241–250 of 292 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
More like don't develop for iPhone or Android. OP seems to be suggesting that developers organize against the de facto app store duopoly. > Google does exactly the same thing
Apple is paying developers nearly $30B a year, that dwarfs all these minor complaints fir most developers.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I'm also not sure the web apps are really competition, when something isn't native I tend to think it sucks and choose something else if possible. Coming from the android world there is a very high bar for a native app for me. I tend to assume the app is garbage if it could have been done just as easily as a web app.
I find this surprising and it makes me wonder if native android apps are just bad? The difference between a native iOS app and a fake app that's really just a wrapped web page is obvious. Native apps are a lot faster. It's possible there is some selection bias here and you only notice the web apps when they're bad, but I really don't think this is the case. Native apps just seem categorically better. If Facebook pour…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They do not stand for any of those things and the fact that you believe it is just another win for their brainwashing machine. They've been known to lick China's boot any time they throw a tantrum ( https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21210678 ). That alone proves they only stand for their own greed.
I think it would be naive to think that their stance is more than a marketing strategy. But it does mean they take a stronger stance on user data than others. They at least have incentives to protect user data so they can bash Google about privacy invasion in their marketing. China and other oppressive regimes tend to be where the marketing gets in conflict with the law and China has a lot of leverage on any major el…
Stop lying to yourself lol.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Slack, renown for horrible app performance, should never be an example in any discussion about underlying architecture. It seems poor performance is a core value at the company.
I think that's a bit unfair to Slack. I've been using it for 5 years now and it's one of the most dependable apps I've ever used. When you consider how many messages and rich content it's handling, I think they are doing a fairly decent job. I wouldn't call it slow either. If anything my biggest beef with slack is sometimes the cross-device syncing isn't perfect. And I'm unable to use it offline at all.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Subscriptions always make sense because it aligns developers costs with customer usage. Small developers were dying trying to support apps forever on one time purchases. Subscriptions enable developers to be compensated for maintaining and upgrading their apps. Trial versions are a bad user experience. Upgrade pricing would be nice, but fir most apps isn’t really necessary since subscriptions solve the same problem i…
I would be much happier paying to upgrade on my own terms than being held hostage every month with subscription fees. Subscriptions add up fast and for most things if the app is good enough now I don't care too much about continuing support.
are there people here making substantial money selling apps (instead of making them)?
A great list. Also: Capping in-app payments (I’m targeting games here) at a certain multiple of cost price, or a fixed amount for free apps, would fix the absurd gaming mechanisms aimed only at extracting more money rather than great gameplay.
It's a bit sad. I feel like mobile gaming is in large part dead because of these stupid pay-to-play games. Back in the early days of the iPhone, even the iPhone games were one-time $2 games (and good for that!), while you had the DS where games were $20+ (often more). Now mobile games of quality are mostly dead.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I wouldn’t read into that tweet because Electron doesn’t even support iOS, so saying they “do not use Electron” is equivalent to saying nothing.
It's native. Or at least it was last I checked, before they did their redesign.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
As a developer, Apple is heavily, heavily pushing us to adopt subscriptions, even for apps where it makes no sense. We get contacted by developer relations folks several times a year, they even dragged us to a seminar to espouse the joys of subscriptions. We do a camera app. All we want is clearly-marked trial versions (not "free apps with in-app purchases", users think that's bait-and-switch and give you 1 star revi…
Subscriptions always make sense because it aligns developers costs with customer usage. Small developers were dying trying to support apps forever on one time purchases. Subscriptions enable developers to be compensated for maintaining and upgrading their apps. Trial versions are a bad user experience. Upgrade pricing would be nice, but fir most apps isn’t really necessary since subscriptions solve the same problem i…
It is another problem of the Apple universe, that applications often stops working some time after no update, because Apple keeps breaking old applications. This is one reason which locks me out of Catalina.
I'm not an app developer, but I am equally frustrated as a user on several of Wil Shipley's key points: 1. Ads for competitors. Sure, show me ads. But don't replace my exact match with an ad that takes up the whole screen. As a user who searches for apps, I find this outrageous. If the App Store was solely an advertising network I would understand. But Apple takes a 30% commission! Get out of my way and let me find w…
Trials would only make sense if the applications were more expensive. My downloadable software gets single digit perentage conversion rates, that wouldn't add up on something that cost a few dollars.