Netflix stops paying the 'Apple tax' on its $853M in annual iOS revenue - <AUTHOR> https://techcrunch.com/2018/12/31/netflix-stops-paying-the-apple-tax-on-its-853m-in-annual-ios-revenue/ <comment><USER2> I find it hard to blame anyone for leaving any store when there has been almost nothing of value added in years and things are even regressing. That 30% should have gone a lot further; after 10 years, I can't even use two different search-and-sort criteria at once to find new apps (and I refuse to sit there and scroll through offensively-bad lists of useless results, much less buy them).

I am however not surprised by the slow rate of new features in stores because there still aren't "tiers" for developers to willingly become early adopters of new store capabilities. When there are millions of apps, why does it make sense to delay _any_ new feature until the infrastructure has grown to provide that feature to _all million apps_?

Clearly there should be a way to roll out enhanced storefronts to a few apps at a time. For example, charge early adopters/beneficiaries for complex new features and don't roll them out to all apps right away (if ever).

And then, developers shouldn't have to sacrifice 30% for features they don't use, either. I'd rather have a tiny percentage as the base to provide _only essential features_ , with infrastructure upgrade options! I should be able to give up some low X% for "basic payment processing and auto-installation on devices", with an option of X+N% to provide "that, plus hosting of app preview videos and several dozen screenshot images", a higher option of X+2N% for "all that, plus an increased chance of being featured", etc.

<comment><USER3> I think more to the point, the 30% cut for Apple isn't justified because the content isn't delivered via the App Store. 30% of in app purchases that are downloaded from the App Store is one thing, but 30% of Netflix fees is crazy when all Apple is doing is hosting the app itself. Apple isn't hosting Netflix's content, why should they get a cut of that?

<comment><USER4> That 30% is unjustifiable. Period. If we're talking cost, the cost of hosting software and payment processor fees are closer to 7-8%, 99% of which are on the payment side.

The cost of Apple's gatekeeping -- their review bureaucracy -- is entirely their own doing and benefits no one. Software can and should be sold directly. There is zero justification for a middleman with digital delivery.

They say it's for consumers which is absolute nonsense when you look at what makes it into the store. Most of it is garbage.

The effect on "real" developers is staggering: Discoverability is virtually non-existent, the review process is time wasting, opaque and capricious. There is constant downward pressure on pricing. Reviews have to be aggressively managed, either by begging users for positive reviews or buying them and risking a ban, since people tend to review when they're pissed off. And _then_ , Apple takes 30% off the top for your trouble.

The 2 million apps (or whatever it is now) boast is laughable. Apart from the expected stuff (browsers, social networks, etc) there is a dearth of worthwhile software. Which is a shame given the capabilities of the platform and its overall utility.

I don't see the US regulating Apple (or any big tech) given the prestige and money coming into the country, so I'm sure status quo will remain. But Apple should really be forced to open up iOS as a platform. And I say that as someone opposed to government intervention.

I will say this, if they ever _close_ macOS as a platform, I'm changing careers and throwing away all of my Apple products. Which would be a shame, since they really are the best in a number of areas.

It's simply a power and money grab. Anyone who says anything else is full of shit.

<comment><USER5> > The cost of Apple's gatekeeping -- their review bureaucracy -- is entirely > their own doing and benefits no one.

That was actually the reason I ditched my Android and switched to an iPhone a few years back. After writing an app for both platforms and seeing how terrifyingly easy it was to get on the Play store ($25 and 4 hours after uploading the apk) vs Apple's more rigorous review process which took close to a month, checked out our company's DUNS number and _actually_ tested/used the app.

Also the cluster hell that is the forced Android permission system and how intrusive the most basic ones are vs. Apple's opt-in "Read contacts? (Yes/No)" while using the app are why I'd never go back.

<comment><USER6> > That was actually the reason I ditched my Android and switched to an iPhone > a few years back. After writing an app for both platforms and seeing how > terrifyingly easy it was to get on the Play store ($25 and 4 hours after > uploading the apk) vs Apple's more rigorous review process which took close > to a month, checked out our company's DUNS number and _actually_ tested/used > the app.

An optional appstore with verifications is one (great) thing, making it mandatory is another. We have the entirery of desktop computers history to know that. That's like saying "I ditched Linux/OSX/Windows because they allowed me to install things not from their package manager/store".

And if what you meant is "I enjoy a well curated app store", well the truth is that apple's store is not well curated at all, that many apps are being abusive anyway especially from the big ones, and that there are several alternative stores for Android if you want one.

I just can't agree with "I want apple to make it impossible for me to be in control of what runs on my device even if they disagree", and I think both stores are absolutely terrible so I don't get the whole "I ditched terrible for execrable".

> Also the cluster hell that is the forced Android permission system and how > intrusive the most basic ones are vs. Apple's opt-in "Read contacts? > (Yes/No)" while using the app are why I'd never go back.

That hasn't been the case for quite some time, apps now ask for granular permissions and they do so when they need it the first time. There are still some holdouts that don't upgrade to the newer api on purpose but that's why google is bumping the minimum api version to publish on the store soon and force those leftover to clean up.

<comment><USER5> > An optional appstore with verifications is one (great) thing, making it > mandatory is another.

Sure, and it's great that Android has side-loading and it would be nice if Apple offered that too without a Mac/Dev License and XCode. But, given the option between the two ecosystems, I continue to choose iOS.

> There are still some holdouts that don't upgrade to the newer api on purpose > but that's why google is bumping the minimum api version to publish on the > store soon

I've heard a similar argument 4+ years ago, this was supposed to be fixed in Lollipop: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8461466](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8461466)

<comment><USER6> No, lolipop offered the new api that allowed to ask for granular permissions, but apps using the older api were still using the old permission system, and the store still allowed to publish apps using the older api (because most phone of the time weren't being updated).

Now (like right now and for the first time) google is making is impossible to publish new apps, or update to existing apps, using the older api.

That's two very different things, "X is deprecated but still there, the new Y is available for those who want it" and "X is removed now, you must use Y".

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> The Apple store seems good for small apps because the "tax" pays for discovery/marketing, distribution, billing & payment, lends credibility to the application, etc. This is especially true for single purchases.

Recurring revenue is a much different proposition— even for small or first time apps. A player like netflix which handles it's own marketing, payment and all other ancilliary services doesn't need to anything the apple store is offering other than distribution. I would understand if apple took $1 or some one time download fee but to regularly claim 30% of Netflix revenue seems like a stretch. While I think apple could make the case that they signed up through iOS, i think it is equally fair for Netflix to disable this option.

<comment><USER8> > The Apple store seems good for small apps

This is simply not true. As a small app developer, I can tell you first hand that Apple only promotes and supports larger apps in the ecosystem. It is the exception, not the rule, when they promote a smaller app.

As a developer, you are on your own on the marketing and discovery front. The billing infrastructure you allude to would be easily replaceable with a dozen or so startups and wouldn't warrant a 30 percent hit that Apple charges.

<comment><USER9> I have to agree with grandparent. You can't scale down international infrastructure like this. The cost per sale for someone managing a store for you has a certain minimum cost per month plus an amount per sale and per return.

Of course they're going to hype the big games. It's opportunity cost. Advertisement leads to sales, but feeding a hype train gets you more. If they stop advertising the hot new game to showcase yours then that person is not getting promoted. The guy who had no problems ignoring your game gets promoted and now everybody answers to them.

Is it awesome? No. Do I like it? Not really. But it's _rational_ , and getting large companies to be rational is often better than you can expect.

<comment><USER10> The fallacy there is that their push to promote big Warner is mostly promoting toxic games that milk and dime users because freemium games is where money is at.

It's no coincidence that on both stores you cannot filter out apps that have in app purchases

<comment><USER10> s/Warner/earners/ sorry

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> The Apple Tax is especially hard on Spotify since Apple launched Apple Music (previously, Spotify passed the 30% on to customers, but $13 vs $10 for similar services doesn't work). Both services are $10 per month. It's well- publicized that Spotify pays out 70% to labels, leaving nothing to run the service.

Full disclosure: I used to work for Spotify. My personal take on the fee was that 2%-3% is the floor (credit card processing), but Apple could charge up to 5% and reasonably justify the value-add without risking price gouging or anti- competitive claims.

<comment><USER12> Spotify stopped allowing subscriptions on iOS a while ago.

<comment><USER11> True. Their choices were that, taking a ~loss on these users, or charging more. All put them at a disadvantage compared to Apple.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> I wonder how much money it costs Apple to handle subscription payments/cancellations for Netflix and other streaming services. I prefer to handle subscription through Apple because cancelling such services is never difficult. I don't know how it is on other countries but cancelling services in the U.S. can be a hellish experience.

Personally, I'd be willing to pay the "Apple Tax" on top of a subscription services' cost for the peace of mind that comes from knowing that cancelling is easy. What a pain it will be when all the other subscription services stop paying the "Apple Tax". I hope Apple comes up with a solution. Clearly their current cut is too much.

<comment><USER14> For many things I'd agree, but to their credit Netflix has always made it trivially easy to cancel. They're one of the few modern IT companies that seem to go out of the way to make joining and leaving fair and easily comprehensible. Now if they'd just make that autoplaying a goddamned option!

<comment><USER15> I was kind of surprised when I canceled my Netflix account. I had a laundry list of complaints I was going to put in the "why are you canceling" box but they never gave me one. Making it easy and painless to cancel is one of the few things they're still doing right.

