I've been saying for years that we need a new App Store. With the Epic/Apple battle being played out in public, I figured I'd describe my current vision for a new App Store model that better serves users today. The obvious answer is just to move iOS to a macOS like system but it's just as obvious Apple isn't willing to do that. My proposal is a compromise that I believe offers a fair direction forward for all parties involved.

First, let me describe the assumptions I'm working with. I'm sure I'll miss something, hopefully nothing that would drastically affect my proposal though. Of course, message me if you think I need to include something I haven't and I'll add updates.

Some Assumptions/Assertions:

1. It's impossible to create an environment that is both useful and 100% safe. Just being alive puts you in danger. This is normal. The goal isn't to be 100% safe, it's to find the point at which users are reasonably safe while still being functional. Anyone that tells you the current situation is 100% safe is lying to you. Arguably, it's also a disservice to tell people they have no risk, or even create a situation where there is no risk.

   Example 1: Even though viruses/malware are rare on macOS, computer experts should never say "get a Mac, they don't get viruses," since then users would think they're safe to just download anything anyone tells them to.

   Example 2: Outside of tech, take the case of playgrounds. In "the old days," as a kid, you could go to the playground and slice your hand on a rusty part, or fall 20 feet from a climbing cage. New regulations made playgrounds ultra safe, all plastic bits, no sharp edges, nothing high enough that you could fall and break a bone. Not only does this create a false sense of security since you can still fall and break something from ground level, it also takes away the opportunity for kids to learn how to evaluate risk.

   Since things can never be 100% safe, it's important for people to also consider the possible outcomes of doing something. Ensure they consider what can happen if they grant an app access to their photos. Think about why a dialog is asking for their password. Teach them to manually save documents as they're working, even with auto-save, sometimes things go wrong. Teach them to make backups on a regular basis, "just in case". Funny story: I wrote the first draft of this post on my iPad in a beta version of an app. When I came to proofread the next day, the beta had expired and the app was no longer in TestFlight. I'd been copying it into Notes every hour or so "just in case" and well, case happened.

2. The App Store itself does not add to the security of iOS devices. Security is provided by various technical means such as user permissions, sandboxing, certificates, kill switches, etc. Some would include App Review in there, but that system is fallible, as we've learned.

3. Different things require different levels of security. For example, personal information such as your name and government identifying numbers require the highest level of security. Photos, contents of emails, contacts etc. require a high level of security, but not quite as high. Payment details (credit card numbers) would be next in line requiring a medium level of security. The reasoning for this is that if someone compromises your government ID, they could cause all kinds of irreparable damage, but if someone gets your credit card number, it's mostly just an inconvenience since fraud happens so often the credit card companies have systems in place to reverse the damage. After all you're giving your credit card number to pretty much every company you buy stuff from online. Not to mention your physical card broadcasting the info to anyone with an RFID reader in their pocket.

4. Apple isn't the only company you can trust with your credit card number.

5. Everyone involved in the app ecosystem wants a fair system. Companies or individuals that want to leech off the work of others without contributing something back are not worth the time to consider.

6. No company should be able to dictate if another company can sell their product/service. That's a job for governments.

7. Apple is not a government.

8. Apple builds iOS and the API used by developers for themselves. This isn't something they've built as a service to developers and for which they need to be compensated. They built iOS and its API's before they ever considered an App Store and allowing third party developers to build apps for the platform. The concept of the App Store was originally implemented by jailbreak users in the iPhoneOS 1.0 days called Installer.app (Wikipedia).

9. Apple means well, but might be too over-protective for their own good.

My Personal Notes

Second, let me state that my personal opinion is that Apple's fee of 30% is not a problem in itself. The problem with the 30% fee is forcing it on developers and not allowing them a choice of service provider. Apple seems to truly believe they're offering value for that money, so opening things up gives them an opportunity to prove it.

More than that, my biggest complaint with Apple is the power they have to decide if another company should be allowed to provide their product/service. They are able to block any app that competes with them (now or in the future), is innovative in any way Apple hadn't considered, or that goes against their values. Apple shouldn't be allowed to project their values onto their customers. If their customers want porn apps, so long as they're legal, they should be able to buy and install them. If customers want to run an app that devours their battery, they should be allowed to do so. It's important to realize that Apple saying "Company X can't sell Y" is the same as saying "Customer Z can't buy Y even if they understand the implications".

The Proposal

With all those points out of the way, here's my proposal for a new App Store model that aims to solve most of these problems.

