Mac App Store vs Buying Direct

http://rentzsch.tumblr.com/post/24207015641/mac-app-store-vs-buying-direct

by aaronbrethorst • 14 years ago

66 42 14 years ago

rentzsch.tumblr.com

filmgirlcw2• 14 years ago

As good as Wolf's points are, it doesn't change the fact that more and more Mac developers are starting to shift to a MAS-preferred market.

At this stage, even though I would rather buy most of my apps direct from developers, I'm often half-afraid to do that because of the inevitable "what happens when they shift to MAS-only" question arises.

It's already happened with 1Password, Coda 2, Pixelmator and a number of my other favorite Mac apps -- it's hard, as an end-user, to support the old regime when maintaining two separate software branches continues to be a PITA for developers.

And that's the real problem. Developers retain two branches because they want to offer customers options (as well as legacy support for regular pre-MAS releases), but most of the Mac developers who are both selling direct and in the MAS are seeing much more income from MAS. If forced to choose, I can't imagine a developer picking the option that gets in front of fewer customers.

Still, there are some very, very real concerns for Mac software due to the new Sandboxing rules. Fortunately, now that the deadline has passed, we'll actually get to see just how bad it is.

saurik2• 14 years ago

Apple should provide the ability to import "legacy users" (Cydia offers this feature, for the record, and it has come in very handy and made the decision to support it much easier for both developers and customers, so I'm not just talking out of my ass without knowing the ramifications of having such).

ryannielsen6• 14 years ago

I don't disagree, but how do you define and identify "legacy users"? Most importantly from Apple's perspective, how do they properly identify "legacy users" who purchased apps from a vendor's site before the App Store launched, vs. users who purchased apps from a vendor's site after the App Store launched.

If Apple allowed vendors to import any user as a "legacy user", then that's a clear and supported way for vendors to get around Apple's 30% cut.

nickm12• 14 years ago

"Apple should..." Ha! Apple, as a whole, doesn't care one whit about the way people used to buy Mac software. The App Store, both iOS and Mac, doesn't allow for any sort of nuanced models like timed trials, paid upgrades, package discounts, student discounts, etc. etc.

I think this is a overreaction to unregulated markets where merchants are constantly playing pricing games. As a consumer, it feels unfair when different people pay different prices depending on what hoops they've jumped through. However, Apple's approach feels unfair to me too, particularly the lack of trials and paid upgrades. I feel that this pushes everything towards "disposable" software rather than products that could grow over many revisions supported by upgrade from their users.

Zirro• 14 years ago

Just a small note here, but Coda 2 is for sale on Panic's website just like previous versions. After some consideration I went with the MAS-option because of iCloud-integration. Being able to easily sync your sites from your computer to your iPad sounded like a nice thing.

We'll see if I'll come to regret it in the future, but it would be nice if Apple allows app-developers who get crippled by future restrictions to offer their users a licensecode for the non-MAS-version as a replacement.

filmgirlcw2• 14 years ago

Right you are -- I misspoke there. Like you, I opted MAS for Coda 2 for iCloud -- especially since I imagine that'll come in handy for Diet Coda in the future.

irons2• 14 years ago

1Password and Coda are both sold direct — what do you mean by "it's already happened"? A developer big enough to set up a direct payment channel is likely to see it pay for itself through bulk sales and site licenses even if that's the only reason they keep it around.

I'd also dispute your last point that we'll be able to clearly see the effects — despite the continued ability to sell direct (Developer ID looks like a great thing), sandboxing as Apple's chosen to implement it is going to result in fewer apps, not merely worse ones.

sirn2• 14 years ago

1Password 4.0 will be Mac App Store exclusive[1]. The only upgrade path available is from 3.9, which only available in Mac App Store.

[1] http://support.agilebits.com/discussions/1password-in-mac-ap...

stevenwei2• 14 years ago

I am curious if there are any numbers comparing revenue from direct sales vs MAS sales.