<comment><USER16> What were your reasons?

<comment><USER17> I also recently canceled and was surprised they didn't ask why. My reason was that the selection of content has changed dramatically. When I first signed up, I could choose a movie that I had in mind. Now, the selection of movies on Netflix streaming is extremely bleak. It's almost entirely TV shows, and about half of it is Netflix-produced. The quality of it is fine, I just don't want TV shows. I want access to the majority of movies ever produced, and would pay much more for such a service.

<comment><USER18> "I want access to the majority of movies ever produced"

Appears that will never happen.

<comment><USER19> This is really unfortunate; when Netflix launched streaming, they had a partnership with Start that had a lot of popular movies, but now you would need to mix and match two or three services to get similar coverage. I've been buying more and more discs lately, because I want to watch something today, and at any time in the future.

I hope, one day, we get compulsory licensing for movies and TV shows, like is available for music -- then we can really watch whatever, as long as it has been digitized.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> Personally I feel like the most ridiculous part about the App Store is Apples so called "developer program". Charging 99€ a Year for a nearly nonexistent service is absurd, especially since they are already taking the 30% cut.

I am a flutter developer myself, so technically I could publish all my apps on iOS and Android with minimal changes. But since Apples developer program would eat up a significant portion of my potential yearly earnings I simply publish only on the Play Store that only charges a modest 25€ one time registration fee.

<comment><USER21> I like the $99/yr bar of entry. That, combined with the more rigid review process, keeps the App Store's average app quality higher than the Play Store's.

<comment><USER22> It makes a lot of apps simply impossible to exist. (Indie dev made an app for themselves catering to a niche, also wanting to put up their app for free.)

This trade off is typically okay for iFolk though.

<comment><USER21> If the market isn't sigficanlty large so that 144 people will pay 99 cents a year for the app (the minimum requirement to cover the developer's cost) than the application is probably not tested and developed to a high enough standard that I want to run it on my cell. I consider my cellphone production hardware, and treat it as such.

<comment><USER22> It might be, but we'll never know. There might not be enough people willing to test a new 1USD app from a hobbyist.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> I've worked on a streaming service that did in-app subscriptions. I've written up my experiences before: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17831188](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17831188)

I wonder if Apple is letting this slide because it's enough money that Netflix would feel sufficiently motivated to spend lots of money to take Apple to court over it. Apple could lose a lot more than a billion a year if the law sides against them, which is a likely outcome. They would have to let everyone pick their payment provider. Everyone from Stripe to Paypal would rush in with better and better payment terms.

Better to keep anyone capable of winning a legal challenge against them happy.

<comment><USER12> Subscriptions I have/had that require an email address/password but allow you to subscribe outside of the store: Hulu, Netflix, PluralSight, STARZ.

Subscriptions that force you to subscribe out of the store: DirecTVNow, ACloudGuru, Amazon Prime Video, Sling, Spotify.

I doubt very seriously that Apple is stopping your app because of a fear of competition but not stopping dozens of other players.

</comment></comment><comment><USER24> At some point iOS feels like a third class platform, because I can't directly buy subscriptions or download my (already paid for externally!) Audible audio books. I think Apple is too arrogant to change this on their own so my only hope is the EU will regulate quasi-monopolies like the app store at some point. At the moment Apple users would benefit from a lot of regulations ranging from freedom of choice in the App Store to right to repair. That's not a good spot to be put in as a customer.

<comment><USER12> The EU forced Apple and Audible's partnership to dissolve.

[https://www.theverge.com/2017/1/19/14323438/apple-audible- ex...](https://www.theverge.com/2017/1/19/14323438/apple-audible-exclusivity- agreement-ended-antitrust-investigation)

<comment><USER24> This is about books sold from iTunes. I'm talking about buying books from your Audible credits in the Audible app. But given this info, the most charitable interpretation would be that Audible stopped selling via Apple all together. A less charitable interpretation would be that Apples guidelines forbid Audible to sell content without Apple getting their cut.

<comment><USER12> You can buy books for both Kindle and Audible from Amazon and use them on the apps without Apple getting a cut.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> Netflix only needs apple for distribution because apple has locked down the system so much that you are forced to go through them. Apple has added very little value and we had better systems before where you could just visit a URL and view content without needing Microsoft for distribution.

<comment><USER12> Netflix could easily stream DRM free H.264 video from their website without needing an app....

<comment><USER26> They don't even need to make them DRM free. There are plenty of DRM options for web-based video.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> As long as we're bitching about the 'apple tax'.... I'll toss out an unrelated-yet-perplexing issue I've had with mac/ios/etc since... 2008?:

Slow app store speed.

It doesn't matter what device I'm on - multiple macbooks, imacs, iphones, ipods, ipads, etc, all running through multiple cable and dsl providers in multiple states over the last decade.

Download speed is abysmal. 30meg app update - why does this take 2-3 minutes on a connection that can get 120Mbps from multiple other sources? I've just never been able to understand how they can stream live video around the world instantly, but grabbing an 8meg update is *ever a > 1 minute process.

12+ devices over a decade, from multiple carriers in multiple states, and always slow speeds. But no doubt other people here will have "all my updates are less than 8 seconds, all the time, for years" anecdotes. :/

<comment><USER28> They should be fast though? They are on Akamai, LimeStone and their own CDN. It was all very late in 2016 /2017, but things has been much better since then. So to have a slow download speed from Apple, unless it is from iCloud Storage ( which is getting better too) shouldn't have been the case as the likely hood fo slow connection from all three CDN are very small..

Apart from Netflix Servers ( Fast.com, I really wish Netflix would make a CDN for others to use ), I think Apple now has one of the best CDN network.

<comment><USER29> they're not, your claims of their CDN quality are based on what exactly? recently tried to download macos mojave(a 5 gig download) and it was EXCRUCIATINGLY slow. Took 12 hours! For reference i downloaded an 80gig game from steam in 4 hours(i live in india and speeds vary quite a bit but it's still a solid connection)

<comment><USER30> That's probably an India-specific issue, which is still annoying and probably just one more reason Apple is not as successful in your market as they'd like to be. The OS downloads always take under an hour in the US, and several minutes for me for at least the last few versions.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER31> Why call it "tax" if it is a fee?

The article shows numbers based on a 30% fee when it explicitly says it is actually 15%.

 _" meaning Apple was making around $700,000 by doing nothing other than allowing Netflix to offer subscriptions in its app"_

It seems a bit unfair also.

I have no horse in this race, but the author seems to have

<comment><USER32> "Apple Tax" is a well defined colloquial term to refer to the markup Apple makes on its products because of their company branding and product reputation. I wouldn't credit the author with inventing this term—rather they are borrowing it for something that is actually more like a tax. When there's a transaction in the Apple domain, Apple levies a tax/fee/toll/duty. This isn't going away, and it's going to be heavy hitters like Netflix which pressure them to change. Let's hope the change takes a form other than an exemption specifically for Netflix.

</comment></comment><comment><USER33> The main reason I find app stores useful is that they are a third party data aggregator. You can see ratings, downloads, reviews and other statistics very easily. That does help me as someone deciding what apps I should download.

That said, Netflix is a company I've grown to trust. I have no reason to look at Netflix's app statistics in the app store. I have no incentive to make personal transactions with Netflix through a third party app store. I simply go to their website, enter my card information, and enjoy their service without thinking about it ever again.

<comment><USER34> Do you really believe the ratings and reviews are useful?

Most of the reviews I've seen are obvious shills, or else useless "works ok" reviews with a 5 star rating

<comment><USER25> I don't think I have ever found the reviews on google play to be useful. I switched to fdroid which has no review or rating system and I dont miss it a bit. I find its usually easier to just open the app and see if it works.

<comment><USER35> I find the reviews helpful, tho I take them with a grain of salt. It's true there's a lot of garbage tho. So many reviews like this:

> 1-star

> Used to be awesome but has a bug I don't like now!

> This app used to be amazing but now I want some feature that it doesn't > have. Rating this 1-star as a way to strong arm the developer into adding my > favorite feature. By the way I'll forget to come back and update this review > should I actually get what I want.

<comment><USER29> Paying customers asking for feature via review is part of the reason why the review system is great. if you just want to make passive income by creating an app that does one thing in one particular way that's fine but you should be upfront about the deal. not being upfront about not providing feature updates or rather extensions should mean a worse review imo

<comment><USER36> No it is not, it incentivize users to leave inaccurate information as a form of making feature requests. An app that is highly useful and crucial to a users work flow, but is missing a certain feature is a 4 star to this user, but some people leave a 1-star to draw attention to the one feature they really want. A user who passionately wants a feature to be implemented _clearly values this app_ more than 1 stars worth. The users who do this are holding the app rating hostage and I find this behavior utterly unethical.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER37> Good on Netflix for getting around the apple tax. I'll admit, I have a MacBook for work, and all my reading and general browsing is on my iPad and iPhone. That being said, I'm saddened by Apple's money grabs (absurd pricing). They don't seem to care about customer trust. The post 2015 MacBooks are horrible IMO, and the AppStore is full of literally garbage. Every app is a bunch of ads and pay to basically unlock anything useful. I don't know what the bar is to be on the AppStore anymore, and I never install anything other than Netflix, Spotify, WSJ, a couple Amazon apps, and some banking and investment apps... basically everything big name.

