AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |
Back to Blog
Rcdefaultapp review12/29/2023 My hypothesis for the added restriction is that it might be considered a security hole for an app to just set itself as a handler, for say, http links. ![]() The consequence of this means that if you were to distribute a web browser via the MAS, you will not be able to ask the user to set it as the default web browser. While it's not the end of the world, it's just plain annoying having to remove such a common sense feature. ![]() This is because a function on Yosemite is longer allowed in sandboxed apps but still works fine on 10.9 Speaking of sandboxing, Reeder 2 for Mac (one of the best RSS readers) was forced to remove the option to be set as the default RSS reader from within the app. And that's precisely why Apple requires VAT invoices from Luxembourg-based developers. The reason why most EU developers on the App Stores don't deal with VAT is because the vendor of record is Apple Luxembourg, thus lies outside the scope. If you're selling software, I can recommend FastSpring - it's what the majority of Mac software houses use, it's highly customisable and they've been around for years.įurthermore, if you're UK based and use a non-UK marketplace / reseller, then the revenue you receive from the reseller lies outside the scope of UK VAT and you don't have to do anything Using the likes of PayPal / Stripe is not a good idea because you will be responsible for VAT compliance and with the newly introduced EU legislation, it can be a huge hassle - you need to deal with the MOSS at least. This means you shift all of the responsibility to them and you don't have to deal with it. Indeed you are correct and that's why it's generally simpler to use a service that acts as a reseller - i.e., they are the vendor of record. Now, deciding which way to go is a much, much harder question and I'm afraid there's no easy way to come up with a definitive answer. It's important to consider all aspects, not just raw revenue over a short period of time and make a decision from there - for some apps, the MAS would be the right way, for others - not so much. While you'll probably do less units selling directly, you'll be getting a significantly higher proportion of the sale price. For other types, where you plan to run a sustainable business over many years - I'm not convinced. In my experience, the MAS works great for type of software that's mostly consumable - cheap, disposable, no long term plan to keep it updated. For other types of software, the more disposable ones, convenience plays a much bigger role.Īnd most importantly of all, it will all depend on the particular type of software that you're selling. If you need a tool for your job (the type of software I'm interesting in making), you're not going pass on it just cause you have to enter your credit card. If they needed the software, they would have bought it - whether it's outside or not doesn't matter. I have not seen much supporting data to suggest that the MAS is a net positive if we compare exclusive direct vs exclusive MAS over a long period of time.Īnecdotally, from the data I have on hand (conversations with customers and friends), almost no one discovered their Mac apps from the MAS (there's some bias in my sample, of course). If you want to run a sustainable business, whether the MAS is a net positive becomes a question mark. ![]() You need to consider the value of being able to provide trials (i.e., do not force potential customers to spend money upfront on software that might not fulfil their requirements), discounts for your long term repeat customers, the ability to communicate directly with them and resolve their problems. I think one aspect that gets easily lost in the debate is the long-term impact of having your app on the MAS (exclusively or not). It is absolutely worth it to me as a solo developer to pay Apple their 30% to have them handle fulfillment
0 Comments
Read More
Leave a Reply. |