Hacker News Reader

Comment by tzury | Hacker News Reader

If you run your company smart, then publish your software in both places, your own website and AppStore.

Users who trust direct relationship with you, will download directly, enjoy better prices (30% commission omitted) and rapid updates.

At the same time you will not lose a whole marketshare of users for which AppStore is the "go-to" address for buying software.

You can then skill up your SEO capabilities and optimize inbound traffic to your preferred platform whatsoever.

If AppStore policy forbid having a parallel distribution platform, then publish the same app with two different names.

View on HN

Some apps can’t do parallel features because of rules on the App Store. I remember several years ago a commercial AV software sold an App Store version that was nerfed for true AV scanning which it’s non App Store has the full feature set. Apple requires (or maybe they don’t have that limitation anymore) that an application not touch system services if it’s sold in the App Store. Which for AV that would fit the bill.

Personally for a while the macOS App Store was riddled with sketchy Chinese apps that looked like knock offs of the real apps. Or there are apps that do the same thing as a more expensive commercial one.

Personally I’ve found a few gems in both App Stores. Hands down I love Pixelmator on iOS and macOS. I’d gladly pay for more apps built with good quality.

I think this is explicitly forbidden by app store rules.

It is definitely the case for the iOS app store anyway.

You could create two versions, one crippled for the app store and another that you actively market. There is no point giving Apple 30% if you are finding the customers yourself.

You’re not allowed to create a crippled or discounted version per the App Store rules.

You are allowed to make the same version available elsewhere and pocket the margins.

This is what BBEdit has been doing for many years for example.

I know a number of apps that sell both on and off the App Store and cripple the latter. Where does it say this is against the rules?

What apps do this? How do they distribute on iOS without the App Store?

I think they're referring to MacOS app store here. Certain applications might need access outside of the sandbox for certain features to work so a non-app store version would have more functionality than the app store version.

Even if the products had different names? Or are you saying once you put one product in app store they all have to go in.

You're not dealing with an excel spreadsheet here. Apple has rules that are enforced by humans. If you try to cheat them out of the 30% they believe you owe them, they will punish you for it by removing you from the store. So far, very few (if any) companies have gotten away with it. You can't just point to a tiny asterisk or typo in the terms and get them to go 'oh well I guess you got us then'. They have the power.

This is why you can't purchase kindle books from the iOS app and have to use a web browser to do it. Even that is kind of an exception (people already have existing Kindle libraries, so it's not really reasonable for Apple to tell them to go screw themselves - but you bet they're gonna demand 30% of on-device purchases!)

One pattern I've seen however in modern mobile games is that instead they use an loyalty program, where if you buy direct from them (at the same price) they give you free bonuses that you don't get on the iOS store. That satisfies the "equivalent price" and "no crippling" semi-rules but I suspect eventually Apple will decide to punish it too.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com