</comment><comment><USER38> Apple has long allowed content producers to give away an app at no cost on the App Store and then sell subscriptions to access their content through their own website.

>publishers can sell digital subscriptions on their web sites, or can choose to provide free access to existing subscribers. Since Apple is not involved in these transactions, there is no revenue sharing or exchange of customer information with Apple.

[https://mashable.com/2011/02/15/apple-subscription- model/](https://mashable.com/2011/02/15/apple-subscription-model/)

The sticking point in my eyes has been that the free app cannot provide a link to the website where you buy a subscription to the content.

>Apple does require that if a publisher chooses to sell a digital subscription separately outside of the app, that same subscription offer must be made available, at the same price or less, to customers who wish to subscribe from within the app. In addition, publishers may no longer provide links in their apps (to a web site, for example) which allow the customer to purchase content or subscriptions outside of the app.

[https://mashable.com/2011/02/15/apple-subscription- model/](https://mashable.com/2011/02/15/apple-subscription-model/)

</comment><comment><USER39> Why is Apple allowing this?:

"3.1.1 In-App Purchase: If you want to unlock features or functionality within your app, (by way of example: subscriptions, in-game currencies, game levels, access to premium content, or unlocking a full version), you must use in-app purchase. Apps may not use their own mechanisms to unlock content or functionality…"

My app was previously rejected because I had to built in In-App purchasing.

<comment><USER40> You're not allowed to use other payment methods inside your app. You CAN require someone to separately browse to your website and sign up there, and incidentally use that same login in your app. Directly linking to the online payment form from your app is not allowed either.

This is how other apps like e.g. Amazon Kindle work

<comment><USER39> That explains a lot, I was redirecting to the website from a "Subscribe" link in the app. Maybe if I just called the link "Sign up" it would've been a different story. Anyway, I like having the subscription option in the app, it makes it much easier for the user to sign up, without the need to go to the website and fill in the forms.

<comment><USER41> Everyone likes it, it makes subscriptions easier - that's why Apple is actively blocking it.

I'm not sure where exactly the line is though, I remember some stories where apps were rejected because they said something in terms of "You can't subscribe in this app as that would mean Apple gets 30% of your subscription, but you can go to our website and register there".

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER42> Was it a mistake for Apply to set the precedent that they will not take action against large tech firms that do this?

Regardless of what is a 'fair' fee, what happens when the handful of apps that generate the vast majority of revenue move their transactions away from the marketplace?

What is Apple/Google's next move?

<comment><USER43> Apple's next move is to compete by charging reasonable rates, instead of completely unreasonable ones. Netflix is a low chargeback risk, high volume customer and should expect to be paying 1.5-2% for an initial charge and even less for continued payments on the same card. Apple is charging 30% for the first _year_ of payments and 15% after that.

30% is reasonable for an app from an unknown dev where the platform might have to eat a large refund after the dev disappears and the app turns out to have been a scam. charging that same rate to netflix for subscription payments is price gouging, plain and simple.

As the article says, apple was making somewhere on the order of $700k _per day_ off Netflix's transaction fees. For doing basically nothing. Netflix is obviously willing to pay more than basic credit card processing fees for the convenience factor of having in-app billing on iOS, so all apple needs to do to keep that business is to be willing to negotiate.

<comment><USER44> What do you mean, "refund"? Is there a way to request a refund for an app you bought? AFAIK there's no way to "trial" an app...

<comment><USER43> [https://support.apple.com/en-ca/HT204084](https://support.apple.com/en- ca/HT204084)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER36> I'd like to debunk two arguments I hear frequently in defense of Apple's 30% cut:

1\. They created the iPhone hardware and OS platform on which all apps stand on top of. Surely one who builds the most expensive infrastructure on which so many rely on deserve to tax the economic activity they've enabled.

The problem with this argument is that the enablement actually flows in both directions. Remember the last battle between Mac and Windows in the 90s? Mac was the losing horse because "Windows had all the important software". Office was the killer app back then and the Mac version was gimped. All the cool games were on Windows, and hell, during the days of peak Internet Explorer, Mac users could hardly browse the web properly. The tables have turned today, but the past tells a story of how much the software ecosystem contributes to the platform, not software as freeloaders on the platform.

2\. The AppStore is much more secure. Apple's curation protects users from malware much more effectively than Google Play and overall app quality is higher

The issue I have with this argument is one of "who pays for this?" I'd argue the consumer should and has already paid for this via premium prices and the handsome hardware margins of iPhones. This is a benefit that goes directly to the users after all, so they should be (and already are) paying for it, not app developers.

</comment><comment><USER45> World wide product distribution for only 30% is cheap.

I see a lot of Sellers whining, but the Customers love this arrangement. Take a look at iOS satisfaction rate among its users VS the other phone vendors.

<comment><USER3> But Apple doesn't distribute Netflix's content. Netflix does all of that themselves. All Apple does is host a free app. The content is still hosted on Netflix servers.

</comment></comment><comment><USER46> At what point is Apple forced to treat the App Store as a subscription platform, ala Shopify, with flat monthly fees to the developer and a tiny % cut on top the credit card processing fees?

</comment><comment><USER47> Antitrust laws should be modernized to force oligopolies to charge reasonable fee once you became huge platform.

This happened in many European countries where CC fees are less than 1%, where in USA it is 2-3%.

Same as electricity is natural monopoly with somewhat regulated prices, modern platform distort the economy power. It destroys competition and create winner take all market.

Apple fees should be determine be independent body, but I feel they should not be larger than 10% for one-time purchase and 5% for recurring charges.

</comment><comment><USER48> Would Netflix still need to pay Apple 30% of the Netflix app redirected new sign-ups to a netflix.com web page in Safari?

<comment><USER49> I believe it's against the rules to link out from within the app. The best you can do is explain in words that users can't make the purchase in the app, and recommend that they visit the company's web site to complete the purchase.

</comment></comment><comment><USER50>
        meaning Apple was making around $700,000 by doing nothing
        other than allowing Netflix to offer subscriptions

Well, nothing else besides providing single-sign-on and payment processing. It's like whining "MasterCard doesn't do ANYTHING but collect interchange fees!"

<comment><USER51> MasterCard collects a _lot_ less than Apple does. Apple is more like Braintree, adding value on top, but they (IMO) charge too much for what they provide.

It's too bad their lock in effectively prevents alternate means of distribution.

</comment></comment><comment><USER28> That is around 6 - 7 Million of users, their Annual Revenue is roughly $15B, so ~5.6% of its users coming from iOS in App subscription. Not too much of a risk I would say, and Netflix, just like Spotify doesn't want to fund Apple Music / Apple TV development.

</comment><comment><USER52> They dropped in-app subscriptions on Android as well in May 2018. But why?

Unless I'm mistaken, the Google Play Developer Policy allows you to use a different payments provider, such as Stripe, in a case like Netflix or Spotify's:

> Developers […] must use Google Play In-app Billing as the method of payment, > except for the following cases: […] Payment is for digital content that may > be consumed outside of the app itself […]

Source: [https://play.google.com/intl/en/about/monetization- ads/](https://play.google.com/intl/en/about/monetization-ads/)

At least in the past, Skype has been doing exactly that, for example.

</comment><comment><USER53> I'm devaluing this disagreement. Tell me one reason that we at the consumer level should care whether Apple or Netflix win this one? At my level, I see the smartphone market dominated by Apple and Google. If you don't like what those two do then you can't buy a smartphone. They own something like 99.9999% of the market. This is basically super large corporation vs large corporation. Wake me up for the fight to break up the duopoly.

Edit-My comment is on topic. I'm stating that the financial stakeholders literally are not hacker news. But disrupting a duopoly definitely is HN- worthy.

<comment><USER54> This isn't about consumers. This article is about Netflix's business.

Sure, new consumers of the iOS app will have to subscribe in a different way, but this has a minimal impact on users.

<comment><USER53> If Netflix wins then Netflix will have a financial windfall. But very probably there will be a carve out so that a company has to be Netflix-size to gain the benefits.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER55> I'm continually surprised by how few apps and services there are for streamlining and automating as much as possible all of the various app store submission processes. As an app developer--especially in the games market--it seems obvious that you'd want to be in as many stores as possible. But there is clearly a lot of overhead in submitting apps to the long tail of all of the apps stores that are available. It's a high labor cost, especially for new entrants.

</comment><comment><USER56> Worth noting they will continue processing payments through iTunes for customers who did their subscription through iTunes. Apple will not just go to $0 from Netflix overnight.

</comment><comment><USER57> I'm surprised it took them so long to do this. I forget which app it was (maybe Spotify) but I remember them offloading the tax to the consumer by having a 15% higher subscription fee from within iOS. From a consumer standpoint I find the iOS subscription doesn't add any value. Have you tried finding where to cancel subscriptions from within iOS? It's buried under so many menu clicks it's impossible to find without searching the web for help

</comment><comment><USER58> 2019 may be the year the 30% cut officially dies. All in the last few months:

\- Epic Games refused to release Fortnite via the Play Store

\- Valve lowered it's cut from 30% for major publishers to keep them from leaving

\- Epic Games then announced a store with a 12% cut for PC and Android (the latter coming in 2019)

\- Discord followed by announcing a 10% cut

\- Netflix has pulled out of paying Apple's 30% cut

\- There's a pending antitrust case against Apple's Store that has, on procedural grounds, already made it to the Supreme Court

<comment><USER59> I feel like 30% works for one-time purchases between $1-10. Which is what I figure most Apple App Store apps go for. No matter how you cut it you're still going to pay credit card transaction fees. Most of the PC games are likely between $10-60, where 30% makes less sense (the marginal bandwidth, storage, etc isn't that much more expensive).

