App Culture vs. Free Culture

[Paul Keith]

This was answered but I thought some may like to discuss it further and feel neither side gave a satisfactory answer:

The part of the talk where he talks about the day care experiment has strengthened a worry I've been having for a while. The worry that the "app culture" introduced by the iPhone will break the free software culture. Why should anyone work hard for the greater good of humanity when others become millionaires by selling crap to people? (Sorry for putting it so bluntly but what else is a "flashlight app"?) I actually know people who were free software advocates (and still are) but nonetheless now try to make a quick dollar by writing mobile phone apps.

Why should anyone work hard for the greater good of humanity when others become millionaires by selling crap to people?"

Now that the free software culture is here, I doubt it is going anywhere. Which is not to say software should not have associated costs, like service and hardware, but that once people start making things for the love of the practice, its a bit hard to remove that activity from people. This is really part of Clay's argument. It is increasingly easier for people to participate in activities due to their love of the activity, including the production of software. I think the decrease in difficulty, combined with the increase of love(interest) makes for a cocktail that isn't going anywhere, and if anything, gives quite a lot of hope for the future.

Let's hope so but frankly, I'm not so optimistic. Writing apps gives practice, community feeling including positive feedback *and* a few extra bucks (with the potential to be set for life if your thing really takes of). Free software was made possible because it was easy to share. With apps it's easy to share and easy to make money doing so. If there was an app store for lolcats, I don't know what would happen and Clay didn't discuss this recent development.

Comments underneath: http://www.ted.com/talks/clay_shirky_how_cognitive_surplus_will_change_the_world.html

[mouser]

I want to comment on this.  Windows 8 leaked documents suggest that Microsoft is going to get on the "App Store" bandwagon and have a kind of store where people can easily buy applications online and have them installed automatically, etc.

I don't buy the argument "Why should anyone work hard for the greater good of humanity when others become millionaires by selling crap to people?" -- i don't think that holds weight.  People code for all sorts of reasons, and money is a minor one.

BUT:

I do not know if i am over-reacting or not thinking things through, but I do have a real worry that this "App Store" trend, while extremely convenient, will lead us down a path where we have "preferred" sellers (big companies) which come to dominate these "App Stores" and put freeware coders in a very bad position.

If getting your app into an official "App Store" requires some certification process that costs money and requires bureaucratic hoop jumping, and if money can buy higher placement in these stores, and if these online "stores" become the preferred place for people to get programs, etc.

I worry that App Stores are going to exacerbate the winner-take-all problem we already have on the internet where the top search results reinforce their position and lead to dominance of a category for no other reason than a positive feedback loop.

I worry that freeware coders are going to be even further disadvantaged by the nature of the App Stores, and that the financial success of the Operating System as a whole benefits from such phenomena, rather than being motivated to reduce it.  Just as google benefits from advertisers spending so much money to get higher ranked search results, the App Stores will benefit from an environment where money is involved in App Store downloads.

[zridling]

I find the entire app store concept -- from the corporate/control side -- very weird. They make and control the hardware, and now they restrict which software can and cannot be installed. It's as if I bought a car but was only allowed to drive on roads with 4 lanes or more.

Motives For Writing Free Software
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/fs-motives.html

Selling Free Software
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling.html

[Renegade]

I find the entire app store concept -- from the corporate/control side -- very weird. They make and control the hardware, and now they restrict which software can and cannot be installed. It's as if I bought a car but was only allowed to drive on roads with 4 lanes or more.

+100 & 100% agreed~!

I write both free and commercial software. Commercial software puts food on the table. I like that a lot because I get hungry every day~!

I also put out free software, both freeware and "use & abuse" software.

But when it comes to being restricted to what kind of software I can download, install, and run on MY hardware (when you sell it to me, it becomes MINE!!!), then I have a very real problem.

I believe the root of the problem is patent, copyright, and intellectual property laws that have gone very far off into some very dangerous territory, compounded with corporate agency (which is duty-bound to be psychotic -- quite literally, that isn't figurative) that pursues profit at any expense. Companies are abusing laws and basically raping their customers on one side, while on the other they pretend to be "good" by doing some inane "community service" to distract people from their basic psychosis.

