Butterflies are free, so why aren't iPhone apps?

Time's Anita Hamilton wonders why you can't have your iPhone application cake and eat it, too (tip o' the antlers to John Gruber via email).

It's probably been a while since you bought new software.

Is a month and a half a long time?

That's because so many tech firms -- buoyed by ads placed in Web-based applications like the Google Docs word processor and the thousands of apps on Facebook -- can now afford to give their programs away for free. But don't expect the same deal when you're shopping for add-ons to bling out your iPhone.

Right. Well, except for the free ones.

Oh, and the kids aren't saying "bling" anymore. Also out are "rad", "extreme" and doing the Lindy.

On July 11, Apple will launch its hotly anticipated iPhone App Store -- and it'll be anything but a bargain.

Yeah! That paying for things you use and get value out of is for suckers! Next time you're in the grocery store, just stuff a ham down your pants! It's a great way to beat the system and the summer heat!

Sure, customers will get to gorge on hundreds of new games and utilities for their iPhones. But they'll have to pay for many of the goodies they find there.

Indeed! What happened to the Communist paradise of each working to provide for free what he or she is able to make and receiving the like in turn from his or her comrades as was promised us by the great thinkers of the 19th century?

And who put International Socialist Review in the Macalope's Time?

So why can't all iPhone apps be free?

Totally! And what's all this crap the Macalope's been hearing about fair market value?!

Well, quite simply, because people are still willing to pay for them.

Send them to the camps for reeducation!

Apple currently generates most of its revenue from up-front sales -- whether it's for MacBooks, iTunes or iPhones. And the pay approach for mobile games, ringtones and videos has long been used by other tech purveyors like Verizon and Research In Motion, and even third-party app stores like Handango. "It is a historical business model," notes Kevin Burden of ABI Research.

That's probably because Apple is mostly a company that sells products and not services. Hamilton also missed the point that there are several other business models at play here. Google gives applications away to end users and makes its money by ad sales and by selling its back-end solutions to companies. Other vendors give away applications by showing you ads in the software.

Buyers are willing to pony up, though, because of the cachet of the Apple brand.

Um, no. Buyers have been willing to pony up because Apple's products are worth something.

If Apple ever does decide to let all iPhone apps be free, it would be a radical departure from its typical way of doing business. To switch to an ad-supported model, it would have to partner with a company that already has a huge inventory of interactive ads. Google would be the most obvious choice, but the search giant is already poised to be Apple's top rival in the mobile arena once its Android handsets go on sale this fall. Such an alliance might be a little too close for comfort.

Why would Google care? All Google wants to do is put the ad in front of you. That's why they made Android in the first place. That's why they're giving it away. If Apple decided to go with ads, Google would be thrilled to get them on the iPhone. After all, the number of current iPhone users is counted in the millions while the number of current Android users is counted in the, well, zeros.

It still makes little sense for Apple because its customers generally prefer a user experience that isn't crapped up by forcing you to chase an animated bunny (the bunny of real savings at the Larchmont Outlet Mall!) across the screen before you can use an application.

The Macalope keeps hearing from so-called analysts how the future will be ruled by ad-based software services that everyone will love because they'll be "free!" (with ads!). Personally, he thinks you can keep your Buy n Large future. He's happy to pay for a better user experience.

UPDATE: Mr. Gruber, who gets invited to more and better parties than the Macalope does (that's the problem with being elusive), says :

There will be free-but-with-ads apps from the App Store, but the ads will be sold by the developers of the apps.

UPDATE 2: Dan Moren gets more philosophical on the issue.

[texasags]

I just sent an email to Ms. Hamilton explaining that I buy Apple products because they are worth paying for, not for any "cachet".

I also informed her that the developers will determine the price of apps in the App Store, not Apple.

[Alan Quatermain]

Of course, the most obvious point to make (which I assume you left out due to the fact that most multi-celled organisms will have reached the conclusion themselves) is this:

Apple *can't* proclaim that all apps will be free. Because then there would be no way for *independent developers* to sell them.

I mean, *duh*.

How about you ask why all Windows apps aren't free? surely Microsoft can embrace that business model too, by telling everyone who writes Windows software that they must provide their apps for free, because Microsoft makes plenty of money selling the OS, thankyouverymuch.