Apple keeps App Review in place with some changes. Apps are graded into quality tiers:

1. rejected: illegal — this one will need to handle various jurisdictions
2. rejected: malware — attempts to circumvent device security etc
3. accepted: excluded from App Store — low quality/goes against Apple's values/competes with Apple/whatever else
4. accepted: allowed in App Store — high enough quality to be promoted in the App Store

The key difference being that Apple accepts anything that isn't illegal or a valid security issue, but not every accepted app gets listed in the App Store. An app that has been accepted, but excluded from the store can be installed by a user that has a direct link provided by Apple upon approval. Side note: this gives Apple a great opportunity to optimize the App Store since they can remove the millions of junk/neglected apps and only present the best apps to users.

Next, Apple allows alternate store fronts, I'll call these Store Front(s) as a generic term to differentiate from Apple's App Store. These are apps that act as alternate stores users can use to find and install apps. They can include search, categories, editorials, or none of these, it's up to that store runner and how they think they can best serve their users. Store Fronts can list apps that are included, or excluded from the App Store. When a user installs an app from a Store Front, it uses Apple's API to install the app from Apple's servers.

Note, so far, all of this is possible with today's tech already in iOS. Store Front would be just like TestFlight, installing apps securely from outside of the App Store.

Handling payments in Store Front would be something new. While I assert above that Apple isn't the only company it's safe to give your credit card info to, let's stick to exclusively using Apple's payment system in this first step forward. When a user installs a paid app, it still triggers Apple's payment system, same as now, and calls back into the Store Front app with a success or fail response if the purchase (and install) was successful. When the app is installed (paid or free) from a Store Front, the receipt records which Store Front was used in order to handle commissions for the initial sale, plus any future IAPs.

So how is the money split in this new system?

• 3% Payment Provider (always Apple in this first phase)
• 7% Apple (covers platform/review/distribution costs)
• 0-20% App Store or Store Front

The 0-20% for the Store Front is variable and is set in a new section of App Store Connect. App owners will have to authorize whether a specific Store Front is authorized to sell their app(s) and for what % range. A Store Front can use the commission % to compete with other Store Fronts. A range can be set for each store to allow for deals like a featured listing earning the store 10% while a standard listing nets 5% or something similar. Apple should also implement a range and earn a higher percentage for featured listings over a search result. Of course, an app owner can also elect not to have their app listed in the App Store if they choose.

Regardless of which Store Front makes the sale, Apple will process the payment and will split the proceeds from the sale according to the agreed %'s. Apple pays out commissions to the Store Fronts similarly to how they currently pay developers.

So what does all this accomplish?

It solves what I feel is the biggest anti-trust issue with Apple where they can prevent new innovative ideas from being explored.

It maintains all current security measures including user permissions, sandboxing, certificates, and a kill switch (including the problems associated with that).

It enables Apple to continue to earn 30% of sales they facilitate through the App Store.

Customers can still make purchases easily with a single Apple ID.

It allows third parties to create new innovative/curated Store Fronts and earn a commission for sales they facilitate, while still paying Apple a fair cut.

It allows developers to self-promote their apps and save on their commission costs, dropping it from 30% to 10% when their marketing creates the sale. This in turn can revitalize the decimated App Review sites since developers might actually be able to afford to buy online ads and sponsorships again.

What doesn't it do?

It doesn't solve the issue of free apps being able to use all the same development and distribution tools that Apple provides without contributing to those costs. For that, I'd like to see a per user, or per download (perhaps based on file size) cost that is paid by the developer of the free app. If it's $0.25/user for example, that should be a bearable cost (part of the marketing budget) for that company. But this needs to be explored in a whole other post.

It doesn't solve the issue of allowing alternate payment systems. As I stated earlier, this is a first stage. By separating out the payment provider and Apple platform commission %'s, I've opened the door to allow other payment systems later. The hard part is going to be managing the split of the proceeds if a different payment system is used. I also believe that if the payment % is dropped to 3% as I've done here, there's less of a reason to want to use an alternate payment system anyway. Except for the next point...

It doesn't solve the issue of developers not knowing who their customers are. Which an alternate payment system could help with. But if a developer really wants to know who their customer is, they can just ask in the app via an account system. If the user consents, they can supply their info. That feels like a fair way to handle it. Forcing a user to disclose their real identity just isn't cool in today's world.

