite good and the ability to finally save and share photos and video was revolutionary at the time. I always thought it was funny how much it sucked at the time to try to store and send photos from my BlackJack or Blackberry.
In fact, the iPhone 3GS and iPod Touch (2nd Gen) did not support multi-tasking either, even with iOS4. Apple noted performance issues.
Jail broken apps had multitasking like screen sharing, WiFi hot spotting and lots of other stuff.
It’s a big deal for an OS that doesn’t have multitasking vs doesn’t allow app developers to use.
+ Linux on phone
+ True multi-tasking with live tiles.
+ Full web browser.
+ Turn by turn on device voice navigation. Cannot stress how significant this was.
+ uncluttered swipe gestures to control the apps/windows.
+ amazing build.
- non replaceable battery.
In 2011.
I think what he meant by "Apple created THE smartphone" is that Apple created the first mass-market smartphone which was desired by regular consumers (rather than niche buyers).
US was the only market where Nokia had troubles selling their Symbian/J2ME phones for example.
Should I start digging market shares figures of feature phones before iPhone came to be?
They really haven't.
> Should I start digging market shares figures of feature phones before iPhone came to be?
At this juncture, yes.
https://www.canalys.com/newsroom/64-million-smart-phones-shi...
Incredible how iOS fanbase tries to rewrite history.
TL;DR: Look at how Nokia's revenue collaspsed post September 2007. Look at how Android and Nokia's decision to go all in on Windows Mobile accelerated it. Then tell me that the iOS fanbase is trying to rewrite history...
N95 was just one example of the millions of Symbian, J2ME and PocketPC/WindowsCE smartphones being shipped before iOS became reality.
Nokia's revenue only collapsed due to the way Elop drove the company to the ground as means to get the bonus on his contract. As the Finn press later discovered.
Nonsense.
> N95 was just one example of the millions of Symbian, J2ME and PocketPC/WindowsCE smartphones being shipped before iOS became reality.
And none of them are around now. More to the point, all but a handful could be considered 'smart'. We could debate what smart is, but ultimately it's moot. Pre 2007, 'smart' devices were by and large business oriented, post September 2007, they started to become the norm; first with iOS, closely followed by Android. These facts are incontrovertible.
The point you are trying to make is utterly wrong. The original assertion was that Apple 'invented' the smartphone is equally wrong. However, Apple did play a significant role in defining what a smartphone is, Nokia and Symbian not so much. The proof? Where are they now?
> Nokia's revenue only collapsed due to the way Elop drove the company to the ground as means to get the bonus on his contract. As the Finn press later discovered.
Elop merely dealt the final blow. Nokia's sales declined post 2008 when they peaked with a global share of ~40%. Elop Joined late 2010...
Apparently everyone on Europe was a business person when using Nokia and Sony phones, go figure.
To anyone who used this phone, smartphones were already a thing long before iPhone was introduced. Of course iPhone changed things a lot, though IMO many were for the worse (for example i really liked using the tiny joystick on my 6600 for playing games).
Starting with the basic things that everyone who invested in smartphones at the time wanted, i.e. email, going through hilariously high cost (the reason behind it known only to insiders - Apple was in full rent-seeking mode, and required a portion of your phone bill as payment for being able to use iPhone. Not joking, that's why there were special iPhone-only tarriffs), it lacked physical keyboard, copy&paste, and a bunch of other things. iPhone 2G was also slower at running iOS 1.0 "applications" than higher end Nokia symbian phones (that used the same webkit core in browser).
Symbian devices were well known, and were more commonly considered "smartphones", as "palmphones" generally only got interest from people who really needed the power (a bit of chicken&egg issue).
The first iPhone, sure, no arguments there. The whole point of the iPhone was to make smartphones more useable for non-professionals.
In 2007, the Nokia N95 cost $795 while the iPhone cost $600.
Sauce: https://www.techrepublic.com/blog/practical-gadgetry/two-wee...
The reality in 2008 is that Apple forbid selling iPhone without contract, with contract requiring special extra Apple tax (we already had "unlimited data" for years by then). So you were paying whatever the telco asked you for the phone, then paid extra to Apple as long as you used the "iPhone tariff" (and you couldn't get it otherwise other than ebay).