I suppose that we have this general feeling that markets should be essentially free (with certain exceptions for dangerous goods like chemicals, weapons, etc.), with anybody being able to participate. The iTunes app store flies in the face of that with Apple controlling everything from the developer toolchain to what software gets listed in the store. i.e. You are not free to participate in the iTunes store because you require the approval of Apple, which is completely arbitrary.

This just doesn't sit well with me, and I suspect that this doesn't sit well with most people here.

To put things in a more concrete perspective, if mouser wanted to put some software in the store so that DC people could download it to their iPhones, there's no guarantee there that he would be able to, no matter how he tried and with no relevance to his competence or ability. Apple's decisions are arbitrary and binding. i.e. You would not be allowed by Apple to install software on your iPhone that mouser wrote for you, and you would have no way to install it; it's locked.

How does this benefit you? Short answer: it doesn't.

I believe that being able to run any software I want is a very basic right I have for my own hardware. I don't think that's unreasonable.


Oh... 1 last rant...



All security arguments for restricted hardware/software/closed app stores are fallacies. No security argument can be valid there. i.e. All arguments for security at the expense of basic freedoms are fallacies. (All arguments for security imply increased control/power for some purpose/to some end. -- AND -- No argument that implies increased control/power/restrictions can not affect freedom. -- AND -- All restrictions on freedom are undesirable. [I'm skipping a few steps in logic here.])


I lied... 1 more rant...


We have a basic problem where the vast majority of people are horribly uneducated on the topic of freedom, and massively undereducated when it comes to computing. My uncle told me that he knows how to turn a computer on and off, and that's it. I honestly doubt that he knows how to turn a computer off properly... There are a lot more people out there like that. They make up the marketplace and drive it. It would be remiss to allow the uneducated masses to drive us all off a cliff. I would love to see a "Consumer Electronics Freedom Protection Act".

Ok. No more rants. These kinds of topics really just set me off.

[Deozaan]

As far as I know, anybody can submit an app to the Android Market. Is that correct? Why is Google making Chrome OS and not Android OS (for PCs)?

[Josh]

Mouser's fears may have come to reality

[JavaJones]

I don't think an "app store" *has* to be restrictive though. The model I'd like to see more followed for Windows is that of the Linux "repository". You know, fairly open, different repositories ("stores") for different needs, and the ability to add your own stores just by specifying a custom URL. I doubt MS will do it this way, but I'm just saying the concept of a "store", or at the least a central reference/repository for software, is not inherently bad nor restrictive.

- Oshyan

[zridling]

Don't forget that despite not coding one line in your app, Apple willingly takes 30% of your profit off the top. That's effing greedy, folks!

[zridling]

Just found this very relevant tidbit:

Patent Lawyer Insists Open Source Stifles Innovation
http://techdirt.com/articles/20100706/03220710079.shtml

[TheQwerty]

Don't forget that despite not coding one line in your app, Apple willingly takes 30% of your profit off the top. That's effing greedy, folks!

As does Google if you sale in their market, and I believe Microsoft said their mobile store would be the same or similar.  Is 30% that bad when you consider it means you don't have to set up a store, actually handle credit card fees, or pay for the bandwidth? I'm seriously asking as it doesn't seem that bad to me.

I dislike Apple's policies and the corporate attitude they project, but I'm not sure I see this 70-30 split being so outrageous.


Now the fact that a developer interested in selling an iOS app to non-jailbreaking users has no other choice but to accept Apple's 70-30 deal is absolutely maddening.

[zridling]

Is 30% that bad when you consider it means you don't have to set up a store, actually handle credit card fees, or pay for the bandwidth? I'm seriously asking as it doesn't seem that bad to me. I dislike Apple's policies and the corporate attitude they project, but I'm not sure I see this 70-30 split being so outrageous.