Bonus notes:

1. One implementation detail to note: when a user buys an app from a Store Front, it would still show up in their normal 'Purchase History' where they can reinstall just as they can do now. It would list the name of the original Store Front, but they wouldn't need to go back into that app to reinstall since it would be possible that Store Front has closed.

2. I've written this with Apple in mind, but I believe the same system can and should be implemented by others in the industry, including the game console makers.

3. While Apple's % take will drop in some cases by implementing this system, I believe they'll actually make more money in the long term. Their devices will become even more powerful as new innovative apps are released for them. Fewer developers will be pushed toward making web and/or Android apps, or pushing customers to make their purchases outside of their apps.

4. I wonder if Apple feels, even if they want to reduce their fees, they have to fight this battle in court and be forced to make any changes in order to avoid being sued for breach of fiduciary responsibility to their shareholders? IANAL!

5. Everyone always cites the 30% number. But it's actually higher than that in a lot of cases. On top of the 30%, developers need to pay $100 USD annually for their developer account. They must buy Mac hardware because Apple's rules state all apps must be built on Apple branded hardware. But the biggest hit here are Search Ads. Developers often have to bid on their own app name and pay Apple extra $ just so their app comes up first in the search results when someone specifically searches for it. When Search Ads were first launched, I tried them out and all it did was drive my 30% fee up to 90+%.

6. I can't wait to see some of the really cool innovative apps that will come out. Even simple things like a third party phone dialer could lead to new ways of doing old things.

Addendums:

1. 2020/08/25 11:30am: Dave Murdock suggests Store Fronts would need to go through App Review as well. And yes, agreed, they're apps and so each update would be reviewed just like other apps. Further, I envision that in order to submit a Store Front, you'd need to be approved with a new type of developer account with it's own agreements, and most likely an additional fee, similar to Enterprise Developer Accounts.

Over-the-Air (OTA) app distribution is one of the methods Apple provides that allows you and your users to securely install iOS apps on devices. Other methods you've most likely seen and used are directly installing the app via Xcode on a device in your possession, TestFlight (Apple's beta distribution system), and of course via the App Store.

Each of these methods has their purpose.

• Direct via Xcode: Debugging and initial testing
• TestFlight: Beta testing
• App Store: Distribution to customers

So when is the OTA method needed?

Not every app can be distributed via the App Store: In-house apps for your staff, apps that Apple may not approve, or custom apps for your business customers that need to be distributed via Apple's private B2B store.

If the app you're building can't be distributed via the App Store, you're unable to use TestFlight for beta distribution either. OTA is a great way to distribute beta versions, and/or release builds for these apps.

Should you use OTA to distribute your apps?

Most likely, no. If you can use TestFlight and the App Store, use those. If you're building enterprise apps, or have a very early build that you can't get approved for TestFlight distribution yet, then OTA may be for you.

Why use OTAgo?

Setting up an OTA distribution system isn't very difficult. When you use Xcode to build your .ipa file, it gives you an option to create a manifest.plist file that's required for OTA distribution. You can basically drop that manifest.plist and your .ipa on your web site and set up the appropriate links. However, doing it this way, doesn't give you any protection and anyone that finds the link can install your app.

You can put the link behind basic authentication using Apache's .htaccess, or similar via nginx. But since iOS 13, using basic authentication requires the user to enter their credentials 3 times each time they install a build.

See @GeekAndDad's tweet here:

In Old Days™ hosting Ad Hoc build on http server in Basic Auth protected folder then involved 1 pwd entry in iOS Safari to install app.

In iOS 13 it’s now THREE pwd prompts (1 in Safari and 2 in the install process somewhere).

Know how to self-host w/ apache that works better?

— Dad (@GeekAndDad) January 18, 2020

You might be thinking, let's just use an obscure link no one will find, and we'll rely on security by obscurity. This of course is never a good plan, with search engines and malicious web spiders, your hidden link is unlikely to stay hidden.

On top of that, Apple has a new requirement that's coming into play in 'Spring 2020'. Due to rampant abuse of Enterprise accounts being used to distribute apps outside of the App Store, Apple is cracking down and now asking developers using an Enterprise profile how and where the app will be distributed. They're requiring developers to use a secure authentication method. This means either username/passwords or a restricted network accessible only via VPN/Intranet. See a screenshot of the current settings (note you'll only see this in your developer account if you're using an Enterprise account):

OTAgo handles the secure authentication for you, and it does it in a way that works around the requirement to enter a username/password 3 times. I've designed it in a way that it should be easy to set up and configure. The initial version includes a `simpleAuth` mechanism that lets you authorize users as simply as providing a list of username/password pairs.