Since at least in Poland majority bought the phone as part of the contract, the prices were wildly different. I can't find N95, but business oriented E51 cost me under $70. Without significant impact on monthly fees on the contract. And without paying Apple tax on my phone bill.
BTW, regarding visual voicemail... Little known thing about iOS 1-2 is that the network stack was broken and it wasn't capable of redirecting to voicemail like every other phone. Required special buggy software to get any voicemail for people running iPhones, and at least at Era GSM (present day T-Mobile Poland) it took 3 months from providing iPhone on sales and any voicemail working?
In some markets, iPhones were bundled with a contract because networks had bidding wars for exclusivity.
From the PoV of someone working at the network and having the luck to talk with some pretty high up there people... the exclusivity was only for order in which networks got the phone. As in, present-day T-Mobile Poland made a bid to be the first network to have it - but it didn't have any kind of long exclusivity and was soon followed by Orange and Plus (the other two "main" networks). All networks had special iPhone "plans" and the phone wasn't available outside of them, and the only technical difference was that said plans ultimately got the very buggy Visual Voicemail server attached and probably triggered workarounds for call handling bugs.
The Apple tax on the phone bill itself, and making it unavailable outside of contract, were all on Apple. (I think for some time using one outside of approved contract even required jailbreaking, but I can't be sure).
Granted - Symbian was a thing back then, but can you buy a Symbian phone today? Consumers voted with their money, and they wanted iPhones, not Nokias.
Fast forward to 2019, Nokia is nothing more than a trademark - making generic Android phones on one hand, and cashing in on nostalgia with their feature phones on the other hand.
They created THE smartphone - the definitive item.
Apple successfully marketed a product which was tested by Nokia engineers and deemed to be inferior.
What part of 'consumers voted with their money' don't you understand?
Possibly proving that iOS (and the hardware it runs on) was what consumers wanted in the mid-2000's and onward?
https://insights.dice.com/2013/09/25/a-timely-revision-of-el...
Symbian with Qt was already on the right path to win the hearts of many developers.
iOS and Android wiped the floor with Symbian and BB in terms of ease-of-use.
"..the inscrutable difficulty of navigating menus on Nokia's Symbian phones": https://appleinsider.com/articles/13/10/10/how-apples-iphone...
I worked at Nokia's R&D facility in Ruoholahti briefly in 2011, so I got inducted into the inner sanctum of history regarding the phones.
Symbian was designed for very anemic hardware, there were very tight constraints it's a marvel that the thing ran on what it did. The iPhones first CPU was at least an order of magnitude (and then double it again) more powerful than what Symbian was designed on.
the iPhone, famously did not meet any of the internal tests at Nokia, no drop test, battery life tests nor usability tests for blind people passed at all.
Basically from all avenues it looked dead on arrival.
However, it was obviously _not_ dead on arrival, and so Nokia started looking at things from a "UX first" perspective, the engineering culture was still around though, so, not a major "product" team or graphics design team to be found on the floors of the R&D facility.
But they started this effort _after_ the iPhone had launched, and these projects take a long time.
That's what Maemo was. And it was later merged with Intels efforts and named MeeGo. And everyone who used that system seemed to really enjoy it.
It was, indeed, killed in its crib by Elop. Although to be truly fair, the iPhone and Android were very incumbent at that point.
Symbian was considered obsolete or deprecated internally, not for lack of very intelligent design, but because people seemed to care for things other than that Nokia had believed people cared for.
So, Nokia saw it as an inferior product?
Perhaps this is a problem in engineer-led companies - thinking that the phone with the most megapixels in its camera, or most wifi bands is the best?
Technical brilliance counts for nothing if consumers don't want the product. See also Windows Phone, Betamax, etc
Imagine if Nokia had continued investing in a linux phone, android wouldn't be what it is today.
Yes, the iPhone is the better smartphone than Symbian-based phones. But it wasn't the first, despite the market share today.
Microsoft used to boast that they made more money from Apple systems than Apple did. Google does that to Android device makers today.
If platform makers don’t extract rent, or compete with the developers they court, they will look for other sources of revenue to stay profitable. I would be aghast if Apple hardware came loaded with the kind of Junkware I recall from the years I bought Windows hardware.
