..users have downloaded more than 60 million programs for the iPhone, Chief Executive Steve Jobs said in an interview at Apple's headquarters. While most of those applications were free, Apple sold an average of $1 million a day in applications for a total of about $30 million in sales over the month, Mr. Jobs said.60 million downloads in 30 days is an outstanding number even if the majority of those applications were free. Many of those downloads were presumably people seeing an application on the store, downloading it, playing with it for a minute or two, and then removing it from their phone. I know I have gone through this process my own many times. Even more impressive is that people (who just spent $199 or $299 on a phone and $60+/mo for service) are spending $1 million per day on paid software.
[A QUICK SIDE NOTE: Now that these figures are public I would expect to see even more pointless applications being released at the $.99 price point. It is very apparent that people are more than happy to spend that for an application that will provide even as little as 5-10 minutes of entertainment. Unfortunately this won't help the App Store's growing reputation as the "Crap Store".]
Of the $30 million in revenue, about $9 million of that makes its way to Apple. This is just about enough to run the store at its break even point. This is where Apple is able to differentiate itself from competitors on the music side. Many online music stores are in business to make money (duh), but Apple doesn't run the iTunes Store for that reason. It runs the iTunes Store to sell more profitable iPods and iPhones (of course making a little money on the side doesn't hurt).
Mr. Jobs said developers' share of iPhone application sales in the first month was about $21 million, of which the top 10 developers earned roughly $9 million.Let's break down these numbers. The article previously stated that in the first 20 days Super Monkey Ball received about 300,000 downloads. Let's assume that in 10 more days it received another 50,000 downloads (this number might be a bit conservative, but all I can do is guess). So 350,000 downloads at $9.99 a piece means about $3.5 million in revenue, of which Sega received 70%.
So in 30 days Super Monkey Ball made about $2.447 million. Apple didn't state that the top 10 applications made $9 million, however. They stated that the top 10 developers made that amount. Sega also sells SEGA Columns Deluxe on the App Store for $4.99. This application does not appear on Apple's "Top 100 Paid Apps" list so it's difficult to even take a guess at how much additional revenue this has brought in for Sega.
One can probably assume that Sega is the top developer on that list (why else would Apple keep touting their numbers? Publicize the most popular, right?) which means 9 developers made somewhere in the ballpark of $6.5 million. Apple is also probably near the top of that list. Their Hold 'Em game has been near the top of the paid apps list since the store was opened.
Even so, there is a lot of money to be made on the App Store and these numbers will only continue to grow at an even more rapid rate as the iPhone and iPod touch continue to sell.
Apple needs to put down a specific set of guidelines as to what is and isn't acceptable on the App Store. Making too many "judgment calls" after you have already let an app onto the store leaves users with a sour taste in their mouths. Apple needs to let users speak with their wallets on whether or not an application is worth paying for. There was no malicious code inside I Am Rich. There was no porn, no bandwidth hogging content. It is not Apple's place to decide what we should and should not download (outside of malicious, illegal, etc.). Even if it's crap, put it on the store and let us decide on our own.
The company recently removed an application called I Am Rich that did nothing but display a glowing red gem, for the eye-popping sum of $999.99. The programmer who created it, Armin Heinrich, says he thought he was abiding by Apple's rules for its developers. An Apple spokeswoman said Apple made a "judgment call" to remove I Am Rich.
Mr. Jobs confirmed such a capability exists, but argued that Apple needs it in case it inadvertently allows a malicious program -- one that stole users' personal data, for example -- to be distributed to iPhones through the App Store. "Hopefully we never have to pull that lever, but we would be irresponsible not to have a lever like that to pull," he says.This quote could be written about in a completely separate article, but I am curious as to what readers think. My take is that Apple doesn't have this type of "kill switch" for Mac software which could presumably cause even more harm (I would argue that more sensitive data is stored on computers than on phones). If Jobs is saying it would be "irresponsible" not to have a lever like that for the phone, is it not equally irresponsible to not have that type of switch for the Mac? Could this be where Apple is headed? I certainly hope not.
It should be the users responsibility to protect their personal information, not Apple's. In the Mac software world there would be a quick and immediate outcry and condemnation of any software developer that released a piece of malware that compromised users personal data. Why can't that same accountability on behalf of the software community be expected on the mobile side?
What do readers think? Am I not thinking this through entirely? Am I expecting too much / too little?
Posts
4 comments:
"If Jobs is saying it would be "irresponsible" not to have a lever like that for the phone, is it not equally irresponsible to not have that type of switch for the Mac?"
No.
The difference is, Apple has to act responsibly with regard to a third party, the Telecom, in the case of the iPhone.
The difference is, Telecoms have veto power on the Apps installed on other Smart Phones. They surrendered that ability to Apple. With ability goes responsibility.
I don't argue your point, that the iPhone software scenario and Mac software scenario are different. What I wonder is if Apple will use the fact that they have a "kill switch" for iPhone as leverage to create something similar for the Mac.
Thanks for the comment.
I think the two are different. For the smartphone, although it wasn't first, Apple is heralding a new way (mobile data/Internet) for the mainstream consumer. As the recognized pioneer (to the mainstream), with a "culture" yet to be established, Apple has decided to do all it can to not let the iPhone meet the fate of computers. (Others were first to smartphones to the business world.)
In the computer world, the culture was established by the dominant Windows. Mac does its best just to be viable in that world.
New ideas and new methods of doing business are an excellent thing, and I applaud Apple for being willing to do something different (although doesn't Nokia have a similar setup where Apps have to be "authorized"?).
My fear is that Apple will turn around and say, "Look how well this formula worked for the iPhone and our mobile platform. It works even better than what we're doing on the desktop side, so we're going to start doing it there too." People will get used to it on the mobile side and then be forced to accept it on the desktop side in the future.
The distribution method is easy, simple, and clean for sure. So keep the distribution method (through the App store) but let us as users deal with the consequences of what we install (given that Apple will have already reviewed it once to allow it on the store in the first place).
Post a Comment