Nothing is going to change though until the developers band together and jump ship.

I think a site like syncpedia (http://www.syncpedia.com) has good potential as they have a much simpler and affordable system for developers.
But still way too small to be the main listing spot at this point.

But what I find interesting about their model is that developers can list there, sell at the same price, and then if enough developers move over than eventually people can say good riddance to handango.
Check them out.

The below clause in the handango-developer agreement prevents a developer from offering their product at a lower price in another software shop:

“At no time shall the Software’s SRP provided to Publisher be higher than the Software’s SRP provided to other distributors.”

Thus, even if another software store charged developers only a 20% commission (as oppose to Handango’s 50%), the developer can’t pass that 30% savings onto consumers because this clause forbids that!

For example, if another software shop only charged a 20% fee, you would think it could work like this:

XYZ app sells for $19.95 on Handango, Handango gets 50% = $9.95 profit to developer
XYZ app sells for $12.50 on ABCshop, ABCShop gets 20% = $9.95 profit to developer

In the above example, the developer would still make the same $9.95 profit, but the consumer would save $7.50 by buying it though ABCShop!

The only way a developer could sell a product for less would be to NOT sell it through Handango (thus, they are not bound by the clause). But this would be like shooting yourself in the foot because Handango is the biggest shop and provides the highest sales count to developers. So, the developer has to bite the bullet and charge the same price in all software shops

How can another software shop ever be competitive to Handango when the best way to do so (by offering lower prices) is specifically prohibited in Handango’s agreement?

Handango has the right to charge a premium commission if their market position offers developers higher number of sales. But, I feel that this clause is anti-competitive and Handango is using their market dominance to force developers into agreeing to it.

I feel Handango is in effect dictating the prices that consumers pay for mobile software – thats probably why every shop sells the same app for the same price that Handango sells it for.

I feel the FTC and other applicable government agencies should investigate this clause to see if it is violating any anti-trust/anti-competitive laws designed specifically to prohibit monopolies from preventing competition.

Also, because Handango has so many partnerships with cellphone carriers, when a newbie buys a smartphone and selects “purchase software” link, the chances are they are directed to Handango – thus handango gets first sales opportunity for all newbies. Then, after a newbie gets confortable, they will probably try to find a software store that sells apps at a discount, but because of the above clause, there isn’t any. And because all shops charge the same price for the same app, there really isn’t any significant incentive for a user to switch from handango.

However, if someone opened up a new software shop that offered 20% off ALL software, EVERYDAY, then the discounted price offered to consumers for an app would NOT be the developers fault, so Handango couldn’t scold them under this clause.

Such a shop would have a significant chance to compete against Handango because there would finally be a real reason for users to NOT buy from Handango!

I *think* there was also an article somewhere (can’t remember now) about Handango pushing into POS.

Alas, I suspect the end of the line may be near for them. If the whole open phone policy takes off like it should — that means that other companies might have access to the phones and offer a competing service.

Of course maybe that’s why Handango needed another $9million too — because they forsee having to pay more people in order to stay on the phone handsets once they get “deregulated”…

I thought it was bad that the iTunes app store was requesting 30% of all of the developers software sold through them. 50% is just completely unreasonable considering the type of overhead involved in this kind of venture.