I've also made the authentication system pluggable, so if you want or need to link into an existing authentication mechanism, you can do so by adding in your own plugin. If OTAgo proves to be useful/popular, I'll likely add some additional authentication methods, OAuth, MySQL/MariaDB etc. Of course feel free to send pull requests with additional ones. :)

You can check out the project here: https://github.com/DaveWoodCom/OTAgo. Let me know what you think. If you find it useful, please star it on GitHub!

Acknowledgements:

My thanks to Freepik at flaticon.com for providing the koala used in the OTAgo logo.

Also thanks to Paweł Czerwiński on Unsplash for the background of the banner above.

Big news from Apple today:

Starting on May 1st 2017, commissions for all app and in-app content will be reduced from 7% to 2.5% globally.
Screenshot via @drbarnard on Twitter

Apple is reducing commissions paid to sites who promote our apps by 64%! That's a huge cut and they're only giving everyone involved 7 days notice.

The app economy has been tanking for the last few years. Apple must know this by now, even though they tout how great it is (maybe it is for a few big companies such as Niantic Labs, Nintendo etc). Personally I think this change in commission rate must be part of something larger, aimed to help rejuvenate the ailing app economy.

Back in June, 2016, Apple announced the first change in the percentage developers pay Apple, dropping the 30% rate to 15% but only for those using subscriptions, and only after a customer has been a subscriber for at least a year. For the most part, this would only have helped a few developers so far, since only a limited number of developers were even allowed to use subscriptions until the June changes. Those would be the Netflix/HBO type apps that are worth billions and don't need the extra help.

What I'd like to see at WWDC this year, is for Apple to announce they are finally reducing the 30% rate we pay to something more reasonable. Let's say 15%?

Assuming that's the plan, how about this as a proposed alternative? Instead of dropping the rate to 15% across the board, Apple could drop the rate to 15% for apps installed organically, and 20% for apps installed through an affiliate link. That extra 5% could then be paid to the affiliate who earned the sale. As a developer, I'm fine with that since it only helps those who help me.

I feel this would be a win-win for all involved. Developers get a much needed drop in their commission rate. Promotion sites such as iMore, touchArcade, etc will get a small bump instead of a drastic cut in their earnings, and Apple gets to keep the new 2.5% affiliate commission rate. I know dropping the developer rate isn't ideal for Apple, but it would make a big difference for the people who help keep their devices in demand.

What do you think about this proposal? Please @ me on Twitter and let me know your thoughts.

With the recent announcement of some App Store changes, and WWDC just days away, I figured I’d better write about an idea I had before it’s too late. I’ll keep this much shorter than the version that’s been floating around in my head.

I would suggest that Apple release their grip on the App Store, and start allowing other stores on iOS/tvOS which would, essentially create an App Mall. Open it up so that anyone can create a store. These will be distinct apps developed like any other third party app, clearly branded to avoid user confusion with Apple’s App Store. I envision stores created by brands you already know: TouchArcade, 148Apps, AppShopper, Google, Microsoft, Panic, OmniFocus, RelayFM (for sponsored apps) etc; as well as new ones that will appear.

These stores would be akin to radio stations. If a person likes Rock and Roll, they tune in to a Rock and Roll station. If they prefer Jazz, they listen to a Jazz station. Every once in a while you listen to something different. We’ll have stores that focus on pro apps, stores for games, a store for writers, developers, parents etc. Users will come to know and trust the curators of their favourite stores. This plan delegates some of the curation of apps out to the community where it can be handled much better (just because of sheer numbers). It doesn’t take away from Apple’s App Store curation, rather it enables a method to better group apps and aid with app discovery. Instead of trying to fit 2+ million apps into 25 categories, there will be another layer on top to help sort.

One huge side effect to this plan is that Apple would have more control over it’s own App Store. They will be able to delist a tonne of bad apps, and stop adding new bad apps by raising the criteria that allows apps to be listed in the official App Store. If an app is ugly as sin, riddled with spelling errors, etc, they can refuse to include it in their store, just as Saks Fifth Avenue can refuse to stock substandard products. Right now, Apple has a set of rules, and if your app follows those rules it should be allowed in the store. Ugly apps should never be featured anyway, but they still come up and clutter the search results, they still show up in the “Customers Also Bought” section. With my new plan, those apps won’t show up at all. It’s my belief that Apple has to generally accept any app that follows their rules, or else they’ll start to run afoul of anti-competition laws. Since there is no other way to sell apps to users with iOS/tvOS devices than through the Apple App Store, if they reject apps based on religious beliefs, politics, bad UI, etc, they are preventing other companies from operating, and could get into trouble.

