After a decade or more of Mac apps working just fine through online sales, what is the driver - what is so significant - that makes you get so upset that it might not be offered on the MAS?
I personally find the move to the MAS a sad development - less $ per sale to the dev, 30% grift from Apple, as if they needed more money, and sandboxing that renders some of the best apps out there less-than-useful. Not to mention Apple's arbitrary approval process that - if nothing else - puts an additional week between me and bug fixes.
I can understand liking the convenience. But what makes it so necessary?
I'm the founder of Paw, and frankly I like the MAS. It gave Paw a lot of visibility without us taking any financial risk. Otherwise, we would have needed to pay for some kind of advertising when we didn't have the money for it. MAS allowed us to bootstrap and gain users.
Sure, the 30% split for Apple sounds like a lot, and it surely is. That's exacly why we encourage users to get Paw from our website (which uses Stripe for CC processing). Also, website purchases get updates a little faster, as it doesn't rely on Apple's approval (which is IMO the real pain point of the MAS).
Lastly, sandboxing isn't an issue at all for us. And the version distributed through the website is also sandboxed. I personally love sandboxing, as a user first, and as a developer too. Sure, some apps (due to their nature) can't work with sandboxing, and should probably be allowed on the MAS as a special exception (the example I have in mind is the excellent Git Tower).
It's good to have your view on this, but I honestly think you should make some reference to the MAS on your site - even if it's on a page that highlights the user downside (slower releases etc) - if I browse an app site/page and it doesn't mention the MAS I assume they're not on it.
I absolutely understand why developers don't like it - I wish Apple worked so they did so more stuff would be there. For me it's the sandboxing on small utility apps, and I admit I'll look in the store first. It's just peace of mind really, if an app doesn't need out the sandbox (I acknowledge many many apps do) then I'd rather have it contained.
See flashlight apps with absurd permissions and spyware on Android to see what assholes occasionally do with too many permissions.
> I can understand liking the convenience. But what makes it so necessary?
I said it makes me significantly less likely to buy it - specifically because of two factors: the convenience, and the security of knowing who is charging my card.
I didn't say "I won't buy this if it isn't in the MAS" - so what part of what I said means the MAS is "necessary"?
> I personally find the move to the MAS a sad development -
I didn't say everyone should be forced to use the MAS. Neither did Apple. Nothing stops a developer from releasing their App on their own and via MAS.
> less $ per sale to the dev, 30% grift from Apple, as if they needed more money
70% of $40 is less than 100% of $0?
> and sandboxing that renders some of the best apps out there less-than-useful.
Not to mention that pesky security it provides for end users.
Seriously, if an app can't operate within the sandboxing of the MAS, its completely reasonable for it to be not sold that way.
This app can operate within a sandbox, so why do you have such a problem with someone else wanting/using a more convenient and secure option?
That you know the charger of your card is the argument that resonates the most with me. That's fair, and a solid reason to use a processor like Stripe - recognizable and near normal processor fees.
> "70% of $40 is less than 100% of $0?"
This is a terrible, terrible argument for being shoehorned into giving up 30% of your revenue. Stripe (et. al) charge, say, $0.30 + 3%. Add in binary hosting fees and we're at 30%? Again, I understand the CC argument, but this is very much an argument about how I (or someone else) should appreciate your business in whatever form it comes to me, and that's not true. You'll probably want point releases and features and customer support, but for 30% less than a sustainable price.
(Note that I'm not allowed to charge 30% more on the MAS to pass on the cost... That's a violation of the MAS developer agreement.)
> That's fair, and a solid reason to use a processor like Stripe - recognizable and near normal processor fees.
As a user I don't get to choose which payment processor a developer uses.
> but this is very much an argument about how I (or someone else) should appreciate your business in whatever form it comes to me, and that's not true. You'll probably want point releases and features and customer support, but for 30% less than a sustainable price.
You're ignoring the higher likelihood of purchase via the MAS. When I can just click and its purchased without hassle, without issues, you have to deal with a lot less lost sales due to hard/troublesome/scary payment processes.
If you don't want to sell on the MAS, thats absolutely your choice as a developer, but you need to recognise that the MAS is a much better experience for buyers than pretty much any other option currently in use. The best case scenario is a seller who has an easy buying workflow, actually handles security correctly, uses a reliable payment processor, and gives me the required licensing information instantly.
I've not seen that very often, and even when I do, I'm still left having to manage my license information so I can easily re-install.
Obvious solution - put the app up on the mac app store at 30% or so higher cost, and keep it around on Stripe or similar for those who want to buy it for less. Seems win-win.
Apart from breaking the rules for MAS publishing it's also dishonest - it doesn't cost $0 to self-distribute, but no one ever itemises that cost as extra
Is having some kind of rebate coupon after buying from a different payment processor an option? Or maybe increasing the price by 30% all around, and then throwing in some sort of 'added extra' for people who don't buy through the MAS?
Also, I like the MAS even less after learning about this kind of terrible control.
Otoh with MAS you get: hosting, payment processing, easy notification of updates for the users.
As a user I love that when I get the new machine I don't need to go hunting for all the apps I own, looking for the download link again, then looking for the serial numbers/licences. I can just go to App Store app and click "Install".
After a decade or more of Mac apps working just fine through online sales, what is the driver - what is so significant - that makes you get so upset that it might not be offered on the MAS?
I personally find the move to the MAS a sad development - less $ per sale to the dev, 30% grift from Apple, as if they needed more money, and sandboxing that renders some of the best apps out there less-than-useful. Not to mention Apple's arbitrary approval process that - if nothing else - puts an additional week between me and bug fixes.
I can understand liking the convenience. But what makes it so necessary?