This post should’ve been a tweet instead.
Marco likes to complain. This is why Apple needs to be cold to developers, they're already on its head, and even more so if they pay attention.
Apple-Developer Relations
141–150 of 275 posts
Re: Apple-Developer Relations
#142Earlier quoted context omitted.
What does Apple do that is analogous to destroying competitors’ property?
Apple isn't a competitor in this analogy, they're the government. They own every piece of land and decide how to use it, and also how many burgers they want to sell you.
That’s a weird analogy, since you get to choose which “government” to be a part of, and they’re only chosen by 45% of the United States and 17% of the world.
Re: Apple-Developer Relations
#143Earlier quoted context omitted.
Apple isn't a competitor in this analogy, they're the government. They own every piece of land and decide how to use it, and also how many burgers they want to sell you.
That’s a weird analogy, since you get to choose which “government” to be a part of, and they’re only chosen by 45% of the United States and 17% of the world.
It's your lopsided analogy, since Apple isn't analogous to a restaurant in the first place. My point is that Apple holds a lot more power than you give them credit for.
Re: Apple-Developer Relations
#144Earlier quoted context omitted.
Then one would be making an argument using an analogy that is quite obviously not actually analagous at all. The more correct analogy is a McDonald's franchise that actively uses every method at their disposal to prevent other fast food restaurants from opening near where you live.
In what way does Apple do that?
I have a feeling this is a facetious question, but:
Take a look at the history of Apple's efforts to block jailbreaking in combination with the AppStore rules that disallow 3rd party app stores. It is quite clear that Apple has use multiple methods to successfully fighr off the arisal of any alternative stores.
Apple openly admits to doing this, it really isn't a controversial claim.
Re: Apple-Developer Relations
#145Earlier quoted context omitted.
I also "don’t want government committees dictating the security model", but IMHO it's a big leap from that to advocating against consumer choice within a general purpose product.
Why is it a big leap? Consumers also choose to buy Apple and the assumption is we're too stupid to know we can buy something else and do more with it. It's just as big an insult. If I can't get your app on iOS then I just won't use your app. I don't care if it's on Android because I didn't buy an iPhone to use your specific app. If you want to legislate for consumer choice do so but can we stop pretending this is som…
We agree that, properly empowered, consumers will make the best choice for themselves.
We disagree about what constitutes "properly empowered".
Re: Apple-Developer Relations
#146"The “way” is already paid by the hardware — but Apple uses their position of power to double-dip." I understand the optics of this don't look good, but is it wrong to have multiple sources of revenue derived from the "way"? 1. what happens if supply chain dynamics and smartphone market competition negatively impact the hardware margins? What happens when consumer appetite for innovation in the phone stagnates and ma…
If the optics of it don't look good, there's a very good chance that it isn't good.
Optics is just another word for propaganda in this case. The optics just come down to who is able to "control the narrative".
Re: Apple-Developer Relations
#147Earlier quoted context omitted.
If the optics of it don't look good, there's a very good chance that it isn't good.
If you read my argument I'm saying the optics don't look good because the margins on phones are high AND they are taking platform fees on top of that. As the margins on phones decrease in the future, the optics won't look as bad.
So basically in your opinion businesses making a lot of money makes for bad optics.
Re: Apple-Developer Relations
#148Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you read my argument I'm saying the optics don't look good because the margins on phones are high AND they are taking platform fees on top of that. As the margins on phones decrease in the future, the optics won't look as bad.
That's not an excuse for them to be driving such insane margins then. Plus, who's to say that the iPhone doesn't receive another overhaul in the next few years, driving the margins back down? Apple will continue to play this game of cat-and-mouse for as long as you let them, and that's ultimately how they accumulate wealth. It's a campaign almost entirely ran on deception.
It's a campaign ran on Apple making products that a lot of people like enough to buy them at the price Apple is selling them.
Re: Apple-Developer Relations
#149I recently finished porting an app to Windows. I decided to publish on the MS Store (UWP + Desktop Bridge). Don't mind sharing 12% in return for MS's seal of approval
But if I could, I would terminate my iOS appstore presence in a heartbeat.
This is how different Apple and MS make me feel as a developer. Google falls somewhere in between
Everything these companies do is geared towards making us develop (often for free) the features their users want on their devices in a way that their users increase their appreciation for them, not for us. Youtube "developers" at least get paid for their success. We just get made forced to comply. They also won't doubt to use you as a pawn in their war against other big tech (i.e. mandatory requirement to offer Apple Sign in if you want to offer Google/FB Sign in).
And yes, Apple dropping the annual fee would be a nice start
Re: Apple-Developer Relations
#150Earlier quoted context omitted.
In what way does Apple do that?
I have a feeling this is a facetious question, but: Take a look at the history of Apple's efforts to block jailbreaking in combination with the AppStore rules that disallow 3rd party app stores. It is quite clear that Apple has use multiple methods to successfully fighr off the arisal of any alternative stores. Apple openly admits to doing this, it really isn't a controversial claim.
This is nothing like destroying competitors’ property. Coca-Cola can be sold in McDonald’s because the two parties have an explicit business arrangement. But they’ll kick you out if you set up a lemonade stand in their store (they still probably won’t destroy your property, they’ll likely ask you to leave and call the police if you refuse).
McDonald’s will probably, however, make no effort to prevent you from selling lemonade from your driveway, or even prevent Coca-Cola (or Coca-Cola’s direct competitors) from selling soda at McDonald’s direct competitors. (If they did do this, I would agree that it’s anti-competitive behavior that ought to be opposed.)