While yesterday’s Apple announcements of Microsoft Exchange and ActiveSync support for the iPhone, and the unveiling of a software development kit,
Aliso Viejo mobile developer Marc Maiffret protests that 30 percent of profit on iPhone applications will go straight to Apple’s pockets.
After the iPhone announcements that overloaded Apple’s servers with requests to download the SDK and made iPhone owners begin panting for the mobile applications due in June, we caught up with Marc Maiffret who co-founded eEye Digital Security in Aliso Viejo before leaving recently to become an independent mobile developer.
At first, his reaction to Apple’s news was positive:
“This is going to make the iPhone explode even more than it has. Not just because of the SDK release, but because of the ActiveSync and Exchange release. It is very obvious they made a plan to break down all barriers that keep business users from purchasing an iPhone.”
Maiffret liked the plan so much that, at first, he thought of abandoning his plan to write apps for Windows Mobile phones to instead write for the iPhone.
But, then he heard Apple’s plans to control the distribution of third-party apps: they all go through iTunes — and while developers set their own price, iTunes will automatically get a 30 percent cut of the revenue on each app.
Maiffret called that 30 percent “a developer tax,” “ridiculous” and a “distribution model that is Blackberry’s, except worse.” He said developers should be able to design whatever applications they like, and then sell those to iPhone consumers as they like. He likened the control over distribution to the same beef artists have with how their music is marketed and sold.
“A kid at UC Irvine can’t just make some great software and simply sell it to iPhone users. He has to do it exactly how Apple wants, and that means giving up 30 percent of everything he makes,” Maiffret said.
Still, Maiffret admitted that an iPhone app may sell well enough that a developer’s 70 percent share of revenue could yield more than the money made on a Windows Mobile app. But Maiffret still objects to the iPhone app rules.
“There is also the principle of being a software developer and the idea of a company like Apple (who tries to act so white knight) putting forth a monopolistic policy,” Maiffret said. “It’s good business for Apple, which is why they’re doing it, and nothing more than that.”
Related posts:
- Parallel Kingdom MMORPG coming to iPhone and Android
- A round-up of who’s developing for the iPhone and Android
- iPhone news not enough for O.C. companies to switch
- Will top iPhone web apps benefit from the SDK?
Ever hear of a comb?
Is this the Marc Maiffert fanboi blog or what? How many crappy articles can you post on this guy (with the same crappy picture no less)?
Oddly my CAPCHA this time reads “eduCaTeM3″. There’s a lot of irony here.
I must agree with Mr. Boris, above, that this is appearing to be a fan blog for Marc Maiffret. He has not accomplished much, his former company rode on early reputation for a long time and did little to accomplish much afterwards.
You blogged before about his new mobile app development efforts with the same enthusiasm he had about this great new market segment, which has existed for about 5 years now. A little late to the game?
Advice to someone who never went to UCI: Charge 30% more for your app. If it’s good, people will not complain. Unlike something like Retina, which rarely saw renewals because it bombed so hard, people will pay again and again for good software.
I have no idea who this bonehead is, He might be very talented at writing apps but he has zero business sense.
Real world scenario: Kid at UCI spends a few nights and weekends making a small app for the iPhone. Nothing which changes the world, just a nice little goof which causes one to impulse buy, because it is priced at $1.43; that is $1 net to the kid once Apple has taken its 30% fee.
The numbers of iPhones in use in the US is murky right now, but with every user getting an upgrade to the new v2.0 software at the end of June, plus an expected, new 3G model being released then as well, a number of 4M iPhones in use by the end of Q3 would not be unrealistic.
Now assume one tenth of one percent of those users decide to spend $1.43 and buy the kid’s app. That is $4,000 he gets for his efforts, essentially a goof to see if anyone would buy a labor of love. After that $99 developer’s fee is accounted for, that is $3,901 in beer money (and more) to the kid.
What does that 30% get him?
-Apple marketing his app through its high-visibility site, which means the kid doesn’t have to market himself to get noticed out on the web.
-Apple paying for the bandwidth to market and upload his app to the iPhones in the marketplace.
-Apple will test and verify each app before it allows it to be put on sale, which means buyers will have assurances the app won’t be virus-ridden or shoddy work which will crash their phone; in essence, Apple will vouch for you to a total stranger.
Most college kids I know don’t have the spare cash to front those head-end expenses, especially before they get back the first dollar in sales. Apple will pay monthly, by the way, which is better than the “tip jars” found on some sites, and the developer isn’t faced with chasing down those who downloaded but haven’t paid the shareware fee. The developer likewise doesn’t have to maintain a list of email addresses of purchasers when a update is due: Just update on the Apple site and it will push the update to all purchasers.
So tell me again how this is a bad deal for some kid at UCI…?