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

261–270 of 275 posts

Re: Apple-Developer Relations

#261

Post by emsy »

unityByFreedom wrote: post #233
emsy wrote: post #186

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> Games are sellable desktop software and they're doing just fine. Popular ones require an internet connection, and license authentication piggybacks on that. Blizzard and the original WoW's were among the first to do this successfully and the trend continues. Prior to that, people would either crack software and/or refuse remote connections for games that didn't require internet in order to avoid paying for and lice…

That wasn’t true for iTunes where copying MP3s was trivial. Of course theirs still piracy, but why did the DRM-free Witcher 3 make millions of dollars? Your argument just doesn’t hold up with real life data.

Re: Apple-Developer Relations

#262

Post by Grustaf »

go_prodev wrote: post #260
Grustaf wrote: post #252

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think all your points are pretty strange, but this one I don't even understand: > - They pretend to have all these problems hosting apps that are somehow solved by fees, while completely ignoring all the free apps that clearly tax that same infrastructure. Clearly they are not saying that each individual app has to bear its costs, obviously free apps are subsidised by paid apps. And they've never said they are "hav…

> obviously free apps are subsidised by paid apps Subsidised for what exactly? I'm not suggesting that hosting is free, but even free apps make Apple $99/yr in developer license fees.

> Subsidised for what exactly?

The cost of running the appstore, which are astronomical. Not just hosting and infrastructure, reviewing 10000+ apps a day is not free either.

> even free apps make Apple $99/yr in developer license fees

Hosting probably costs more than that if the app is popular. Not just the app, but potentially icloud, notifications etc. And 99 dollars is per developer, not per app.

Re: Apple-Developer Relations

#263

Post by moosebear847 »

kalleboo wrote: post #245
moosebear847 wrote: post #235

Earlier quoted context omitted.

All those companies were around before and during the existence of the iPhone. At least some had apps, and had an equal or better chance at having all those apps, so I wonder why they weren’t successful. You have to start somewhere. If there were a good alternative, then adoption of it would drive gradual availability of these apps.

Software ecosystems with more than 2 platforms that need to be supported by developers just never happen. Look at the desktop - we have Windows and Mac (and for a while it looked like we'd lose the Mac), Linux is still a desktop also-ran. Look at the web - it took Microsoft completely neglecting IE for 5 years before there was any momentum at all towards other browsers. And now we're back to web developers mostly neg…

There does seem to be strong market pressure to have no more than 2 major platforms to support, and understandably so due to the amount of work.

Linux never became mainstream because of how poor the user experience was, not necessarily because there’s only room for 2 at the top. Even technically experienced people don’t want to muck around with drivers and deep-dive into configuration. Since few used linux, few apps were written for it.

I think there is usually room for new players, whether they have to usurp an existing one or have compatibility with others to do it.

Re: Apple-Developer Relations

#264

Post by worik »

Grustaf wrote: post #257
worik wrote: post #139

I care very little about the App store. In my world the iOS app is a small part of our ecosystem. What I care about is getting charged for a developer licence that was never delivered. Needing a licence to use hardware I paid money for. Without the licence I cannot put apps on the iPad I own connected to the Mac I own, apps I write on said Mac. Buggy developer tools that they will not fix. Xcode (and its Swift ecosys…

Optionals are of course 100% reliable. What are you actually trying to do? "if let _ = nil" makes no sense and doesn't compile.

Duh!

if the_variable_that_might_be_nil == nil {

  if let _ = the_variable_that_might_be_nil

     // Nope not really nil
I have counted: A bit less than 1% of the time at a certain point in our code. I have seen it, measured it...

The Swift ecosystem has important bugs in some corner cases.

Fact.

Re: Apple-Developer Relations

#265

Post by Grustaf »

worik wrote: post #264
Grustaf wrote: post #257

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Optionals are of course 100% reliable. What are you actually trying to do? "if let _ = nil" makes no sense and doesn't compile.

