Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Apple-Developer Relations

marco.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

181–190 of 275 posts

Re: Apple-Developer Relations

#181

Post by TheOtherHobbes »

procombo wrote: post #122
simonh wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hmm, I generally take the pro-Apple stance on this. I don’t want side loading or third party stores. It’s Apples product and they get to decide what features it has, IMHO. I don’t want government committees dictating the security model and software architecture of my phone, thanks. However Marco’s argument is spot on. Apple is saying in Senate hearings that App developers are picking up crumbs from the App Store’s fl…

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.

So you get Apple dictating both the security model and the commercial model, to developer detriment.

It's clearly monopolistic - exploitative, monolithic, controlling.

The app store is the biggest source of friction standing between app developers and their customers.

Now - this wouldn't be a problem if Apple did the job they claim they do, improved search so it worked well, provided easy visibility for relevant apps, and threw out the scams and the trash.

That isn't what's happening. And that is a problem.

The security angle is a non-issue. Returning the app ecosystem to some semblance of functionality and fairness would is an orthogonal issue.

Apple can keep its walled garden. But it needs to start treating it like a valuable garden, not like a pile of burning trash that happens to generate huge amounts of free money.

Re: Apple-Developer Relations

#182

Post by ballenf »

makecheck wrote: post #152

Yep. It is not surprising at all that the term “insulting” appears three times because that’s how it feels for so many reasons. Remember: - They pretend with a straight face like it was somehow impossible to sell software or reach customers before their magical store made it happen. - They pretend like the current “search” feature of the App Store is not a sad reduction of what it used to be (or what it could be if a…

I owned almost every iteration of Blackberry and Nokia's before that. I never once paid for an app on any phone prior to an iPhone. I remember people selling them, but it required me to visit their website on a desktop computer, trust them with my credit card info and then awkwardly get their app on my device through mobile websites or specialized cables plus software on my computer.

In the mobile world I think Apple did indeed lay the groundwork for a viable mobile marketplace.

And except for a few apps like Netflix, I'd happily pay 30% on top of what goes to the dev to avoid having to go through that again.

100% of the sticker price on apps could go to the app maker and then have the fees tacked on top. It would put stronger pressure on Apple to bring down the fees and consumers would actually know where their money is going. (I think the same should be required for credit card fees, fwiw.)

Re: Apple-Developer Relations

#183

Post by jay_kyburz »

unityByFreedom wrote: post #168
makecheck wrote: post #152

Yep. It is not surprising at all that the term “insulting” appears three times because that’s how it feels for so many reasons. Remember: - They pretend with a straight face like it was somehow impossible to sell software or reach customers before their magical store made it happen. - They pretend like the current “search” feature of the App Store is not a sad reduction of what it used to be (or what it could be if a…

> They pretend with a straight face like it was somehow impossible to sell software or reach customers before their magical store made it happen. I never heard them claim it but speaking as a developer it's obvious that Apple was a driving force here. Sellable desktop software became obsolete due to piracy. Everything is server-based now. Mobile apps, particularly on iOS, is the only place where the general public co…

Err, I think you'll find plenty of people still spending heaps of cash on games than run localy on PC, which is where all the money is in the App Store too.

Re: Apple-Developer Relations

#184

Post by hobs »

kiawe_fire wrote: post #174

I think the core sentiment here is being lost. This isn’t so much a call to action against Apple’s fees. It’s pointing out something that I’ve felt building over the last couple of years out of Apple, which is an attitude of hubris, contempt, and a “taking for granted” of Apple’s developers. The WWDC spiel of how much they value us has become trite and transparent. They do produce some really nice tools and APIs. I c…

afaict Apple has never had respect for the developer, the user sometimes, maybe, but often they would make choices for you because it was The Apple Way, and any other way was left to languish.

Sometimes The Apple Way was awesome, sometimes, meh.

Re: Apple-Developer Relations

#185

Post by newsclues »

shkkmo wrote: post #77
enos_feedler wrote: post #30

"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…

IMHO, Apple can keep their 30% fee on their store if they open the platform to 3rd party stores. If Apple has to raise prices on their hardware to stay is business, that seems much fairer that using addicted mobile gamers to subsidize hardware for everyone else.

