> Target the largest customer base, so they get 30% of the biggest potential income. That means selling at a low price, because most customers will only pay low prices, and all customers prefer low prices. This teaches customers that software’s average value is low.

Can someone explain to me this logic? It seems faulty. Put it this way: if it were somehow possible to make more money as a developer in the App store, how would removing Apple's 30% cut make it more feasible? Apple and developers have a shared incentive to make as much money as possible, but developers control pricing and who they target. Apple is just along for the ride.

> Build a universal app (iPhone and iPad versions, in the same package) to increase the attractiveness and convenience of owning multiple iOS devices. You’ll earn a “+” in your app’s buy-button on the Store. This teaches customers that supporting multiple devices isn’t something to pay extra for.

This is better, and fairer, than the alternative. My iPad and my iPhone run the same operating system. Why should I pay twice for the same functionality across both of them? If Apple didn't do this people would be writing articles lamenting the fact that they want to make their 30% cut twice.

> Also include an Apple Watch version within the iPhone app. As above.

I would be happy to pay to unlock Apple Watch functionality in apps. I'm not sure that Apple prevents that from happening. But I agree with the author here provided the extra functionality is not simply "notifications" but something meaningful and unique to the watch's hardware.

> Provide regular updates, at no cost; so much so that there’s no mechanism for paid upgrades at all. This teaches customers that they should expect free upgrades for life, no matter how little they paid for the software initially.

There is a mechanism for a paid update, which is to simply state end of life for an app and release a new one (a la Tweetbot). Another way of looking at this is: Apple is encouraging developers to release new apps at full price once they feel that they have something new to launch, OR to use subscription pricing or quasi subscription pricing like Marco does with Overcast.

> Make exactly one sale of an app per person, ever, regardless of the number of devices they own, how often the app has been updated since they last used it, and so on. This also teaches customers that they’re entitled to come back to a free app at any point in the future, no matter how long ago they paid for it.

That seems fair to me as a consumer. If I bought something a year ago and want to re-install it, why shouldn't I? Wouldn't it seem unfair to not be able to use something I paid for?

> Ideally, make exactly one sale of an app per family. This reinforces the commodification of software; it’s to be shared around.

"Ideally" = Apple does not enforce this.

> Sell only through their store, with their distribution mechanism, their product page design and user flow, and their 30% cut — which doesn’t provide for marketing or discovery of any kind beyond searchability, and the very small chance of being featured in some way. The majority of customers probably have no idea that the price they pay for an app is almost 43% higher than the amount the developer will receive, before tax (i.e. that Apple takes 30% off the top).

Which has done more for the security and quality of the software which is available to consumers. (And that's also a reason affluent middle class folks flock to iOS.) And Apple allows search marketing and of course doesn't stop developers from marketing in Google, Bing, on TV, etc. which is where the majority of installs are driven for most app-centric startups I know.