> In three months, the App Store sent me barely a trickle of customers. Had I marketed the app myself, the traffic would have flowed the other way. I would've been sending my customers to Apple and paying a tax for the privilege.
This is a key insight: In marketing your App Store app, you work for Apple, for free.
The $99 yearly fee stays the same though, if you want them to notarize your app. But in self distributing you get to keep your customer relationships.
> If the App Store delivers on its promise of discoverability, that should be enough to see some kind of traffic…right?
As a consumer, I’ve never seen the App Store on iOS or macOS provide discoverability for anything other than apps that are already popular among millions or billions of people. If a developer or company gets their app downloads surging by their own effort, then it could get the attention of the “app store editors” to be featured in some pointless and useless listicle.
If this had been an iOS app, with the half screen ads on the iOS App Store (such an insipid and rapacious move, Tim Cook and John Ternus), there is no way the app would be seen even if someone searched for it by name. I wouldn’t be surprised if the Mac App Store has or will have half page ads either.
Apple under Tim Cook is a company looking to extract every possible penny. If an app is somehow discoverable, it would only be because it has subscriptions that give Apple a constant stream of revenue.
I never thought I’d compare Meta and Apple on the same lines, but here it is. Just like how Meta turns a blind eye towards things that bring money, Apple does the same with the App Store and scammy apps that rob people.
> If discoverability isn't a part of the App Store deal, what exactly is the benefit?
The only benefit is a single click (or two click) installation for the crowd that has never downloaded and installed anything before. There is no other benefit for the consumer, and there’s every possible downside for the developer.
I don’t buy things from the Mac App Store if there is an option to buy directly from the developer (which usually has a lower price, better support and sometimes better offers too).
As a user of Apple devices, I can’t wait for side loading to be forced by regulators worldwide on devices where it’s not possible now. (I’m not interested in Android)
Ok so you put your app on the internet, did no marketing and expected it to blow up. Can’t see where Apple went wrong here. Discoverability does not mean equality of exposure.
I exclusively default to homebrew when looking for software now.
If it’s not available on homebrew I prefer manual install from git > the developer’s website > going to the app store.
It can demoralizing for developers to realize that they've built something that nobody is interested in, either because potential users are happy with what's built into the OS, or are happy with FOSS solutions that are better than what they've built (e.g. Pika: https://superhighfives.com/pika).
It also doesn't help that simple utilities like this can now be roughed out in a day with AI.
You released on May 18th only in the Mac app store with no other marketing and decided to withdraw on August 7th, i.e. less than 3 months later. What were you honestly expecting to happen? Did you really think that there was some pent-up unmet demand for your app? What compelling advantage(s) did it offer? Who did you think would be looking for it and how did you think they might evaluate options?
> In three months, the App Store sent me barely a trickle of customers. Had I marketed the app myself, the traffic would have flowed the other way. I would've been sending my customers to Apple and paying a tax for the privilege.
This is a key insight: In marketing your App Store app, you work for Apple, for free.
The $99 yearly fee stays the same though, if you want them to notarize your app. But in self distributing you get to keep your customer relationships.
> If the App Store delivers on its promise of discoverability, that should be enough to see some kind of traffic…right?
As a consumer, I’ve never seen the App Store on iOS or macOS provide discoverability for anything other than apps that are already popular among millions or billions of people. If a developer or company gets their app downloads surging by their own effort, then it could get the attention of the “app store editors” to be featured in some pointless and useless listicle.
If this had been an iOS app, with the half screen ads on the iOS App Store (such an insipid and rapacious move, Tim Cook and John Ternus), there is no way the app would be seen even if someone searched for it by name. I wouldn’t be surprised if the Mac App Store has or will have half page ads either.
Apple under Tim Cook is a company looking to extract every possible penny. If an app is somehow discoverable, it would only be because it has subscriptions that give Apple a constant stream of revenue.
I never thought I’d compare Meta and Apple on the same lines, but here it is. Just like how Meta turns a blind eye towards things that bring money, Apple does the same with the App Store and scammy apps that rob people.
> If discoverability isn't a part of the App Store deal, what exactly is the benefit?
The only benefit is a single click (or two click) installation for the crowd that has never downloaded and installed anything before. There is no other benefit for the consumer, and there’s every possible downside for the developer.
I don’t buy things from the Mac App Store if there is an option to buy directly from the developer (which usually has a lower price, better support and sometimes better offers too).
As a user of Apple devices, I can’t wait for side loading to be forced by regulators worldwide on devices where it’s not possible now. (I’m not interested in Android)
Maybe a color picker app just isn’t enough to get downloads in 2026. I’m not sure what Apple is supposed to do there.
Ok so you put your app on the internet, did no marketing and expected it to blow up. Can’t see where Apple went wrong here. Discoverability does not mean equality of exposure.
> and expected it to blow up
This wasn't what the experiment was about at all.
Then what’s the 30% cut for?
The MAS is a dead end. Nobody I know uses it due to how locked down and weird it is.
Release it on homebrew or as standalone .dmg and it'll find new life.
I exclusively default to homebrew when looking for software now. If it’s not available on homebrew I prefer manual install from git > the developer’s website > going to the app store.
It can demoralizing for developers to realize that they've built something that nobody is interested in, either because potential users are happy with what's built into the OS, or are happy with FOSS solutions that are better than what they've built (e.g. Pika: https://superhighfives.com/pika).
It also doesn't help that simple utilities like this can now be roughed out in a day with AI.
OK so you built a small utility app in a crowded space- see:
https://setapp.com/lifestyle/best-color-picker https://alternativeto.net/software/instant-eyedropper/?platf... etc.
You released on May 18th only in the Mac app store with no other marketing and decided to withdraw on August 7th, i.e. less than 3 months later. What were you honestly expecting to happen? Did you really think that there was some pent-up unmet demand for your app? What compelling advantage(s) did it offer? Who did you think would be looking for it and how did you think they might evaluate options?
Not to mention it’s built into the OS: https://support.apple.com/en-au/guide/digital-color-meter/we...
The app does way more than the built-in color picker.
LOL
The post explains the experiment clearly. I wanted confirmation and got it.
I'm using a mac for work, and coming from Linux I'm pleasantly surprised by how great homebrew is. It really makes the the experience a lot better
You can also use homebrew on Linux - obviously not for casks
Well... that's the story from the music world as well.