[Macalope]

Well, Apple controls the store, so it could say, hey, developers, we're doing a subscription-based model instead of a one-time charge. You put the app up, we'll take our monthly cut and you get your substantially smaller monthly cut. Just like most cell phone companies do with ringtones. That system works great for exactly one party involved in the transaction and it's not the end-user and it's not the developer.

[monkyhead]

Why blame Apple for the prices iPhone developers choose to set for their products? Unless you're an ignorant person who has no idea what you're talking about. But then, an ignorant person wouldn't be allowed to write for a major magazine, right?

[odineye]

Apparently Ms. Hamilton assumes "free" is so important to everyone that they all want their user experience sullied by those animated bunnies and dancing aliens. However, "free" when you are being inundated with adds isn't actually free - there may not be an immediate monetary expenditure, but there is a cost.

Some of us ditch cable in favor of iTunes and Netflix, leave Yahoo's webmail in favor of desktop apps like apple's Mail.app, and listen to podcasts instead of radio all to avoid the advertising exposure that goes with those "free" options. And, in a move that is likely mystifying to her, we are willing to *pay* a bit extra to be *free* of the advertising that goes with the "free" options.

Of course, that preference is why I purchase Apple products in the first place. Not "cachet", but quality.

Dancing aliens do not confer an impression of quality.

[Anauel]

It's hilarious to imagine Apple giving away stuff for "free" with a couple of advertisement spots...

I'd have to ask Ms. Hamilton to imagine opening up her new MacBook Pro, setting it up and seeing a billion crapware on your desktop...

Of course that wouldn't happen. I'm certain she hasn't ever unboxed an Apple product.

[xgerrit]

Her argument also assumes an unlimited data plan, where the ads are delivered "for free" (not including your wasted time), but there are a number of carriers worldwide who will be offering limited data plans.

The Facebook comparison is also interesting because: 1) most Facebook apps are valueless to begin with (no one would pay to use them) and 2) the most successful ones work because of the network effect. (as in, the game is only fun to play because your friends are also playing.) 3) there are already plenty of free web apps for the iphone (many of which ARE ad supported.) a native app is a different beast.

[reneritchie]

A little late, and far too involved. Why not just ask her why she doesn't write for free? If developers should give away their work, certainly she should first, right?

[akabaka]

Well this is odd. Apparently Time (which IS ad-supported, like all those web thingamabobs that are given away for FREE) charges something along the lines of $40 for an annual subscription. Is Anita Hamilton aware of this? I bet she's outraged!

[ripragged]

There is no such thing as free. Maybe you can get things without paying cash money, but you will pay; there is value beyond cash in most Apple products. After a workday spent using Dell/XP, all the myriad little frustrations I don't deal with on my Apple-based system at home more than make up for a modest difference in price.

If price is the only priority, it's always possible to get top-of-the-line ten-year-old technology on Ebay.

[dangitman]

Wait, there's a store called "Handango"? Ewwwwww, that's just gross.

Anyway, that's my take-away message from this article.

[GaryPatterson]

Oddly, the local newsagent didn't want me to take the copy of "Time" magazine, even after I carefully explained that because it has advertising, it should be free.

Maybe I should write to this Hamilton person and ask her why her magazine is so hypocritical.

[Felstatsu]

She also conveniently ignores how basically no other phone has any "free" apps that are ad supported. Everything on cell phones costs money, and frankly the iPhone apps are excellent deals compared to some other things I've seen. Sure they may be some for like the Blackberry, but they're likely apps no one in their right mind would even think about paying for (can't say for sure since I'm not that interested in the BB, and therefore don't know what is and isn't available for it), so ad supported becomes their only option for making any money.

Still facts like that are meaningless once someone's already built up a fortress of ignorance like this writer has. Once the fortress is made and the creator is announcing their ignorance to the world with a loud speaker it's too late for any siege by logic to save the person from themselves.

[rwinters42]

I was hoping this was going to be about the other meaning of "free", as opposed to "free beer". Why are iPhone apps prohibited from doing anything cool with the music stored on the phone? It's not about the money, it's about coming to the table late (post-jailbreak), with apps that are able to do less, and cost more to do less.

[trek5500]

And Time wonders why there circulation keeps dropping? Gee, why don't they try giving away their crappy rag because it has all sorts of ads in it?