Interesting video by one of the developers for BBEdit and why they chose to leave the Mac App Store.
Interesting points. I wonder if Apple will listen to concerns from developers such as this.
Related
[quote]
Bohemian Coding has announced that its popular design app Sketch is no longer available in the Mac App Store because, after a lengthy decision making process, the developers felt that directly licensing the software outside of Apple’s storefront will provide customers with a better experience. [/quote]
Is it allowed to put a Free/Lite version of your software in the App Store and direct users that want to buy the Paid/Pro/Full -version to you website?
No… you are all in, or not…
Are you sure about that?
I asked because I’m really confused. I often see products both offered in the MAS and outside. Some have more functions outside the MAS (because of the sandboxing) and some have (for example) iCloud when sold in the MAS. But still, the same product.
I wonder if it’s just allowed or if I need to walk some fine line.
See for example 1Password 5 for MAC: https://agilebits.com/store
Yes you can put free/lit in the MAS store
Yes you can offer paid outside the MAS store
but what you asked was can you direct users to your website to buy the paid version… the answer is no
You can’t “adverstise” on the MAS store and by Apples reckoning, deny them of a profit
Agilebits is NOT offering a Free version in the MAS store and a Paid version in their store, its a PAID version in both places.
Lack of control in so many areas is what I hear Rich say
And I can certainly believe it
The problem Rich had with BBEdit and MAS was that the MAS version had to drop some feature that were in the non MAS version.
The MAS is like specialized stores when they took boxed software from small publishers like me. They had rules about box sizes, the box had to have a bar code, it needed to be filmed, and one had to accept returns.
The App Store is an allegory for shelf space. The rules are just as rigid, but if I may, the 30% cut is way below the 40-60% I remember from the boxes days.
IMO, shareware programs rarely do quite well in the MAS unmodified because the logic is not the same. A shareware program must be free, largely available, yet have time limit and enough nag screens and suggestions to register to obtain a good conversion ratio. The App Store is all about pay upfront, nag screens are a no-no and time limit completely taboo.
That said, it is not forbidden to offer a free evaluation version for download on one’s site and mention it in the description.
Maybe the complete version can go into the MAS as extra butter, but the very business of shareware should be direct sales.
As for advertising for other products. it is quite possible. What Apple bans is placing a Paypal button inside and app, for instance. One has to sell through the store. But nothing prevents an author to point to his site, and on his site, sell the same stuff.
What the OP was asking about was the opposite of this… Free on MAS pointing to a Paid version on an external website
That is normally a no-no, since Apple would consider that a forbidden in app purchase.
However, I believe it is quite possible to have a button “Click here for more” that opens in the default browser the author web site on a page that promotes the pay version. Technically, that would not be within the app, but in the web site, opened by another app (Safari usually).
As long as the sales pitch is not in the app, there is technically no in app purchase.
BBEdit was already very successful before the MAS. So it has already proved its commercial validity. In other words, I do not believe Bohemian Coding would be endangered by leaving the MAS altogether.
My own experience is kind of similar, although I would love to have such a killer app. My fonts already sold very well before I went into the MAS. So in a way the MAS was icing on a cake, not the main venue. Neither is it today.
I believe trying to turn the MAS into a shareware archive is possible, but if so, one has to accept the full logic of it, and offer the kosher in app purchase. Countless publishers do it.
Bohemian has a problem of business logic here. Should they do two different lines of products or not. This is a question only they can answer. So do have every publisher in the same boat.
Not everybody is so lucky to have that problem, though.
Sorry I tend to disagree ith him - not on the things he said about product development - but on his final conclusion “it’s not worth it”. Of course you need a lot of things to be done before calling a piece of software “a product” (assets, documentation, MAS submission, website etc.) and of course there is a certain level of price pressure when lot of great apps are sold for less than 15 bucks or free.
But as Developer you have the free choice. You may feed the trend or you may just say, no! I want for each sold item at least 10, 30, 50 bucks for me left. So it more depends on the somebody’s software, business and price-model than on the MAS in general.
And all the stuff he said about leisure, recreation, family, financial security etc. yes it’s true. But I can’t get it. Why is he complaining? Of course you have to take care about a balanced out Work-Life-Balance. But why is the MAS (hey it’s just a distribution channel) blocking or hindering him from that?
And talking about sandboxing: He said, that sandboxing forced him or his team to check 25 year old code to make their App work within a sandbox - well that is the way the world moves. 25 years ago there were no threats or encryption. But there were no App Store, Smartphones or other functionalities either. Apple offers a pretty safe walled-garden, this is the extra-mile to go for developers to keep this garden safe and tidy. This is how I understand the deal with MAS.
MAS sales are not crucial for me. My business is to create tailor made apps and solutions for my customers. If NDAs, available time and yes my motivation is high enough I occasionally create a MAS App out of these projects or ideas “on shelf” but I won’t give it away for just 0.99. I sell it for a reasonable price and I am happy about each single license I sell because I know without MAS I wouldn’t have this additional revenue.
So the bottom line: It’s more about business-model ans price politics than about the MAS.
I suspect an awful lot of developers would like to be so lucky as to have the luxury to be able to dump the MAS 
You and I are not allowed to do so, however I see that larger companies are in fact allowed to get away with all kinds of things that we cannot.
I detest the review process, I’ve not had a single app that’s not been rejected at least once. Right now, we have app that took 10 days to get into review, and was rejected because we used the word Mac in the description of the App. Changed that within two minutes and it’s been awaiting review for 2 days now, I guess we went straight to the back of the queue and have to wait another 10 days for someone to look at it again.
It’s a seasonal product and I’m suspecting that unless I make a big fuss, it won’t get released in time. That’s what really pisses me off.
Also a good read:
http://www.macworld.com/article/3007749/software/how-apple-could-fix-the-mac-app-store.html
The biggest low for most developers is sandboxing. For many apps, this means a crippled version because Apple don’t let you do this or that. Thats the number one complain for all OSX devs when they want to enter the AppStore.
[quote=233478:@Christoph De Vocht]Also a good read:
http://www.macworld.com/article/3007749/software/how-apple-could-fix-the-mac-app-store.html[/quote]
The MAS does provide refunds. And the process is fairly straightforward.
The issue with reviews is terrible in all app stores. It is actually terrible anywhere there are anonymous reviews. That is why I removed all forums and review forms all my web site over a decade ago.
All the rest seems to me like a typical Apple thing. It is of the same vein as “they don’t need many connectors, one is enough”, or the infamous “we don’t change batteries, just buy another iPod” from some years ago. Apple could not care less about developers, who are probably considered merely a tolerable inconvenience along a brilliant hardware success story.
Compared to the most profitable company ever, even the most successful software vendor is nothing but a mosquito on the back of an elephant.
As for sandboxing, as much as bothersome it is, I do believe it is a good thing for the customer. Remember, that increasingly technically clueless individual who demands things just work ? Most programs that go under the hood are potentially dangerous, and often demonstrate their toxicity. I had to contend with the limitations sandboxing entails, and did not like it more than any other programmer. But I see today Windows embracing it as well, for probably the same reasons : the system must be able to trust the application model. Programs that do hacks are just as obsolete as what we used to do with self-modifying executables in the Dos era.
Now that I served the sandboxing gospel, though, I should point out that until the system actually requires sandboxing for everything, we can still happily create and distribute non sandboxed apps that do all sorts of forbidden things. Only not in the uppety nose-in-the-air, policy tight, all so proper App Store.