It would sort of be like Panasonic selling a radio, and then saying no Justin Bieber songs can be played on them. How long would it be before Panasonic was dragged into court by the Department of Justice? So my point here is that because Apple would be allowing developers to list their apps in other stores, they’ll be free to be more selective in their own store.

None of this affects app review, signing, pricing or privacy BTW. All apps would still go through review (though it would be more for weeding out malware or buggy software). Apps would still be signed by the developers and installed from Apple’s servers. Just as the TestFlight app can install apps that aren’t in the App Store, third party stores would also be able to use an API to trigger app installs (securely of course, apps wouldn’t be able to install other apps without the user’s explicit permission). The price of an app would be the same, and the payment would still be handled by Apple. So privacy is preserved as Apple would still be the only one to know who the customer is. Apple could still take their 30% (or now 15% in some cases, hopefully more cases soon). The third party store developer would be compensated via the already existing affiliate program. Or depending on the store, they may charge the developer for a listing, just as grocery stores charge food producers for the valuable space on the end of the aisle.

The goal of this idea is to help with app discovery. By opening up the App Store in this way, it empowers the developers in our community to help solve this major problem that’s really hurting the platform, without compromising the security or privacy of the platform that users have come to expect.

All indications point to the imminent release of iOS 4.3, if not this week, then certainly by next week. As always with new releases, a host of new features will be included, not just for users, but also for developers.

The rumour is that 4.3 will introduce subscription pricing options to the app store. This is in response to newspaper and magazine publishers looking for better pricing options for daily, weekly and/or monthly editions. But, who says subscriptions need to be limited to publications. Apple's Terms of Services don't. More on that in a bit.

One of the challenges of iOS development is earning enough revenue to make a living. It's been said that there are two app stores, App Store A, where you sell apps with mass market appeal, hoping to generate a lot of revenue in a very short time, and App Store B where you sell apps that target a narrower audience, aiming to generate a steady revenue stream for years.

App Store A is often compared to buying a lottery ticket, and has just recently made an appearance in Dilbert.

App Store B is considered to be the more attainable, long term success strategy. Since you're aiming at a narrower target market, it helps to be able to generate recurring revenue from your users.

I've long wanted to try charging a monthly or yearly fee to use an app, something that will support the development process after the initial sale. Every other software platform allows you to charge for upgrades in order to generate some recurring revenue from your installed user base. A few apps on the App Store have phased out the original version and released a new version, with a new charge. There a few problems with this approach, a) users who buy the app just before the switch, kind of get screwed, b) there's no easy way for a user to transfer their data from version 1 to version 2 (it can be done, but you have to build in a solution, unlike normal app upgrades), c) not all users of version 1 will even know version 2 is available.

Another option is to add new features and charge for them though in-app purchases, then a user can decide if the new features are worth the extra money to them, if not, no harm, they keep using the app as they bought it.

Back to the new subscription option. With subscription pricing there will be a new opportunity to generate recurring revenue from your user base. And to the user, it will be a well defined, easily understood method. $x per time period. Just like paying your monthly phone bill, or a yearly magazine subscription. You can cancel at any time, or keep paying and take advantage of all new features as they're released. For developers, you now have recurring revenue. Earnings to enable you to continue to maintain and support the app, while still feeding your kids.

There's no indication yet what the options will be from Apple, but it's a good guess that the same pricing tiers we're using now will apply, and that you'll be able to select from a variety of time periods, likely: weekly, bi-weekly, monthly, quarterly, yearly. As an example, you'll be able to charge $0.99 a quarter, instead of a one time fee of $2.99. If the user doesn't like your app, they save money. If they like the app, and continue to use it, you'll break even after 3 quarters, and earn more for the entire length of time the user uses your app.

The largest obstacle I foresee moving to this model will be the blow back from customers. The current app ecosystem has bred a sense of entitlement where users (not all, but a lot), feel they deserve an app, all future updates, full support etc, all for the low cost of $0.99. For most developers, and most apps, this isn't sustainable. Using a subscription will help solve this. As more of us developers begin to use this model, customers will begin to accept it and most likely actually prefer it, since they'll know exactly what they're getting and for how much, and their apps will constantly improve at no additional cost. And, all things considered, they'll still be getting their apps at a ridiculously low price.