The neglect of the mac app store feels of a piece with their utter neglect of the mac platform. They seem to be treating it as a runout.
What you're looking for is something like "free for owners of Apple hardware", which is true, but very different. You paid for it.
$99 a year actually, plus 30% of all sales.
If Apple had done the right thing, they would have opted for Vulkan.
Valve's influence has been immensely positive for Linux gaming but saying they created it is ridiculous. I was playing on Linux just fine before Steam was ported. Valve's contributions very much stand on top of the efforts of those that came before them.
Yeah, all 4 of them!
The number of available games has increased greatly but before S4L was released I already had a backlog of games to play.
In case of Sony/Nintendo you pay togt access to their closed hw and ecosystem (for much less than 30% by the way). In case of apple you pay to be included in a catalogue but you can also sell directly to customers.
[1]: https://www.theverge.com/2018/11/30/18120577/valve-steam-gam...
Is your claim that the iOS store cut is 30% because Steam was 30%? Kind of an odd argument given that the iOS store was heavily focused on "apps" initially, and still sort of is, even if games ended up being a big moneymaker.
The 30% is now coming out of a different sort of product than it did at store launch, too. Lots and lots of F2P stuff with in-app purchases, subscriptions, etc. Even if 30% was justified for single-purchase apps, does it make sense to continue giving them an ongoing 30% of all revenue when IAPs and subscriptions are literally not using any Apple infrastructure if they're things like 'unlocking premium features in the app you already have' or 'getting premium support'?
They’re using Apple’s account, pricing, payment, and licensing infrastructure
As far as subscriptions, the answer is simple - don’t allow subscriptions through the App Store. Netflix, Spotify, Linux Academy, AT&T Now, Sling, etc force you to pay for subscriptions outside of the App Store. You can subscribe to Hulu in the App Store but not Hulu Live.
As far as the 30%, all of the rumors are that none of the big players like Netflix (before they stopped allowing in app subscriptions), Hulu, or HBO ever paid more than 15%.
> Your claim that steam/sony/microsoft all charge 30% no negotiations is dated if not completely inaccurate
I get the general impression that you're either in a much better bargaining position than I am, or you're not in the industry.
I still make AAA games, the latest of which came out this year[0] I can tell you concretely that we pay 30% of every purchase to the first party.
(except on PC, because we sell on uPlay and the Epic store, which has lower fees -- one of steams conditions is that you cant offer the game cheaper elsewhere, so we could never apply discounts on uplay)
> we know for a fact Valve offers a lower cut to big studios now
Valve has been openly hostile to my publisher for many years, perhaps this is the problem? Frequently unlisting our games.[1] We as a publisher do not officially respond to these things because they have better customer relations and a higher sentiment than we do, we would lose a PR battle, so we accept it and move on. This happens in negotiations too.
> I would be shocked if the Playstation or XBox business wings were unwilling to negotiate a cut down in order to land a big, million-selling title
They have almost all the power in those negotiations. The only bargaining power we have is if we have a very strongly rated title that we threaten to make exclusive. But in those cases we would lose more from _not_ selling on the platform than we would make back in the first-party cut. So it's lose-lose.
30% applies to in-game consumables too, anything processed by them as a payment provider.
What games company do you work for? :)
[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_Clancy%27s_The_Division_2
[1]: https://kotaku.com/ubisoft-pulls-big-games-from-steam-165567...
So at least for usability it should not be any different than normal.
If you have other specific complaints about uPlay then I'd be happy to hear them and feed them back to the team, since we're actually located in the same studio.
Unfortunately uPlay does drive a significant amount of business value, handling things like entitlements so that each game doesn't have to re-implement them and allowing us to handle things like distribution of "other" types of clients, like development versions of the games for review, or debug enabled versions of games for debugging. It also allows for A/B testing of various features.
As recently as 2017 there was consensus among ubisoft upper management that the perception of uPlay was bad, so more focus has been put on the user aspects, so in theory it should be much better now than it was, because before it was very business focused.
But, as everything, people are happy to help if they can, nobody wants to make an awful system.