It's outrageously high, I think. You do 100% of the work and they take 30%! Why not 5%? It's not like they need the money; they've already made their treasure on the hardware, and if you're buying Apple, they know you're coming back very soon to upgrade. The only reason Apple, et al., set up "app stores" is to get their pound of flesh. I'll bet if I sold Apple hardware in my own store, they wouldn't let me take 30% of the $600 for an iPhone.

Oh wait, they retain complete control (and still manage to be insecure and drop calls). Welcome to my nightmare.
__________________
PS: My old cellphone is just about to go (bad speaker), and when it does, I won't replace it. The bill collectors will scream 'round the clock!

[TheQwerty]

It's outrageously high, I think. You do 100% of the work and they take 30%!

But you aren't doing 100% of the work.  You aren't maintaining a website, you don't have a store, you don't pay any of the fees to collect money from your customers, you aren't paying for the bandwidth to push this all to customer devices.  None of that comes cheap and it all eats into time that could be better spent on the app.

Go ahead and sell you $0.99 app to customers through PayPal; they're going to take $0.10 to $0.33 cents of every purchase and they are doing a heck of a lot less than Apple for you.

The only reason Apple, et al., set up "app stores" is to get their pound of flesh.

Oh come on!  The app stores also serve purposes for the consumer and the developer.  There is a great convenience for both that comes with creating a central location to sell/purchase apps.

I'll bet if I sold Apple hardware in my own store, they wouldn't let me take 30% of the $600 for an iPhone.

Of course not, but that's not how you'd sell it anyhow.  They'd sell it to you, the distributor, and then you'd price it pretty much however you like and sell it to the consumer.  The app stores are a different distribution model more like consignment shops.



The only problem I see with the App Store is the fact that developers and consumers have no other (entirely legal) option when it comes to iOS devices.  There is no competition to Apple's 70-30 deal.  If they allowed installing apps from other stores or side-loading like Android does then your entire completely controlled nightmare doesn't exist.  Fine, it would still it exist but what would it matter how bad their store is if no one has to use it?

[steeladept]

I tend to agree with TheQwerty on most of the points made.  However....

Of course not, but that's not how you'd sell it anyhow.  They'd sell it to you, the distributor, and then you'd price it pretty much however you like and sell it to the consumer.  The app stores are a different distribution model more like consignment shops.

Not so.  Apple will not sell it to you at all unless you agree to their marketing terms which include telling you how much you can charge for it, how much you will buy it for, and how you are allowed to market it.

[mouser]

I agree with TheQwerty's point about it providing some value as well.

For me -- the core problem with the App Stores is much more fundamental and foundational, and that is that all of the incentives for such a store push it to favor the money-making applications being sold.  The store makes money when people BUY things.  The author makes money when people BUY things.  The store makes money (like google ads) by selling ads to promote the things you can BUY. But no one makes any money on things that are free.. the store makes no money, the free software authors don't pay for ads, etc.

This means that there is every incentive and a constant financial motivation to promote and encourage commercial applications from companies that will buy ads, and every incentive to make it harder and harder for free software developers to get access and exposure.

In a sense, with the App Stores (much as with google ads), the game is rigged from the start.  Freeware authors are allowed in, but they can never be allowed to displace the profit source that comes from ads and companies selling things.  If free resources ever get within striking distance of impacting the profit from paying companies, additional walls will go up to adjust the scales.  Maybe this means charging for secure certificates, maybe this means excluding apps that don't pass some elaborate evaluation process, etc.

The app stores do provide a service to the end user.. my concern is that there may be a huge risk that once you have an App Store that becomes *THE* gateway that all users use to find and choose software, you have essentially let the big corporations set up a checkpoint that ensures that the big monied developers have preferred access/exposure and that the small indie free authors fall farther into oblivion.

[wraith808]

Is 30% that bad when you consider it means you don't have to set up a store, actually handle credit card fees, or pay for the bandwidth? I'm seriously asking as it doesn't seem that bad to me. I dislike Apple's policies and the corporate attitude they project, but I'm not sure I see this 70-30 split being so outrageous.