However, digital platforms like Apple's are a now a lot more mature and have reached a scale where the costs should be coming down. I've been wishing for decades that credit card fees would go down.

</comment></comment><comment><USER60> _(Note, however, that Sensor Tower's figures are based on the App Store's 30 percent cut of transactions. After the first year, Apple's cut on subscription renewals is lowered to 15 percent. That's not being factored in. But it gives you a rough idea of Apple's losses here.)_

Wait, what? They want to make a point by calculating figures which are off by 50%?

</comment><comment><USER61> Many are talking about the steep 30% take which I thought for subscriptions was changed down to 15%, anyways, having a single place and a single bill for my iTunes subscriptions all handled by Apple is fantastic. I much prefer it. But it's a 15 to 30% "tax" and companies are willing to find alternatives. That's fine.

</comment><comment><USER62> Does this mean Netflix is not abiding by App Store rules and will therefore have its app delisted?

</comment><comment><USER63> For those who are focused on the privacy aspect of this issue, perhaps Privacy.com can help?

[https://privacy.com/](https://privacy.com/)

 __Full disclosure: I found it when it was mentioned on another HN thread a couple weeks ago.

</comment><comment><USER64> I hope they pass some of the savings back to iOS customers by lowering their subscription cost.

</comment><comment><USER65> It's ludicrous for Apple to state they somehow increased business for Netflix, because they allowed "sign-up" via iOS. That's like Google claiming they allowed sign-up via chrome, or AT&T claiming they allowed sign up via their Network.

Apple adds ZERO value via the app store, both for devs and for the consumers.

<comment><USER66> What Apple adds is non-zero. As the parent comment points out, Apple offers discovery, billing, and distribution. The App Store is a single (theoretically trusted) place for iOS users to search for apps.

Let's not forget that, at least in theory, Apple curates the App Store. Neither Chrome nor AT&T does that in any substantial way.

Furthermore, Apple's business model is different from Google/Android's. Android can be a loss-leader as long as it draws users to revenue-generating Google services. Last I checked, iOS was one of Apple's primary sources of revenue. In principle (if not practice) Apple's model is based on offering a privacy and security-centric platform. For the privilege of accessing it, you pay developer subscription fees and give Apple a cut of the money you make through your app.

I think it's totally valid to argue what Apple offers is not worth the 15-30% cut. Either way, though, Apple is adding more than zero value.

<comment><USER67> Before Apple came out with the iPhone, the carriers had complete control over the apps on your phone, and their access to the network.

Even initial iterations of the iPhone limited video streaming to WiFi only. Apple blazed the trail enabling millions (billions?) of hours of Netflix viewing. Apple devices are a primary use case motivating my initial Netflix subscription for kids to watch in the car on the iPad.

Further, Apple iOS provides the SDK and APIs to enable Netflix to develop their app in the first place, securely stream their content, etc.

The App Store is the only mechanism that Apple uses to charge companies for exploiting the power of these devices for their own benefit.

It's a lot more than just the seamless experience of installing and running the app. It's the whole stack that forms a cornerstone of how Netflix customers experience the Netflix product.

When was the last time I consumed my Netflix on something that _wasn 't_ an Apple device?? I can't even remember!

<comment><USER68> While carrier app stores were a thing, it was quite common to download apps from other sources before the iPhone. There were Java apps, Windows mobile apps and others.

<comment><USER12> How well do apps do now outside of the Google play store in developed countries?

<comment><USER68> If you include the Amazon App Store, probably very well.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER69> Some good news for share holders getting nervous about holding onto this debt junkie this late in the cycle…

</comment><comment><USER70> The amount of money is just staggering to me. I'll never get the "app economy".

</comment><comment><USER71> What is Apple's cut for apps like Wechat/Uber, is it 15-30% of each transaction ?

<comment><USER72> Uber's transactions aren't digital purchases, so Apple's cut will be 0%.

<comment><USER71> Does Google/Facebook have to pay an Apple cut for ads shown in youtube/fb app.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER73> Slightly OT: Why are the loading times of Apple's Appstore so slow? Do the run this rhing from ARM servers without any CDN or caching? Guess it's just the lack of competition but wait, Google's Play Store loads fast, Sony's Playstation store too.

</comment><comment><USER74> I pay Netflix with discounted iTunes card saving about $1 a month, yay!

</comment><comment><USER75> Wow, 30% for the first payment and then 15% for each renewal? Apple should have custom rates for large volume subscription apps. The fact that they didn't just cost them several million dollars at least.

<comment><USER76> I thought they recently announced they were moving to such a system for large businesses (i.e. Netflix and Spotify), basically to avoid this exact scenario where those business drop the Apple payment platform altogether.

</comment></comment><comment><USER77> Wow, won't be surprised that Apple takes such hefty amount of money by essentially doing nothing. Now iOS's growth is slowing down, I see other big players follow the suit.

</comment><comment><USER78> What happens if Apple bans Netflix and provides a steaming and alternative?

I guess Netflix can sue them, but in the meantime will lose a lot of money.

<comment><USER79> Ban them for what? It's not like Netflix is refusing to pay the tax and keep using a feature.</comment></comment>


Apple at Its Best - <AUTHOR> https://stratechery.com/2017/apple-at-its-best/ <comment><USER2> > As we have seen, when the vector of differentiation shifts, market leaders > tend to fall by the wayside. In the brave new world of AI, Google and Amazon > have the clear edge over Apple.

Many people seem to believe this meme of AI changing everything. I have trouble being excited. It seems like Google Translate has improved a bit over the past few years, but it can't be relied on more than before. Personal assistant fail to understand very simple queries (they're way beyond Wolfram Alpha, which is itself cool but far from awe-inspiring).

It seems that with neural networks and what not, you can get really impressive results from the get-go. But once the low-hanging fruits have been reaped, it's hard to make quantum leaps.

There is also a lot of conflation. Sure Google Maps and Waze really do change things. But that's not AI in the sense that is meant today.

<comment><USER3> To me, the thing that gives the game away is that every time a company talks about "AI" both current and near future in general terms it's blue-sky, the- future-is-robots glorious (not really) automated future. Then when they talk specifics it's "language translation" which is still pretty awful and "image processing" which has been the purview of AI for many many years with no indication it'll be breaking out of that box anytime soon.

Yes I know there's massive advancements in using ML to make things seem more advanced than they are. But at the end of the day consumer AI today is: Language recognition and translation and photo recognition and manipulation. Everything else is snake oil.

So pardon me if I don't start portending Apple's doom because they may have to spend a little more of their untold billions to buy an AI startup to make photo enhancements slightly more cool for the next version of IOS. I don't think there's a game-changing AI breakthrough waiting to happen that the big companies are all going to have to fight for market space with because I can't find any evidence of it anywhere.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> For years I was an Android user, loved them. Now I use two iPhones (one is a corporation phone).

I depend on Google Assistant on both iPhones. Siri is getting better and I sometimes use it, but I find it convenient enough to tap the Google Assistant icon on home screen as hit the hardware home button for Siri.

I expect Apple to continue to invest a ton of money in AI, AR, etc. But, Google has some advantages: when I asked for driving directions to the DMV yesterday Google Assistant immediately warned me they were closed. I worked at Google with the Knowledge Graph, and it with superior AI really is a great competitive advantage.

That said, I am never going back to Android phones; I like iPhones and the integration with my iPad and MacBook is useful.

Best of both worlds.

<comment><USER5> > Google has some advantages [..]

Advantages mainly coming from a far reaching disregard for privacy.

<comment><USER6> Many of them do come from a disregard for privacy. That bothers me, but some people are happy to make that trade-off for better services.

<comment><USER7> I would suggest that MOST people are happy to make that trade off. At least until your personal information is hacked and taken from googles servers.

<comment><USER8> To be fair, practically speaking, it's more likely that your "personal information" will be hacked if it is in your possession vs. when in Google's cloud.

<comment><USER9> In my case, it's not that I don't trust Google's cloud security. It's the unknown third parties they sell my info to's security that bothers me.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> We get these claims with every new release of iPhones, but each time sales are as good or better.

What does worry me a bit about Apple of today vs Apple before Jobs passed away, is that they seem to be to quick to compromise design when they are face with difficult engineering problems.

For example the camera sticking out and the iPhone X screen notch.

<comment><USER11> I don't know where the idea came from that a featureless rectilinear slab is somehow the ideal design for a phone.

Of course people are perfectly welcome to their own opinions, but there's a deeper design principle here to let an object be what it is.

If all you do with a phone is look at it and tap on it then a plain rectangle is very good.

But you also hold the phone up to your head to talk into it and hear the person on the other side. Orientation is important.

It's also probably the best camera you've ever owned, which intrinticly have a lens and depth. Why try to pretend one of the most important aspects of the phone doesn't exist? (There have been some truely great camera designs over the years... how many of those were featureless, symmetrical rectangles? But now we think that's somehow the ideal design??)

And the phone looks back at you, listens to you, and senses your environment. All key features. So why try to sweep those important sensors under the rug? Orientation is important here too, so again you _want_ an orientation, not a symmetric featureless slab.