I sell a Mac App exclusively via the MAS and have occasionally considered adding a direct sales option to our website, but the extra overhead of adding a secondary licensing scheme to the app, a web store front, processing payments, and dealing with sales support doesn't seem like it would be worth it.

wsc981• 14 years ago

Revenue numbers would be very interesting indeed. I can imagine (small) developers receive more purchases from the Mac App Store compared to their own website, since apps are very easy to find in the MAS.

chj• 14 years ago

It used to bother me as well, now it is clear, i am not going to invest any more on Mac, seeing the system is going down the road after iOS.

melvinmt• 14 years ago

"Fortunately Apple now only accepts sandboxed Mac apps, clarifying the situation: customers should buy Mac apps directly unless there’s a good reason not to."

This article seems heavily biased towards the app developer's interests. Is it really better/safer for everyday customers to use non-sandboxed apps?

achille• 14 years ago

Did you bother reading the article? There's a slew of improvements listed that are mainly useful to users, like better integration with finder etc.

Steko• 14 years ago

And notably absent is the idea that there could ever be an advantage to sandboxing for the user. A glaring oversight that renders the one sided conclusion invalid.

ryannielsen6• 14 years ago

Many of the arguments provided by the article are straw men and ignore a provision that Apple offers (and encourages the use of!) – custom sandbox entitlements. Apple has repeatedly stated that custom entitlements can and will be granted for apps that need access not granted by existing sandbox entitlements. Certainly not all exception requests will be granted, but for some of the ones he listed – Growl, file read access for Omnifocus – those are perfectly legitimate exception requests.

Apple is working hard to provide a secure and still fully functional system. Some things will break, undoubtedly. Some apps will be abandoned, either because of legitimate technical limitations Apple refuses to address, or because of political stances taken by the apps' developer. Things aren't perfect right now, and Apple still needs to continue refining and enhancing the OS X sandbox.

Is it as clear-cut as Rentzsch makes it out to be, though? Absolutely not. In fact, I think he takes a very biased stance in this article. For the vast majority of users, sandboxing is an enormous step forward for the safety and security of their data and system. For that reason alone, I encourage everyone to purchase apps via the App Store. It's a safe and trusted distribution vector that is now helping improve OS X's platform security. That's an enormous benefit to almost all consumers.

(And I say all of this as a developer who's having to wrangle with the sandbox right now.)

ken2• 14 years ago

Unless I'm mistaken, the two are not the same. There is a middle ground possible: a developer can publish their own sandboxed apps.

This would get you about half of his "buy non-sandboxed apps directly" advantages (More/Faster Updates, Less Risk, More Money), while still offering the user the advantages of the sandbox (e.g., I can see that a graphics program I downloaded only uses the entitlement "com.apple.security.files.user-selected.read-write" and thus can't open network connections behind my back).

pooriaazimi2• 14 years ago

Why? Because of exposure app store gives you app, and far more people would buy it from app store, as it doesn't require you to enter your credit card number in some random, no-name developer' website.

drumdance2• 14 years ago

Having recently suffered a hard drive failure, I have a new appreciation for the idea of being able to download and re-install my applications from a single location.

weixiyen• 14 years ago

Agreed, it's just a better user experience overall.

jaaron• 14 years ago

Why don't you have backups? I _expect_ my hard drive to fail.

drumdance2• 14 years ago

I do have backups, but it's still a PITA to copy everything over, especially applications.

chmars2• 14 years ago

Buying direct has another important advantage if the buyer doesn't live in the US: Pricing!

In the Mac App Store, prices in non-USD currencies don't compare favorably with the original price in USD due to the exchange rates Apple uses. If you can still buy an app directly from the developer in USD, the price is usually less than in another currency. In many cases, the difference in pricing is substantial and the developer gets more from the paid prices anyway.

tubbo• 14 years ago

I get updates for my apps through the App Store, and more than just minor bug fixes...feature enhancements as well as new features and big version changes. I think it really depends on the app.

For what it's worth I have also bought Divvy directly so I don't know what you mean when you say you "won't receive updates" for it.

Mac App Store vs Buying Direct

Related Stories