It's outrageously high, I think. You do 100% of the work and they take 30%! Why not 5%?

Isn't this where I supply the same argument that was raised in the Kindle vs Nook pricing thread? 

The basic 'rule' of optimal pricing (in a free market) is to "charge what the market will bear."

[steeladept]

Isn't this where I supply the same argument that was raised in the Kindle vs Nook pricing thread? 

Yep.  Pretty much.  Right on target and more or less the implication that the TheQuerty had.

[tomos]

Is 30% that bad when you consider it means you don't have to set up a store, actually handle credit card fees, or pay for the bandwidth? I'm seriously asking as it doesn't seem that bad to me. I dislike Apple's policies and the corporate attitude they project, but I'm not sure I see this 70-30 split being so outrageous.

It's outrageously high, I think. You do 100% of the work and they take 30%! Why not 5%?

if you sell a product directly to a [real] shop, in my experience they usually put minimum 100% on top of your price i.e. a 50-50 split of the retail price.
70-30 is actually 42% on top of your selling price FWIW  [edit] I've no idea how this would normally work with online retailers [/edit]

I'm not trying to defend the system (or Apple :p) just throwing it out there.
Also, of course, what's quoted in the last two posts...

[mouser]

btw for the record i think that 30% is way way too high, and is the kind of mark up that you could only get away with by having a near-monopoly control over access by consumers.

[wraith808]

btw for the record i think that 30% is way way too high, and is the kind of mark up that you could only get away with by having a near-monopoly control over access by consumers.

Isn't that the usual retail model though?  I worked in retail during my college years, and got to know way more than I ever wanted to know about the channel, and tomos hit it close to the mark... the retail markup I've always seen is between 35% and 45% in general.  We're looking at it as if internet sales and marketing is a special case, but really, when you look at it, it isn't.  We pay the same markup for Windows, Office, and all the other software.  It's just that we don't know the details of those deals as well as the details of the App store because those contracts are pretty sacrosanct.

[JavaJones]

Markup in retail was set based on "what the market will bear" vs. their costs of course. Retail sales models have higher costs overall, when you take into account shelf and building space costs, employees, not to mention the intermediaries like the shipper from the factory, etc. Once you have the Apple store system developed and working smoothly, adding 100 or 1000 more products doesn't notably increase costs, try that in a brick and mortar store.

So the rules have changed and stores in the digital world are lower cost *and* can support vastly more product, which benefits Apple as well, but the pricing hasn't necessarily changed. Maybe it just hasn't caught up yet, but I think it's a mistake regardless to justify the price with traditional retail models that no longer apply.

- Oshyan

[zridling]

Once an app store has you locked in to its "buy-here-or-get-out" structure, what's to keep the owner, e.g., Apple, from taking 35, 40, and eventually 50% of your 99 cents? If you protest, what are you going to do -- shut up, take less, and be happy for the privilege of being ripped off.

If you know of an example where a "payments technology company" such as Visa or PayPal ever take less and reduce fees, I'd love to hear it.

[tomos]

Once an app store has you locked in to its "buy-here-or-get-out" structure, what's to keep the owner, e.g., Apple, from taking 35, 40, and eventually 50% of your 99 cents? If you protest, what are you going to do -- shut up, take less, and be happy for the privilege of being ripped off.

true,
that's could be the biggest problem for the developers, and possibly for the users in the end

If you know of an example where a "payments technology company" such as Visa or PayPal ever take less and reduce fees, I'd love to hear it.

when they are in direct competition with other like companies.
Apple is in competition with others but once they get people to buy into the hardware it's back to your first point

[Renegade]

btw for the record i think that 30% is way way too high, and is the kind of mark up that you could only get away with by having a near-monopoly control over access by consumers.

Yes and no. 30% isn't too high if the store is doing some work. The iTunes store does exactly zero work -- it adds zero relative value. It's the ONLY option for consumers. If anything, as pointed out above, it acts to the detriment of consumers. Good software doesn't rise to the top --- good SELLING software rises to the top. i.e. You are charged 30% for the 'privilege' of being admitted to the store. Freeware is admitted because if they didn't, consumers wouldn't buy the iPhone at all.