Sorry to jump on you, but I think your examples aren't good.

<comment><USER12> I see what you're saying, and agree, but the description you give reminds me of this:

[http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_QNmG5af9rFs/R3ypiFV0XaI/AAAAAAAAAu...](http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_QNmG5af9rFs/R3ypiFV0XaI/AAAAAAAAAu4/VOYdzb_GeRY/s400/New+Image2.JPG)

Or, to be a bit less flippant about it:

      * flip phones
      * phones with slideout keyboards
      * blackberries
      * palm pilot stylus

The featureless slab beat all of those for a few important reasons, but probably the most important is aesthetic. Even the iPad Pro, which has a stylus, is much more aesthetic, and so less nerdy, than the old palm stylus.

So I also understand the ambivalence toward deviating from the featureless slab.

<comment><USER13> Isn't kind of weird that what is considered good aesthetic is removal of (visual) features? Why is that considered good looking?

If you take it to its extreme conclusion, the best environment to live in from an aesthetic perspective would be a big white box with each side being made up of a material that changes its hardness based on what you want to do (lie down to sleep and becomes soft, walk on it, becomes hard, sit on a corner and becomes slightly soft on the floor with very soft walls) and all your communication and entertainment is done via floating images that materialize at a comfortable distance from your face so you can talk with your peers, watch videos, holograms and whatever else. Getting outside would have a part of the wall disintegrate (we'd call that a door, for historical reasons), although "outside" would now just be an aesthetically pleasing sea of white featureless cubes.

<comment><USER14> The removal of visual features may make some things more aesthetically appealing, but it also allows the objects to be more easily fit into your particular preferences.

As an example, I have a digital photo frame. It has a large bezel that's silver/grey with black trim. It does not fit well on my desk. I have a minimalist style in my home. Removing that bezel would allow the object to sit on my desk and actually look like it belonged.

On the other hand, my girlfriend's home has a beach/Caribbean thing going on. Most of her photos and art are in wood frames (with an unfinished look). The bezel on this digital frame makes putting it inside a wooden frame of that sort difficult (it would need to be too large, or strategically positioned so you didn't realize it was just a façade).

Reducing the bezel, for her, would allow the frame to be placed inside of a wooden frame that fit her styling much better. The object would not stand out, it would blend into the environment.

My view: A minimalist aesthetic for objects is not desirable because the minimalist aesthetic is desirable. It is desirable because objects of this form are more easily placed inside _any_ environment. An object with an opinionated appearance will stand out unless it fits the rest of your possessions. This may or may not be desirable. But it should be up to the owner of the object whether attention is drawn to it, not up to the creators of the object.

EDIT: Fixed a word or two. This was my 3rd write-up of this because they kept disappearing so I wrote it rather hastily.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> I don't understand the premise that "Google (or anybody) is better at AI".

How can anyone make such an assertion? Because Google or Amazon's AI efforts are more visible? Has someone totaled up all the AI innovation (secret and not) at these companies and scored them? Are we talking PhD head count? What is the measure?

This reminds me of when I was fighting in Baghdad in '04 and everyone back home was arguing about a war happening on Mars or somewhere. They sure as hell weren't arguing about Iraq because nothing they were talking about seemed to have anything to do with the facts on the ground. Facts that were nearly impossible for them to obtain.

This is a narrative not an analysis.

</comment><comment><USER16> There's a quote from doom-sayers that I absolutely love:

> Consider Google's Pixel 2 phone: Driven by AI-based technology, it offers > unprecedented photo-enhancement features and deeper hardware-software > integration, such as real-time language translation when used with Google's > special headphones…The shifting vector of differentiation to AI and agents > does not bode well for Apple…

Basically, Pixel's camera is praised for the same capabilities for which it is dismissed on the iPhone. This will never cease to amaze me

</comment><comment><USER17> It's no wonder important players are rushing to market premium segment prestigious smartphones: Notably, Google's Pixel 2, Samsung S8/Note8, Xiaomi. In 3Q 2017, iphone got 12.5% flat market share with negligible YoY growth and runs to $900B valuations thanks to increased ASP price.

I'm curious why Dell/HP and some others aren't chasing the $1000+ smartphone segment.

<comment><USER18> Because they're not inclined to produce a super expensive phone with Android on it. Apple's business model works because the software makes up where the hardware lacks and give it that premium feel. Depending on how well FUTURE android pans out, consumers usually don't think Android phones should be that expensive.

<comment><USER19> >Apple's business model works because the software makes up where the hardware lacks

Could you clarify? I thought hardware was where Apple had the largest lead over it's competitors.

<comment><USER20> Apple devices have almost always been laughably overpriced for the hardware specs. Android phones are normally more powerful with longer lasting batteries and better cameras. Windows computers are cheaper with more performance and are highly customizable. What Apple has is a great UI and near-seamless interoperability between all their devices. The hardware isn't (historically) incredible, it's the experience and environment that are great.

<comment><USER19> I would agree with that for their computers to a degree, but I was under the impression that their mobile processors are known for how far ahead of the competition they are.

<comment><USER20> Hardware is more than just processor though. They have had less storage, less memory, and worse cameras for many generations. I'd have to do some research into mobile processors specifically, but this is just broad statements. I'm not saying anything about the state of Apple today, but over the past 15+ years. In general, Apple hardware has been worse than their competitors despite costing more.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> Technically speaking, how is Face ID different from previous facial detection security systems?

<comment><USER22> What previous facial detection security systems?

Most face recognition systems i've seen are from movies.

<comment><USER23> Android has had face unlock for ages, but as others commented Apple has different implementation and safer.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> The fact that with this title and date, neither the article nor the comments mention the Paradise Papers surprises me.

<comment><USER25> Did it come as a surprise to you that Apple were aggressively (but technically legally) minimising their tax bill?

<comment><USER24> To me? not really. I didn't say it surprised me that Apple appeared in the papers either.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> > [Apple] has not embraced the open-source and collaborative approach that > Google and Amazon are pioneering in AI

Oh yes? So where can I download the open-source Alpha Go Zero?

<comment><USER18> Also, does anyone know where to download swift's source?

<comment><USER27> [https://github.com/apple/swift](https://github.com/apple/swift)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> I am no expert in technology analysis but I always thought Apple's strength lay in superior hardware and/or software created around them.

In which case, the whole FaceId thing feels a bit of downer. The explanation - "you see how the notification is closed when the screen is off and opens up when you look at it", is at best a nifty trick for people who are more technically oriented. Others might not be able to tell the difference at all.

And on the point of:

" The most attractive customers to Google's advertisers are on the iPhone — just look at how much Google is willing to pay to acquire them — and while Google could in theory convince them to switch by keeping its superior services exclusive, in reality such an approach is untenable."

Isn't this more to do with demographics of an average iPhone user rather than iPhone as a platform? One might argue that both are related but using this as a reason seems kind of superfluous.

<comment><USER29> > Isn't this more to do with demographics of an average iPhone user rather > than iPhone as a platform? One might argue that both are related but using > this as a reason seems kind of superfluous.

Of course they are related. Why does the iPhone have this specific demographic, if not for the platform?

<comment><USER30> iPhone users have been conditioned to pay for stuff, even if it is just $1. They've had a working App Store from day one.

Google screwed the pooch by not having paid apps on huge parts of the world for years. People got so used to side-loading their apps that getting them to pay is an ordeal.

<comment><USER31> The first iPhone didn't have an app store from day one. For a bit, Cydia was the only option for third-party apps.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER32> Apple is notorious for releasing not completely finished "revolutionary" products. They rush for the first release but get the marketing right, then they incrementally polish the product in the following years until it's really good.

I'll probably wait two iteration of the X. And in the meantime if my phone breaks, i'll take the opportunity to experiment with other brands and OS.

PS : anyone knows if ubuntu or sailfish or any other mobile OS is any good ?

<comment><USER7> No. They are not.

</comment></comment><comment><USER33> I almost want one, but the product was accelerated, which means rushed, and that has never been a good thing. I'll let everyone else be a guinea pig. I agree that AI is the future for interfaces so I think this screen size obsession is a distraction from innovation. How many hours has Apple spent to make yet another fragile phone with a battery life that is too short? Now add in the rest of the industry because they just making a slightly worse version of the same thing.

I just got back from Shenzhen where no one is complaining about this. I am certain I laid eyes on over a million (each) battery packs, replacement screens, screen protectors, protective cases, and bluetooth earphones.

So it leaves me with a simple desire for a refreshed iPhone SE with wireless charging and a much better Siri.

One last thing, I picked up a new flip phone for my Dad while I was there. He can't find a decent one at the store anymore, but there are still many new models of candy bar style and flip phones being made and sold so there must still be a lot of people buying them...

<comment><USER34> > but the product was accelerated, which means rushed

Got credible sources for that?

> yet another fragile phone with a battery life that is too short?

My X has been off charge for 6 hours, with reasonable amounts of use, and I'm only down at 50% battery - that's with nothing turned off and at least 3 background GPS tracking things running, btw.</comment></comment>


News.YC leaders board now shows top 100 - <AUTHOR> http://news.ycombinator.com/leaders

<comment><USER2> Just out of curiosity - how many active accounts are there on YC news?

</comment><comment><USER3> What is the rationale for showing the top n instead of everyone?