Unless the problem is that you have to have a second launcher? that's usually peoples primary complaint. (and in those cases uPlay tries to hide itself and stay out of the way)
> Unless the problem is that you have to have a second launcher?
That's a big part of it. I have enough crapware that insists on constantly running on my PC (a lot of it direct from MS these days, sigh).
PS: Oh yeah, and it wants me to sign up for an account too. Hooray! I don't have enough of accounts spread all over the goddamned place already.
Given what I mentioned from the parent (Valve arbitrarily pulling down all our games), how do you think I can convince the business to make ourselves more vulnerable to such behaviour?
I don't have enough information to know what "arbitrarily" means here. From what I can tell, Valve is pretty damned reluctant to remove things from the store, which makes me really curious why they would "arbitrarily" remove such popular AAA titles.
Regardless, I can tell you that things like uPlay are hugely annoying and whatever excuses your company has for why it exists don't really change that.
Frankly I don't even like having to use the Steam launcher, but seeing as they pretty much single handedly built the market they are now the defacto standard in I've reluctantly accepted it. Ubisoft's wares simply do not appeal to me enough to overcome my distaste in the same way.
The functionality should be optional and the parts you need could be a library which integrate within the game.
That sits above Steam's launcher, so I launch the game via Steam, then Uplays pop up (slowly, then updates), I dig up my contact details from an old post-it, then the game launch! I think it makes sense for Ubisoft to have their launcher, but in the case of games sold through Steam, its mandatory use detract from the game. And on Steam, games that have been pulled from the store are still in the game library of buyers, so it's not an argument.
I commend you for offering to receive feedback.
I also understand that Uplay is a good business idea.
The issue was being _forced_ to use it in addition to Steam and having to create an account, since apparently at the time (2015?) the account linking didn't exist. I don't think it makes a lot of sense to have to launch two launcher just to play a game (perhaps it has changed since last time though).
How about Nintendo?
[1] https://download.cnet.com/news/microsoft-store-slashes-reven...
uhhh.. hosting and bandwidth for potentially millions of downloads and updates and your videos and screenshots?
Covering user refunds?
A reviews and feedback system?
Crash logs?
Showing you in user searches?
The Editor's Choice and Featured Apps lottery?
Invitations to develop for yet-to-be announced platforms?
Giving your users peace of mind that your app is sandboxed and cannot indulge in hanky panky?
I'd happily host my own apps and pay the hosting/bandwidth than pay the $99 a year for Apple Developer Account + 30% of all sales.
But Apple won't let me, if I want my app to run on iOS I have no choice BUT to use their bandwidth.
Apple also drops subscription costs from the second year on to 15% which is coming back to reality. I personally find the subscription model way more sustainable & less user hostile than the paid versioning upgrade model, the grand majority of the industry is also in agreement there. So there’s a lot of bad smells from this developer that they just want to run a shoddy business and not that there’s a big problem with Apple.
this never happens, if you JUST upload your app to the store and think it will take off coz it has good features then good luck. In reality you have to upload and then pay some app advertisement agency to feed your app to the multiple tech blogs to inorganically promote it. App store is full of inorganically promoted trash nowadays
Stripe charging 3-4% or less per transaction _doesn't_ include fraud insulation??
> download bandwidth
So does a free / $20 CloudFlare account.
How about numbers?
I think this really depends on implementation. Paying for bugfixes? No, thanks. Paying for a major version bump like new ms office where you don't really need to upgrade and will be supported anyway? Sure.
Dealing with all that in many cases takes more resources than introducing new features, but, just like you, people expect free compatibility updates.
The deprecation cycle is a decade or more, and in every case there's a paved migration path (GC->ARC, QTKit->AV Foundation, WebView is trickier but for good technical reasons). This strategy and timeframe seems eminently responsible.
Windows 10 will likely support your apps for at least a decade. There's choice.
(I'm using Mac for work. I'm likely migrating to another system instead of Catalina)
If you are growing your market, you can make your app a flat charge. If you are maintaining and and expanding an app for an existing user base, subscription is a better way to go (and something Apple does support well).
Apple's recent kowtow to China and blocking apps China doesn't like is a great example.
If an app spams you just uninstall it...
If Apple kills an app you love there's nothing you can do...