Apps also sold iPhones. They built an entire marketing campaign around the idea (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=szrsfeyLzyg). And yet they're trying to squeeze app developers for all they're worth.
The original iPhone didn't even launch with apps. A big part of the vision was that "apps" would be dynamic websites which you could create links to on your home screen. I think if the web tooling ecosystem was up to snuff at the time, we may not have an "App Store" as we know it today.
>Apps also sold iPhones. [...] And yet they're trying to squeeze app developers for all they're worth.
It's because Apple was emboldened by the fact that the original June 2007 iPhone exceeded sales expectations of 10 million units without any 3rd-party apps. The App Store didn't exist until July 2008. In June 2007, consumers were getting in line to buy the so-called "Jesus phone" even though there were no 3rd-party apps ecosystem for it. (Look back at the hundreds waiting in line overnight to buy the first iPhone: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_iSE0bBgUsQ)
So, Apple rationally concludes that 3rd-party developers need access to Apple's customer base more than customers need access to outside developers. Back in 2008, the developers en masse could have revolted and said "fuck the Apple iOS SDK, fuck the App Store, and they can fuck off with their stupid rules and 30% fee" -- but they didn't.
Instead, developers grumbled and complained while they were submitting apps to the App Store. Developers -- via their actions -- keep signaling to Apple that Apple has the leverage and not the developers.
That's why you had 2008 articles and threads such as this:
- This Is Why iPhone Developers Put Up With All the Bullshit From Apple (daringfireball.net)
- 46 points by sant0sk1 on Sept 19, 2008 | hide | past | favorite | 23 comments
And prior to the app store, app writers dealt with carriers who wanted 70% of revenue, not 30%. There was no money in phone apps prior to the App Store. I had left the mobile industry by then because I'd seen enough to know that mobile companies were just a funnel of VC money to goods and services for carriers who looked a hell of a lot like Ma Bell (employed some of the same people, in fact)
While the iPhone was certainly interesting tech, that's not what made a bunch of devs learn Objective C. It was money.
That Apple has only lowered their fees one, one and a half times in that period is how we end up with all the grumbling we have today. but at the time it was much much better than the status quo.
> And prior to the app store, app writers dealt with carriers who wanted 70% of revenue, not 30%
Disagree there. Maybe to preload apps. But in all my Symbian dealings in Nokia-land, almost every app purchased was direct from producer, and pushed to the device by a sync cable, with zero revenue going to the carrier.
Nokia is not a carrier. They were on the right track but they evaporated after the iPhone (and maybe the Razr before it).
At the time I left the industry the carriers had gotten so bold, they were trying to go around Motorola, Nokia, Ericsson and friends and get white label phones straight from the people who manufactured these phones, like HTC (before anyone had heard of them). Then they would have made no concessions to the likes of Nokia to allow what to them would be considered side loading.
If the RAZR hadn’t been ridiculously successful, if the iPhone hadn’t kicked them while they were down, we’d be watching antitrust hearings to break up cellphone carriers right now.
But AT&T didn't interfere with getting apps on a Nokia phone, be it Symbian or even the Java predecessors. They didn't insert themselves in the middle and demand 70% revenue like your claim.
I owned probably nearly a dozen separate Nokia phones (and maybe half a dozen Sony Ericsson) over the years on different carriers. Hell, I started with a 2110 (now I'm feeling sentimental, so looking over a list: 2110, 6110, 8110, 8210, 3310, 6310, 7650, 9300 Communicator, 3250, N93, N95 before finally calling it quits... Damn.)
One of the most surprising things (from a modern perspective) about reading that daringfireball article is that a game could be successful on the App Store at a $5 price point ($7 in 2024 dollars).
The reason for this is that Apple has managed to argue that its app store is not a monopoly. This is false (If developer accesss to apple and androids app stores were competing even the tiniest bit, then you should mainly see developers releasing apps on one platform and not the other).
in essence, this means that in order for developers to achieve negotiating power parity, they would need to form a cartel, (an illegal anticompetitive practice they would not be able to defend). As a result, Apple's negotiating power advantage is a matter of law.