I’ve never paid for an app, and don’t want to pay more for an AppStore that I don’t use. Only app I use other than Apple stock apps is a bank app which I can use safari and Instagram. Which should work on web browsers but I don’t care about it enough to pay money for it

Re: Apple-Developer Relations

#186

Post by emsy »

unityByFreedom wrote: post #168
makecheck wrote: post #152

Yep. It is not surprising at all that the term “insulting” appears three times because that’s how it feels for so many reasons. Remember: - They pretend with a straight face like it was somehow impossible to sell software or reach customers before their magical store made it happen. - They pretend like the current “search” feature of the App Store is not a sad reduction of what it used to be (or what it could be if a…

> They pretend with a straight face like it was somehow impossible to sell software or reach customers before their magical store made it happen. I never heard them claim it but speaking as a developer it's obvious that Apple was a driving force here. Sellable desktop software became obsolete due to piracy. Everything is server-based now. Mobile apps, particularly on iOS, is the only place where the general public co…

Phrased differently you'll find these kind of statements in the testimonies by Apple execs in the Epic case. On the other hand your claim that:

>Sellable desktop software became obsolete due to piracy.

Is unfounded. Games are sellable desktop software and they're doing just fine. What people want is fair prices and easy availability, which is the business model of every digital store since itunes.

Re: Apple-Developer Relations

#187

Post by username90 »

cageface wrote: post #85
handrous wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Be careful what you wish for. Safari's forced presence on the most lucrative mobile platform is the reason we don't, for all practical purposes, have only one browser engine, period , now. Which is something only nerds like us care about on a technical level, so I don't think the typical user is harmed or bothered by all browsers on iOS sharing an engine, but the social harm of Google 100% owning the Web would reach…

I don't understand this argument. End users don't care about browser engines and they can install "Chrome" right now. But most iOS users don't.

End users certainly cares about browser engines, so many things doesn't work in Safary since it doesn't support any new features. So they would see "please upgrade your browser to play this game" etc everywhere, and they would upgrade to real chrome. Instead since ios doesn't support other browser engines those games simply wont run on ios period.

Re: Apple-Developer Relations

#188

Post by selsta »

hu3 wrote: post #172
selsta wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Personalized ads can be disabled in Settings -> Privacy -> Apple ads.

So Apple pushes others to be Opt-in meanwhile they are Opt-out?

The Apple ad setting is about personalized ads, not tracking.

> App Tracking Transparency allows you to choose whether an app can track your activity across other companies’ apps and websites for the purposes of advertising or sharing with data brokers.

https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT212025

Apple does not track you across other companies' apps and websites so I don't see how this is related. Facebook can still do personalized ads even if you click on "ask app not to track".

Re: Apple-Developer Relations

#189

Post by shkkmo »

tshaddox wrote: post #150
shkkmo wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> This is nothing like destroying competitors’ property.

I certainly did not say it was. Your whole comment reads like you are replying to someone else.

The best I can tell, you agree that Apple is engaged in anti-competive behavior by preventing developers from selling "lemonade" in other stores (because they prevent those stores from existing.) Not only that, but users aren't even allowed to buy "lemonade" in their own driveway, they are forced to go buy "lemonade" through Apple.

Re: Apple-Developer Relations

#190

Post by shkkmo »

newsclues wrote: post #185
shkkmo wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

IMHO, Apple can keep their 30% fee on their store if they open the platform to 3rd party stores. If Apple has to raise prices on their hardware to stay is business, that seems much fairer that using addicted mobile gamers to subsidize hardware for everyone else.

I’ve never paid for an app, and don’t want to pay more for an AppStore that I don’t use. Only app I use other than Apple stock apps is a bank app which I can use safari and Instagram. Which should work on web browsers but I don’t care about it enough to pay money for it

I don't get it, how would you be paying more for an AppStore?
Post reply on HN