</comment><comment><USER4> Ironically in a thread discussing how to stop fluff from reaching the front page.</comment>


Will Millennials Get Destroyed During the Next Recession? - <AUTHOR> https://awealthofcommonsense.com/2019/08/will-millennials-get-destroyed-during-the-next-recession/ <comment><USER2> milenials also consume a shitload of sugar every day peing poor and sick will hit them as hard as anyone</comment>


If SaaS Products Sell Themselves, Why Do We Need Sales? - <AUTHOR> http://a16z.com/2014/05/30/selling-saas-products-dont-sell-themselves/ <comment><USER2> One thing I've learned is that the sales process is a continuum. Things that work well in multi-million dollar deals are totally inappropriate in sub 5k deals. The trick is getting the right amount of "touch" for the right types of deals. One way to do this is to segment the salesforce. From there, you can attack different sized opportunities with different levels of engagement and investigation.

Freemium represents this process taken to one logical extreme where you have zero-touch and rely on marketing from the web site and pure virality. Next up might be limited email marketing/sales. Then phone, then phone and outside sales.

At the very high end, you are talking about regional field sales as well as face-to-face visits with your companies leadership up to an including the CEO.

</comment><comment><USER3> There are billions of individuals and millions of small businesses that can be reached without a sales team. If you don't want to do sales, then don't target enterprise customers. I make my living with SaaS products, and have never made a cold call or sent an unsolicited mail about it.

<comment><USER4> Two things have to be taken into account here. Firstly the original post is from the point of a VC, and from the point of view of a VC, not hiring a sales team to actively pursue high value enterprise sales and partnerships in a market amenable to them represents the great evil of limiting traction and leaving money on the table. From the point of view of a micropreneur or small business not trying to win the entire market or go bust trying, it might be taking a massive business risk on something with far less predictable return than ramping up existing marketing spend.

The second is that there are millions of small businesses _which aren 't searching Google for software solutions to certain problems_ and yet are willing to part with cash if somebody shoves the solution in their face.

<comment><USER5> Agreed, small business have they own methods to hack, in a form of authenticity, sincerity or creativity?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> This cannot be over emphasized:

>Your biggest competition isn't just other startups, perpetually licensed on- premise packages, homegrown solutions, or incumbent vendors. It's inertia...the target company's urge to do nothing.

So how do you make enterprises care enough to act?

I've found that as "obvious" as saving money should be as a change agent, in many organizations that doesn't move the needle.

Products that increase revenue usually gets far more attention than money saving products. Competitive leapfrogging / strategic value even more, but that goes to Mark's about understanding and identifying their initiatives.

Would also add: identify their incentives. Make heroes the organization rewards.

<comment><USER7> Totally agree. If you look at your company, where are your "rockstars"? I don't mean rockstar developers; I mean the most ambitious, most well-connected (and highest compensated) people in your company. It's a trick question: they're almost always in sales, marketing or product because these are the parts of the organization that drive profit.

This is true of almost every company. It's not a secret why Salesforce was the first real SaaS success story: companies are a lot more inclined to spend money to make money than to spend money to save money. Growth is the name of the game; cost cutting is usually only a focus once growth is no longer an option.

That's why I groan whenever I see something like yet another IT operations management platform. Would the company be better off buying a software package to manage their IT, or firing all their IT staff and hiring a managed services provider to fill the gap? Operational cost cutting has a lot of different modalities that are often mutually exclusive, while you can more easily chase down multiple paths for revenue generation.

<comment><USER8> Does ServiceNow count as "yet another IT operations management platform"? Do they make you groan because their IT applications business is doing so well? Or because you think they're overhyped and will crash and sputter?

<comment><USER7> Yes, they do. And I groan because it's an idea I've probably heard a thousand times. Companies will have success, but there will likely be another company in 5 years that overtakes them, and another 5 years after that. It's basically a zero sum market where the entrenched vendor's scale is too big to adapt to the new use cases that pop up every 5 years or so, so a new vendor pops up, becomes the entrenched leader, and the cycle repeats.

ServiceNow will likely just get acquired by someone (HP? SAP? Oracle?) and integrated as a module in a massive ERP system. I definitely don't agree with their valuation; they're trading at like a 300 forward PE which is just ridiculous for an enterprise technology vendor in a space as crowded as theirs. They're likely only trading at that level because the analysts are anticipating an acquisition and subsequent bidding war. That doesn't validate the value of their services; just that big enterprise tech vendors are willing to pay a premium to displace their competitors.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> This is a decent article on enterprise/SaaS sales, but no knowledgeable person has ever claimed that a SaaS product can reach its customers without sales.

<comment><USER10> and yet I find that is a commonly held misconception, and that there are many founders who think of sales as a four letter word.

<comment><USER11> Just more evidence that says they aren't knowledgeable: they cannot correctly identify the number of letters in "sales".

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> Why do I get the feeling that there's a joke here with a punchline of "Tarsnap"?

<comment><USER13> Do you still sell in picodollars? :)

<comment><USER12> Yes! And I take in many quadrillions of them!

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> A corollary is that your SaaS product needs to be priced in a way that enables sales (typically >$5K ACV).

<comment><USER15> Could you be more explicit please? I have no idea what's ACV.

<comment><USER16> Annual Contract Value.

The lower your price, the more your product and sales process needs to be self-service, because you can't afford to send a salesperson out for a $1000/yr contract (airfare + hotel + rental car + their time, annnd you're over any possible return, even before including R&D and support costs)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> Who said SaaS products sell themselves? Who said anything sells itself?

<comment><USER18> There exists a continuum of SaaS sales strategies. One end of the spectrum is high-touch sales, which is Oracle's "We send you a sales guy, a supporting engineer, a bunch of Powerpoints, and enough steak and wine to feed a European wedding reception, and afterwards you pay us several million dollars" model. The other end of the spectrum is low-touch sales, where the website/email/product/onboarding tour does the heavy lifting and contact between the customer and the company is, to a greater or lesser degree, seen as a bug to be fixed in a later version.

An entire constellation of decisions about one's company/customers/product/pricing/business model/etc gets determined instantly when you pick your point on this continuum. (Or, equivalently, you get placed on the continuum basically instantly when you make most consequential decisions about a SaaS company/product/etc.)

The reason _this_ article is on _this_ blog is that there is a playbook for high-touch SaaS businesses which is amenable to venture funding and that is not exactly true for low-touch businesses. (There exist a handful of exceptions, but people consider B2B high-touch sales to be a _solved problem_.) Additionally, and more directly responsive to your question, there exists at least one popular and widely listened to corporate voice who quite literally wrote a bestselling book which might as well be subtitled Low-Touch Sales Mean You Don't Have To Take Dirty VC Money.

(Cards on table: My business is mostly on the low-touch end of the spectrum but I work with people all over it. There exists a shedload of money to be made in software and a variety of ways to make it effectively at the traditional points on the spectrum and at emerging points besides.)

<comment><USER19> Interesting how you described the big enterprisey sales experience there.

I have been leading a large-impact project internally where we need a solution that has potential vendors at different places in this spectrum.

Inevitably, the largest and most "enterprisey" companies had what I would consider by far and away the worst sales experiences. Very clearly sales people who are used to dealing with business customers who probably won't have anything to do with the actual product in the day-to-day.

I was given vague salesy answers that clearly intended to skirt around the issues I presented, and they had no issue trying to exert pressure come monthly/quarterly sales quotas. Exploding offers for a large purchase of this nature are simply not appropriate (and certainly not appreciated).

Perhaps my biggest gripe has been with the lack of transparent pricing for any sort of B2B SaaS where you are on the highest tiers, and thus need "custom pricing." I understand some things are variable and need to be custom scoped, but in this case that was only true for some add-on services vs. the core product with volume-based pricing. As a prospective customer, I absolutely loathe these sorts of pricing negotiations. The time wasted on the back-and- forth is also a giant PITA and doesn't win the companies any points. It is always very obvious that their initial price is a high-ball offer, and they expect you to negotiate, which means that they in part are structured/incentivized to make some margin/sales commission by not giving the customer the fairest price they could. This in and of itself starts the relationship off on the wrong foot.

In general, I wish there was a way to choose the type of sales experience I want before beginning the process. If I'm a key decision maker and care more about the actual functionality, UI, integration, etc., I want someone knowledgeable of the technical aspects of the product. Someone who will be upfront on the product's shortcomings (to avoid surprises that result in a pissed-off customer down the road and make the buyer look like an idiot). I also want someone who can communicate with zero sales fluff, and give me fair and transparent pricing. Is that really too much to ask? Apparently so when it comes to enterprise B2B sales. Over the years I've often had the distinct impression that many of the salespeople I've dealt with exist simply to funnel communication between a sales engineer. I get their value if they are out hunting and bringing in their own prospects, but these have all been for inbound leads where I've contacted them.

Also, do all those fluffy buzzword-filled sell sheets and cheesy marketing videos devoid of any meaningful, tangible content actually add value for anyone? I had one sales guy send over an (often unrelated) white paper or marketing video link with every. single. email. I ultimately had to tell him to stop because it wasn't adding any value and was doing more harm than good.

Guess this turned into more of a rant...but if anyone has good solutions for dealing with the above I'm all ears. I've negotiated these kinds of contracts for years, know how the game is played, and play it reasonably well (IMHO). Doesn't make it any less frustrating.