Update: Apple officially released the information on subscriptions today. Subscription term lengths are: weekly, monthly, bi-monthly, quarterly, bi-yearly or yearly. Thanks Apple for giving developers more opportunity to become profitable!

iOS 4.3 is currently available as a beta and thus is under an NDA. Nothing I discuss here is covered under the NDA to my knowledge as there's been no official word about subscriptions other than the now public iTunes Terms and Conditions. If you feel I have disclosed something in the NDA, please let me know and I'll edit the post accordingly.

I am a believer in the idea that a large subset of humanity enjoys helping one another to be successful, and that they become better themselves in the process. One way this occurs is with the Open Source movement. People that write software not for the profit that can be made with the software, but to give it away so that others can use it, as an end product to accomplish a task, or even to use as part of another project. This enables the next person to get a jump start on what they're working on in order to become successful faster than they would have been if they'd had to start from scratch.

Ideally the next person becomes a link in a chain so that others can benefit from their work and become successful themselves. Everyone does their part and everyone benefits.

Not all Open Source products are equal however. Just because someone releases their code as open source, doesn't mean you can do whatever you want with it. There is always a license of some sort attached to the code that governs what you're allowed to do. The Open Source Initiative site lists 67 different licenses that they've approved as meeting the existing community norms and expectations of what an open source license should be. Before we go any further, let me clarify that I am not a lawyer, I don't even play one on TV. So you should always consult your own legal council when dealing with legal matters.

Of all of the open source licenses, there are a few that are used more than others. The GNU General Public License (GPL), the Apache License, BSD License and the MIT License are the most popular. The latter 3 are very similar and impose the least restrictions on users of the code they license. The GPL imposes some very specific implications on users of the code it licenses and is the reason I'm writing this article today.

In simplified terms, the Apache, BSD and MIT licenses allow you to use the code they cover in other products and allow you apply a license of your choice to the new product. It doesn't have to be an open source license and so you're not required to provide the source of your product to others. You do have to include the appropriate copyrights for the source you've used that was created by others, and you do have to accept the fact that the source is provided to you AS IS, that there's no warranty of any kind given by the original creators of the code you're using.

The GPL however forces you to use it as the license for your new product. In this way, it has been described as a virus license since it effectively reproduces itself onto your product, and limits what you're allowed to do with your product. That is, you're forced to release the source code of your new product, and you must allow others to redistribute your product for free, in both source and object code. The philosophy behind this is that if you're benefiting from the work of others, you should be forced to share your work in the same way so that others can benefit. These restrictions make the GPL incompatible with the App Store, which means, as an iOS developer, you should avoid using any code that is covered by the GPL.

The reason that GPL code is incompatible with the App Store is the requirement that someone receiving the product be able to redistribute that product to someone else. Since all apps in the App Store have Digital Rights Management (DRM) applied to them, users are unable to directly share the apps with others. Because a developer is unable to give that right to the user, they are effectively barred from distributing their app through the App Store.

Just yesterday, this became an issue on the App Store as the popular app VLC was pulled by Apple due to complaints that it's presence on the App Store was a violation of the GPL. Even though the app was available for free, and the source code to the app was made available at http://git.videolan.org/ for anyone that wanted it, the DRM issue overrules and thus, no VLC for you.

As a user this is disappointing since the app allows you to play media files that no other app on the App Store, or built into iOS devices can play. But as developer, this is extremely alarming and should cause you to audit all the libraries you've used to ensure none are covered by the GPL, else your apps could suffer the same fate as VLC.

What's most disturbing about all of this, is that it seems as though, this is really just a silly technicality. The fact that a user is unable to share the exact binary they downloaded from Apple doesn't mean they can't share the app with a friend. The user can share the app just by sharing the iTunes link to the download (which is free), or alternately, provide the full source code. So the spirit of the GPL is still possible with the App Store, just not the letter of the GPL.

It would be possible for the Free Software Foundation (creators of the GPL) to release an updated version of the license to make it compatible with the App Store, but since they feel that all DRM is inherently evil, it's unlikely that will ever happen. Arguably, it might be possible for Apple to make DRM optional for certain apps, but that would require fundamental changes to the iOS architecture and might introduce security holes that make it easier to pirate apps. I don't see either side making any compromises here so your best bet, is to just avoid all GPL code and find (or create) alternatives that are licensed under the Apache, BSD, or MIT licenses.