If someone goes out and gets customers, then 30% is fair, and even low sometimes. The app store doesn't do that. It robs you of 30% for sending you to the bottom of the LOOOOONNNNNGGGG list and scraping 30% off the sales to the 3 people that find you...

For percentages, think of it this way --- I will give anyone out there a 50% commission on sales for getting me customers that I would not otherwise get. It's good for me and you. After all, 100% of nothing (customers that I would not get otherwise) is nothing, where 50% is something.

For other software, 3% could be "high".

There have been cases of paying for customers for freeware, and they have added value.

It's a VERY broad topic, and I think each case needs to be evaluated on its own.

My $0.02 anyways.

[mouser]

What Renegade said is right, but i think it's actually much much worse.

Look around at all these hundreds of shareware listing/cataloging sites, that work hard to make nice websites where you can find and read about software, download it, see update information, read reviews, etc.  And they do this all without charging the software authors or the users.  Why? Because they are making money on the web advertising from the traffic.

It's not to hard to see why these App Store ideas are getting popular.. They have figured out that if they can create a virtual monopoly in terms of being the *only* gateway by which people find and buy and download software, they can charge everyone and make money off of everyone involved in the process. 

It's a goldmine for them, and the more they can set up a system where by users ONLY go to the App Store to get software (or music, etc.) the more they can charge authors for access to the customers, since the authors no longer have any viable alternative.  Then they double their money with advertising and charging people to artificially promote and place their products, and the situation just gets worse and worse for small developers who are at the mercy of the middle man.

It seems like a huge step backward for small artists and developers, who were just starting to throw off the chains of the big record companies, etc. and connect directly with their fans and end users.  Now we seem to be flirting with the idea of going back to a system where the artists and consumers are again separated by a monopolistic middle-man determined to squeeze as much profit and exert as much control, and set up as many ways to jack up profits through advertising and promotion deals as ever.

I know this sounds a bit extreme but the more i think about it the more concerned i get.

It seems essential to me that we support a development platform where the channel for getting music/software is NOT controlled by an organization whose incentive is to make money from this channel.  It means we have to choose a platform (whether it be computer, mobile device, etc.) where there is a concerted effort to not come between and exploit the developers/artists and the users.

By all means let everyone make some money from what they create.  But stay away from anything where someone else is making a profit by setting up roadblocks between you and the people actually creating things for you.

[app103]

Don't forget that despite not coding one line in your app, Apple willingly takes 30% of your profit off the top. That's effing greedy, folks!

As does Google if you sale in their market, and I believe Microsoft said their mobile store would be the same or similar.  Is 30% that bad when you consider it means you don't have to set up a store, actually handle credit card fees, or pay for the bandwidth? I'm seriously asking as it doesn't seem that bad to me.

I dislike Apple's policies and the corporate attitude they project, but I'm not sure I see this 70-30 split being so outrageous.


Now the fact that a developer interested in selling an iOS app to non-jailbreaking users has no other choice but to accept Apple's 70-30 deal is absolutely maddening.

Don't forget there are 2 other issues involved:

1. You can't try before you buy, so there is a risk involved with buying crap and not being able to get your money back.
2. Donationware is not supported.

They only support 2 types of apps, completely free and you are not allowed to ask for donations, and pay up front before you get to try it. There is no room for a donationware model or try before you buy shareware model. Neither one of these makes it easy for them to snatch their 30%, so it's not allowed.

Now, how do you think this will play out when Microsoft starts their own app store for Windows? If they do it the Apple way, then it will hurt freeware, open source, and completely destroy shareware. And the download sites that mouser mentioned, that have worked hard for years to make something useful to users, they will be put out of business. And if you can only install software acquired through the official app store, then what happens to this site and all the coding snacks, NANY submissions, etc? And what about software that comes shrink wrapped, sold through brick & mortar stores?