<comment><USER20> the vast majority of potential customers (leads) are a waste of time, for a million different reasons. they want you to invest in the process because that's the only way to signal you are serious.

try doing all of the above, for 12-18 months, and then learning that the customer never intended to go with your solution, but was rather just leading you on to get a price foil for a competitor that he already decided he was going with. you'll be a different kind of angry. a real kind of angry - because there are real consequences and costs, in dollars, and time, to that kind of fuckup. this is very different from a real evaluation, and the only way to avoid that kind of scenario is to get investment from the buyer. a sales organization that runs into that kind of situation with any kind of regularity is dead in the water because they're spending all their time on people who don't want to give them any money.

having said that, what you want in a sales process does exist, it's just that it's usually the smaller, younger, hungrier, less "proven" companies that are willing to withstand the abuse to provide it. it'll all sound great, until it's time to sign the contract, then all of a sudden any of a million reasons to not move forward are produced from thin air, and instead, a larger more established competitor that practices universally disliked sales techniques gets the $ and the validation.

in short, be the change in the world you want to see. next time, buy from a smaller company that puts your career at risk. it's hard to do when you have large budgets because the purchasing process is basically just a giant a cover-your-ass operation.

<comment><USER19> I appreciate your point. But all of those consequences you listed in your example stemmed from the customer trying to get a price out of you for pricing leverage with a competitor.

If the company being used in this regard simply had transparent pricing, they wouldn't have to waste those sales resources in the first place.

I also think in this day and age of anonymous online review sites, Quora, Reddit, etc. that a lot of this pricing information gets out there anyway, NDA's be damned. So it almost seems like a futile battle.

I agree though with your statement on types of companies, and ultimately decided not to continue considering the large established enterprise players and focus more on the smaller, younger companies. There was still pricing negotiation and other sales process challenges, but overall the process was much less painful (still not anywhere approaching enjoyable though).

<comment><USER20> getting to a price is about 1% of the sales process, but it's the only thing the customer _thinks_ he wants, so it's used as a gatekeeper.

also, the companies who don't publish pricing do not _want_ people who are interested in just the price. they're usually selling something that has a lot of intangibles like a custom crafted solutions or quality of service. by reducing their entire sales pitch down to a single number, they're devaluing themselves before they even get a chance to pitch their solution. by not even being willing to communicate with a sales person the details of what you want, you immediately disqualify yourself.

in my opinion it should take about 30 minutes to an hour of your time to be able to get a price out of an enterprise product or service (this includes requirements gathering, specifications, etc on the part of the sales person). anything less, and you're not dealing with a serious buyer. usually this is just one phone call and a follow-up email with specs. in our business that's enough to generate a proposal with a $ amount on it.

<comment><USER19> I think the % of the process that is spent on pricing is highly dependent on the situation and players. In this particular case, I've had some where it was very quick and clear cut, and some where it was very clear they were trying to jerk me around on it to see how much they could get out of me and it took waaay too much time to get to the bottom of that.

I likewise will also agree that there are valid reasons for not publishing the price as a way of better qualifying leads before first sales contact.

That said, that still doesn't justify why pricing can't be transparent and clear cut once the lead is qualified and they are in the sales process. Simply knowing that the initial pricing presented is not final and needs to be negotiated is a giant PITA and still a waste of time. If you claim pricing is such a small piece of it, why then do companies bother with the negotiation piece if the actual amounts might be trivial compared to whether or not they close the deal? Does the psychological benefit of conceding to a lower price (from an already padded initial price) really make that big a difference in close rates?

I agree pricing discussions should not take longer than 30 minutes, but unfortunately, many sales people I've dealt with prefer to play car salesman style games.

Do you have any suggestions on how to approach such conversations to get the best/fair price with a minimum of back-and-forth headaches that can cut through some of what I've described? I've tried a few different approaches with varying success and am always open to others to test out.

<comment><USER20> yeah. tell the sales guy what your budget is, and have him suggest some solutions that will maximize that value for you. you don't have to tell the exact truth here. a good sales person will use that as a starting point and craft a series of further questions and/or discussions for you to hone your needs into a specification that can be delivered.

too many people who usually don't buy things try to play amateur negotiator and refuse to name a number. it's really transparent and frustrating. generally these deals don't go through because the person doing the buying doesn't know what the hell he's doing and he assumes a combative relationship instead of one that tries to solve a problem.

especially when you spend hours crafting a proposal and getting input from sales engineering and executive management and accounting and client delivery, and the first thing that comes out of the customer is sticker shock because the customer refused to state his budget and requirements because he read it in a self help book somewhere.

again, most of these sales 'techniques' really are just designed to not waste anyone's valuable time. buyers will waste their own time and not even realize it because it feels like you're "getting one over" on them when in reality you're just being a moron.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> "The true purpose of sales is to create new value for customers."

Yes. If you're just parroting talking points, you can be replaced by a website. Plus, it's more fun to really help people.

"your biggest competition isn't just other startups, perpetually licensed on- premise packages, homegrown solutions, or incumbent vendors. It's inertia. Enterprise/SaaS salespeople find themselves in a constant battle against the target company's urge to do nothing."

Yes, again. This isn't just a sales problem-- this is a human nature problem. It's just that selling to big companies involves lots of humans, almost all of whom are deeply resistant to change.

<comment><USER22> "Do nothing" understates the challenge here. Every change introduces risk and costs. The process today might be less than optimal but changing it will require hard and soft investment costs and take time and comes at an opportunity cost of doing something else. 1 in 4 projects runs terribly over budget/time etc. So the urge to do nothing is actually "The barrier to implementing change is much higher than simply "hey once implemented this will save you x per year or generate Y per year" How tangible and achievable and risky are those goals.

A good rule of thumb is that as a sales person you want to feel like there is a 4x minimum change vs the cost of your solution. So if your solution is $250,000 a year as a SaaS offering you want the company to believe it will save or generate $1 million a year. Anything under 3x and they'll probably punt because of the risks and opportunity cost of all things change.

<comment><USER21> These are good points. The game theory in enterprise sales is pretty perverse. Buyers want to guard against risk (including lying sales people), so they create more hoops for the vendors to jump through, which increases the cost of sales and makes the project more expensive, which drives the creation of more hoops... I've seen RFP processes from both sides where buyers asked hundreds of questions, vendors responded "optimistically", because that was the only way to get into the next round, and most of the energy on both sides was spent dealing with the buying process instead of the actual problem.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> This reads really interestingly to me. Things like:

 _Then I'd show the sales reps a long list of initiatives they needed to look for in companies_

 _Once the sales and marketing teams have uncovered these initiatives (as well as the critical capabilities that need to be in place for the initiative to be successful), they can begin to define the unique value proposition._

This data is almost never public, so it couldn't be found by just doing your standard research on a company from the outside. The only way you get this kind of stuff is with an access agent.

What this article basically says, without saying it, is that your sales team needs to be Human Intelligence officers out there recruiting individuals from large organizations to be champions for your product.

Nothing new here[1][2]certainly as this is a fantastically useful way to do business, but you had better know how to do it right or you look like an idiot. It also means you really need to hire top notch sales people.

[1][http://www.amazon.com/Work-Like-Spy-Business- Officer/dp/1591...](http://www.amazon.com/Work-Like-Spy-Business- Officer/dp/1591843537) [2}[http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:W6r6dsv...](http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:W6r6dsvp8TQJ:https://www.linkedin.com/today/post/article/20140626110221-20747703-sell- like-a-spy-using-an-access-agent+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&client=firefox-a)

</comment><comment><USER24> In my experience the reality of enterprise purchasing is far more depressing.

If you are a new company with a new product, hoping to sell into the large enterprise market, you're competing with large, well-funded sales teams who's most compelling pitch is that "we're the safe choice." It may not be (and usually isn't) the best or most cost-effective choice. Yet at the end of the day, divisions or agencies making 7+ figure purchases want to feel confident in their purchase. "SAP is a good purchase because Ford/AT&T/Apple (I'm making these up) purchased them and they must know what they're doing."

Enterprise sales is a very tough business. If I were launching a product, I'd probably target small teams first with a lower price-point to bypass the politics and get almost instant purchase approval. There the stakes are lower. Sure, you won't close a $500,000 sale in one fell swoop, but once you establish yourself across a number of teams, you can always change your product lineup and create an enterprise package that has a much higher cost. Obviously a large number of SaaS companies already do this and I have to believe it's the most effective route.

</comment><comment><USER25> Because the products only sell themselves once they are in front of the right decision makers at the right time. Sometimes arranging that takes much foresight, skill & determination (and not a small measure of bull too, if I may be more cynical for a moment!).

Also, SaaS offerings are not new and therefore rare & exciting any more so you are unlikely to be alone in the market - you need your sales+marketing people to compete with everyone else's.

<comment><USER19> What's interesting is when sales people think they can get a leg up on closing the deal by going over your head because they don't think you are a key decision maker or influential enough in the process to worry about.

A couple years ago I had a sales guy at a large ad tech company that shall go unnamed try to go over my head to executive team members. Of course the first thing that happened after that initial contact was that executive coming over and saying "so and so reached out to me...what do you think about them?"

At that point I explained that not only did I not think they offered a great solution, but that it spoke volumes of how they do business if they go behind people's backs like that.

The icing on the cake was when that executive sent an email back to the sales rep, CCed me, and said that he would defer to my expert knowledge of our needs.

Note to any sales reps reading this...just because someone doesn't have an executive-level title, don't for one second think that you might be able to close the deal without their buy-off.