This week, I'd like to throw something out for discussion. These are ideas that have come up in the course of real life discussions with other app developers. I need to preface this by saying that I have not implemented any of these ideas, and that I'm only putting the ideas out there to encourage you to think about and discuss alternatives.

It surprises me that in an ecosystem of 99 cent apps, piracy rates are still incredibly high. For this article the assumption is that as an iOS developer, you are able to detect at runtime, if your app has been pirated. There are multiple ways to do this, but the technical details of which are not required for this article so I'm going to skip them.

One of the requirements to install a pirated version of an iOS app on a device, is that the device needs to be jailbroken. If the device has been jailbroken, then certain security features will have been disabled. This makes it possible for apps to do things on the device, that Apple doesn't allow under normal circumstances.

This means, that a normally well behaved app, could be made to 'go rogue' when it detects that it has been stolen by the user. For instance, a stolen version of your app, could make a phone call to a charge per call phone number that charges the cost of the app to the users phone bill, therefore recovering the cost of the app for the developer. Similarly, the app could send a premium text message out, also charging the cost to the user's phone bill.

Now, I'm not proposing that you actually build this into your apps, as it's almost definitely the wrong way to go about building up your business¹. As iOS developers, is it not part of our job to educate users on the dangers of using pirated apps? The above ideas can be used in the same way we've warned against pirating desktop apps due to the dangers of viruses and other malware. Common users should be encouraged to live in Apple's walled garden as is indeed a great place for users and developers to be.

¹ A user that has pirated your app is still a potential customer and needs to be treated as such.

Today I'd like to discuss Apple's recent policy change with regard to app name squatting. If you're unaware of the policy, Apple says you must now submit your binary for an app within 120 days of reserving the name. If you don't submit a binary, you'll receive warning emails with 30 and 7 days remaining in your 120 day grace period. At the end of 120 days, if you still haven't submitted a binary, the app is automatically deleted by iTunes Connect and you're forbidden from using that app name again in the future.

The idea behind this policy is likely to prevent the ridiculous name squatting environment the exists with domain names. Personally, I don't believe that Apple has come up with a great solution to the problem though. 120 days isn't long enough for an independent developer working in his/her spare time to create a good quality app. And there's a known work around anyway¹, that just forces you to do an extra 5-10 minutes work per name to reset the 120 day count. So what has been accomplished? It makes it awkward for someone to register a tonne of app names and just sit on them, since the 5-10 minutes add up fast.

I propose that there is a better solution. Instead of an arbitrary time period to submit an app, why doesn't Apple limit each developer account (that is, per $99 fee), to an arbitrary number of incomplete apps. Lets say 10 for example. In my hypothetical world, you can squat on up to 10 names for each $99/year. Making app names cost about $10/year, similar to domains. But the domain ecosystem is a disaster you say. Well the difference is that with domains, there's a whois database. Everyone can find out who has registered a domain, and contact them in order to generate a sale. There is no current way to find out who has reserved an app name, and thus no way to buy the rights to a name. Which means, there is no market for buying and selling app names; crazy domain name ecosystem averted. The only people reserving app names will be those who plan to use them.

I'm sure there are problems with my proposal also, or that you have an even better solution. Please add to this discussion here.

¹ Rename the app that's about to expire to some gibberish, and recreate a new app with a new SKU and the original name you're reserving. Credit: Daniel Jalkut

Everybody else seems to have a blog, so I suppose Cerebral Gardens ought to have one too. This will be written by me, Dave Wood, the founder and developer.

The issue that has compelled me to finally write something is the whole Tweetie upgrade pricing issue. First, I want to say that I always try to look at an issue from every side, though I'm not always successful at that. In this case it's pretty easy, since I'm both a developer and a user. Next, I'll admit that while I did buy Tweetie v1 for iPhone, I barely use it. I use Tweetdeck most of the time because of it's quick account changes. And Twitterific the rest of the time. Bought Tweetie just because it worked during the twitpocalypse. I do use Tweetie on my Mac exclusively (with the ads 'cause I like the ads, very relevant to me).

So, the issue with Tweetie v2 being a fully new version with no upgrade path is a tough one. Largely because developer’s choices are limited due to some of the restrictions imposed by the App Store. Enough people are writing about how to fix the store, so I'm going to present options that may work with the current setup of the store.

There are two main problems to deal with here (again, not counting the App Store issues). 1. Users expectations for free updates. 2. Developers needs for a sustainable business.