</comment></comment><comment><USER26> "...Because selling an enterprise-wide deal is a lot like getting a bill passed in Congress."

On how the above is done see Netflix original: [http://www.netflix.com/WiMovie/70178217](http://www.netflix.com/WiMovie/70178217)

</comment><comment><USER27> Whoever thinks that is mistaken. Without an active sales strategy your business is a hobby.

</comment><comment> bulte-rs Now, who will do Sales as a Service?

</comment><comment><USER28> Good products don't sell themselves? Somebody should tell Atlassian!

<comment><USER29> Perhaps Atlassian's VP of sales and marketing (now president)? [https://www.linkedin.com/in/jaysimons](https://www.linkedin.com/in/jaysimons)

<comment><USER30> Flattered by the shoutout. Atlassian's model is most definitely focused on empowering customer self-service (and probably a strong counterpoint to the a16z piece). We do believe software can sell itself, and I think there are dozens of examples of other companies that do as well, from Basecamp to Expensify. But we also enter and expand via teams. If we were dependent on selling initially to the whole enterprise, our model probably wouldn't work.

Talk I gave on our model here: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JU1AWD_fue8](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JU1AWD_fue8)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER31> man I just read the article...I'm perplexed as to how I can take this to sell my SaaS product to enterprise customers. It looks very complex and intimidating. Even landing an enterprise customer alone is tough enough.

</comment><comment><USER32> When you wear your sales hat, you almost don't care if what you are selling is useful so long as the prospect satisfies your single condition: 1) has enough money.

Sometimes I wished we eliminated salespeople entirely. I would prefer to have "honest" marketing, and strong customer service.

What I mean by honest marketing is to continually share content with the prospective client, and try to win them over without playing gimmicky mind games and tricks. To do this, you must understand that your client may need to time to understand your product, move away from current solution, etc..

A strong customer service agent would help answer all of customers' concerns once the marketing has gotten them interested.

<comment><USER33> _A strong customer service agent would help answer all of customers ' concerns once the marketing has gotten them interested_

Often that "strong customer service agent" is a salesperson.</comment></comment>


Advanced R Progamming by Hadley Wickham - <AUTHOR> http://adv-r.had.co.nz/Introduction.html <comment><AUTHOR> This book-in-progress has the best explanations of the syntax of R that I have seen. For example:

\- R has no scalar, or 0-dimensional, types. All scalars (single numbers or strings) are length-one vectors ([http://adv-r.had.co.nz/Data- structures.html](http://adv-r.had.co.nz/Data-structures.html)).

\- For example, library() and require() allow you to call them either with or without quotes, because internally they use deparse(substitute(x)) plus a couple of tricks ([http://adv-r.had.co.nz/Computing-on-the- language.html](http://adv-r.had.co.nz/Computing-on-the-language.html)).

\- The various R OO Systems are described, compared and contrasted ([http://adv-r.had.co.nz/OO-essentials.html](http://adv-r.had.co.nz/OO- essentials.html)).

Excellent book.</comment>


The Royal We: Single Founder Startups - <AUTHOR> http://ginzametrics.com/the-royal-we-single-founder-startups.html

<comment><USER2> I think that the (increasing but by no means new) viability of single-founder startups is an inevitable consequence of the environment for all startups continuing to get radically better. If two guys could make non-trivial web services back when making a web service started with, quite literally, programming your own HTTP server since you didn't have a hundred thousand to buy one, that implies very good things for a "team" which has a decade and change of OSS to lean on.

In addition to OSS, the huge existing distribution channels like organic SEO, AdWords, and all those things you cool people use are also a major draw. Infrastructure has improved by orders of magnitude. APIs and snap-in services are getting better all the time -- ten years ago, payment processing was a multi-week endeavor, now you can do voice calls in about ten minutes of work. Scaling is... is solved too strong a word? There has been huge diffusion of the black magic of how to setup and architect things, both in the n-tier server architecture sense of the word and in the "here's how you get capital without slicing open chicken entrails" and "here's how you get users" senses of the word.

It is a great time to be alive.

<comment><USER3> There's always been progress! It's true that one person can do a lot with all those new tools, but two people can do more.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> I have always found the claim that single-founder startups are imperiled at odds with actually-existing reality; there have always been _tons_ of successful companies started and carried to fruition by highly motivated individuals. Individuals have been starting their own businesses since the very dawn of entrepreneurship. I don't know where the conventional wisdom that it's a bad idea ever came from. I see no basis for it other than in someone's thought experiment.

<comment><USER5> If you define a cofounder as someone who would continue the startup alone, two provide redundancy.

On the other hand, if you're overly emphatic about the peril of going it alone, then if one of two cofounders leaves, the remaining one won't want to continue.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> What about Larry Page and Sergey Brin? Or Steve Jobs and Steve Wozniak?

Motivation, more workers, and new ideas are all valuable contributions, but I feel like you might have missed the biggest benefit of all.

Co-founders can be good at the things you, personally, can't do. This is most visible in the business/technical co-founder division, but it can generalize to all kinds of tasks. If you're terrific at engineering large-scale filesystems (or whatever), but you can't build a web interface (or whatever), you might really need a technical co-founder with a different skill set. Every day or so, my co-founder cranks out something that would have taken me a week or more in a few hours.

Don't underestimate the value of teaming up with someone who's as good as you are at different things!

<comment><USER7> What about Jeff Bezos, Pierre Omidyar, or hell, Ray Kroc? No one is saying that it is not advantageous to team up, just that you cannot discount single founder successes.

<comment><USER8> Didn't Bezos start with a team? I think we need to distinguish between "one- founder" and "one-man" startups.

Speaking as a one-man startup, I think the problem is worse than skills-sets, and worse than the costs of switching between tasks; it's also values - not in terms of ethics, but in terms of where your attention goes. eg. attention to detail vs. big picture; the product vs. the market; the solution vs. the problem. One person definitely can do it all (and it's getting easier) but it's more than twice as hard as having two people.

However, whether it's easier or harder for two people is less important than whether it is easy _enough_ for one particular person to do it.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> _"In my case, my wife helps me get through. In many ways, although she is not technically a co-founder, she helps with a ton of admin work and, more importantly, has helped me stay positive. She has been as much a part of this startup as I have, and has suffered through the same things."_

I'm curious about the line between co-founder on paper and the role a spouse or significant other plays? A spouse in this position is clearly contributing to the success and viability of the "single-founder" venture. If the spouse is not there to help this would increase the workload and the founder would have to seek out someone else for emotional support. The shared risk is there as well as the shared hardship. If the founder can say that their spouse has been as much a part of the start-up as they have, then how they not a co-founder?

They may not be a founder on paper, but especially in light of how assets are split during a divorce it seems the reality shows that they do have a stake in the business's earnings.

</comment><comment><USER10> "#3 (a richer source of new ideas) may be even more important than #1 (emotional support)"

As a single founder, I don't agree with that. Once I passed a few hundred signups, I found that people were willing to write in and tell me what they liked and didn't like about my service. Now, I find myself with a list of things to get done because that's what my customers want (not to mention what I personally want). Like the author, I "never feel at a loss for ideas (and have more than I know what to do with)".

Emotional support, however, is hard because it's not something you can take care of on your own; until you have people validating your work as worthwhile, it can be difficult to believe in yourself.

I think that "two (or more) heads are better than one" for _solving_ issues, whether they be technical or with regard to how an idea should be executed.

Otherwise, nice essay (although I was hoping for a discussion on why single founders use "we" in their text instead of "I").

<comment><USER11> _I was hoping for a discussion on why single founders use "we" in their text instead of "I"_

As was I. My own thoughts are that "I" sounds unnatural when you're talking about a non-human entity like a corporation. Somehow, "we" does not. When I say "I launched a product", I feel like it means that I, the person did it. When I say "We launched a product", it means the company did it, even if it's just me. "We" _might_ be more than me (or not me at all!) in the future but I will always be just me.

<comment><USER12> I think it's more 'we' is used when it's 'we' the team need to do stuff.

And when it's launched it's looked what 'I' did.

Cynical? Moi? Never ;)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> I'd be most interested to see a response from pg regarding this post.

<comment><USER14> I'm guessing that YC's existence as a seed fund has a lot to do with it. How do you sell a company that is essentially a one-man shop? If I were buying a company, I'd want to see that it's leader(s) are team players.

<comment><USER15> As the article says, you can draw other people to the company as soon as you can afford it. There you can demonstrate that you are a team player (and a team leader).

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> Nice essay. I agree with pretty much all of it.

It's rare for good engineers to have an entrepreneurial/business mind - thinking about, and being aware of, the business world outside of code (business strategy); understanding people (sales/marketing/team leadership, when there is a team). These kinds of engineers are amazing!! :)

</comment><comment><USER17> Popular opinion may be that you need a co-founder; but once advice is doled out, its not necessarily relevant any longer. It's getting easier and easier to get started on your own; and you can avoid all of the friction that comes along with sharing a company with another owner.

</comment><comment><USER18> Even among more traditional businesses, you see more than one founder being the norm.

For example, in a retail or fast food establishment, one person will usually handle the operations side and the other will handle the business side.

I really don't think a startup is really a startup if you don't have anybody working with or for you. That's also legally reflected in the difference between a sole-proprietorship and C/S corps.

<comment><USER19> i agree with your point, but you can have a one person S corp...</comment></comment>