Regarding users expectations for free upgrades: I believe there should be an expectation for free upgrades for some length of time whenever someone buys software. That time is up for discussion. With a $1500+ Adobe Suite purchase or even Apples $69 iWork product, I believe that time period should be at least a year. With a $3 app, perhaps it should only be 30 days. Although I believe current users are expecting longer. Anyone expecting, or offering, lifetime updates is insane. That's obviously not sustainable.

But the expectations do exist; whether or not they should. Developers (myself included) need to start setting customer expectations to match our plans. Stating what the upgrade path will be in our app description for instance. Just stating something like 'free upgrades for 30 days' etc. As I type that I have to laugh. With a 14-20 day review process 30 days doesn’t seem like enough. 3 months perhaps.

John Gruber of Daring Fireball fame (whom I read religiously) compared buying a $3 app to a $3 cup of coffee. I don’t believe this is a fair comparison. The only thing they have in common is their price. A cup of coffee is a physical item, actual water, coffee beans, cream and sugar maybe, as well as a paper cup, and a plastic top. A person has to physically take your order, prepare the coffee to your taste, and hand it to you. The whole process takes a minute or so of someone’s day. If 1000 coffee’s are ordered at the same time, it takes a lot of people to serve them up in the time expected by the customer. Compare this to apps. There’s nothing physical with an app, not even a disc with iPhone apps. Once the app is made (and of course there is a cost there), it doesn’t cost much more per app ordered. It costs the developer (almost) the same to develop the app whether it ends up selling 10 copies, or 10 million copies. A closer comparison would be comparing apps to songs. We pay about $1.29 per song now. Imagine the uproar if songs were $3 each. Heck, I think $1.29 is expensive, but I pay it.

Continuing to compare to music, consumer’s expectations have been set; people buy a song or CD and they’re done. They don’t expect to get the same song again in a new format if it comes out; people joke about how many times they’ve bought the White album. They don’t expect to get an extended, or remixed version of the song for free if one comes out. The point here is that expectations of users can be set to be very low.

Perhaps this is what Atebits is starting to do. They’re reducing the expectations of their users, drastically. Possibly too fast, hence the uproar.

I've read that Atebits has said they would like to offer an upgrade path that gives current users a discount, but that it's not an option with the App Store. Here's one way it can be done. (This isn't pretty and I wouldn't recommend anyone else do this; further below is an option that could work for the rest of us, with time to plan).

Set Tweetie v1 to $999. No sane person would buy it at that price. If they do, Apple will refund it, (and hopefully not ding you the full refund price as indicated in the dev contracts). Then submit v2 as two apps, an update for v1 users, and a new app for $3 with text in the description to set the users expectations correctly. V1 users get the update they expected and also have their expectations for future updates set to nil. When v3 is ready, v1 and v2 are removed from sa le, v3 is submitted as a new app.

Regarding problem 2, the sustainable business: obviously developers have to be paid for their work, and continue to be paid for building upon that work. I’m going to assume that the incredibly low app prices aren’t going away; even if most developers raise their prices, there will always be bottom feeding app spammers (such as Brighthouse Labs) selling crap for $0.99.  So Atebit’s plan to release Tweetie v2 as a separate app actually makes sense (after setting expectations correctly).  But lets take it a step further.

I believe that we should be selling our software based on the time the user will use the app. Pick a value you want to charge per month of use, in this case, we’ll go with $1/month. Adjust these rates when/if prices in the App Store in general change. If you estimate your app has a 1 month life for the user, perhaps a game that will become boring/be completed in that time period, charge $1. If it's good for 3 months, charge $3. If the app is like Tweetie and useful for a year, charge $12. From here, we get my other possible solution (for the rest of us).

This option requires planning, so it's too late for Tweetie. If you expect a 6 month life of the app from v1 release to v2 release, price the app at $6. Each month drop the price of the app by $1. When v2 comes out, price it at $6 again. V1 goes to free, but is unsupported, or could even seize to function if that’s made clear to the user before they buy it. This is giving your users a set cost per month of usage. It’s not perfect, but much closer to what people expect, and it's a sustainable business model for us developers. I believe this will work extremely well if lots of us start using the model. This could likely be implemented via in app purchasing, by charging for each month of usage.

I’m going to stop here, without a final conclusion since I consider this just part of an ongoing discussion. I look forward to continuing to discuss these issues further and working with others in the community to solve these problems (among others) while creating successful businesses.