Duh! if the_variable_that_might_be_nil == nil { if let _ = the_variable_that_might_be_nil // Nope not really nil I have counted: A bit less than 1% of the time at a certain point in our code. I have seen it, measured it... The Swift ecosystem has important bugs in some corner cases. Fact.

This is different from what you wrote the first time though. This time it makes sense syntactically and compiles, but why would you write it? It makes no logical sense, the inner block would never be executed.

If the inner block is actually called, that's an extremely serious bug. I know people in the Swift core team, can you share a code sample with me the exposes the bug and I will bring it up?

Re: Apple-Developer Relations

#266

Post by Grustaf »

oblio wrote: post #162
alexkcd wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

iOS apps are more profitable on a per install basis. So the discrepancy cannot be explained by there being multiple Android stores. Your hypothesis in brackets is the more likely explanation. Source: I worked on an app with millions of paid subscribers.

iPhone had first mover advantage and comes from an American company. As a result iPhones have 50% of the smartphone market in the US, and Americans have the highest disposable income per capita of any large country (>20 million people). iPhones tend to have much smaller market shares outside of the US. In some places they're maybe around 30% but generally they're much, much lower.

iPhone has a smaller market share in poor countries. In rich European countries the market share is much higher than in the US. In Scandinavia seeing an Android phone is a rare occurrence, if your friend has one you're surprised and ask how come.

It's a function of wealth, not first mover advantage. Well off people choose iPhones. That should tell you something.

Re: Apple-Developer Relations

#267

Post by Grustaf »

wayneftw wrote: post #242
vimy wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It really seems that was the original plan. An email from the Apple vs Epic trial where Steve Jobs gives the go ahead for the app store in October 2007. They had to rush to get the sdk done in three months. https://twitter.com/TechEmails/status/1400270458608664577

No it doesn't. Not even a little bit. That's a go ahead email. That's not an email showing the conception of the idea. We already had app stores on phones before this. You think they didn't come up with the idea until that email? It's perhaps the most obvious idea in the world. Sorry, y'all are just wrong. This email is evidence that its all been discussed many times before the "go ahead".

The iPod never had an app store, an Apple are known to prefer to be in control of the experience. How can you be so sure they were planning an app store all along?

Re: Apple-Developer Relations

#268

Post by Grustaf »

wayneftw wrote: post #243
Uehreka wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure thing. Apple told developers that webapps were the solution. They didn’t give any public indication that this would change. Now, one could argue that this was just cover while they got the native SDK ready, but that Bertrand Serlet email from the other thread was the point at which they even officially decided to have a native SDK at all (months after telling devs to write webapps). I think the real issue is wit…

Nobody, especially not Apple, decides something like that in one email or even a single conversation. Also this is the company that goes to great pains to hide what everybody can see about their plans. Keep that in mind. Obviously , This is something that has been discussed over and over and over since they started planning the iPhone. I've watched Apple work, they don't hash out what their products are going to do t…

The point is not that the email came up with the idea and they decided it on the spot. But the email show that there was an open discussion, there was a point where they weren't sure.

Re: Apple-Developer Relations

#270

Post by unityByFreedom »

emsy wrote: post #261
unityByFreedom wrote: post #233

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Games are sellable desktop software and they're doing just fine. Popular ones require an internet connection, and license authentication piggybacks on that. Blizzard and the original WoW's were among the first to do this successfully and the trend continues. Prior to that, people would either crack software and/or refuse remote connections for games that didn't require internet in order to avoid paying for and lice…

That wasn’t true for iTunes where copying MP3s was trivial. Of course theirs still piracy, but why did the DRM-free Witcher 3 make millions of dollars? Your argument just doesn’t hold up with real life data.

SaaS and subscriptions are more prevalent and successful than software that does not require a remote connection. When client software sells well it's an exception.

Music was completely different. The RIAA was suing pirates for thousands of dollars, and Apple provided both a store and great hardware for their product. People cheered them on for finally convincing the music industry to make content digitally available. It turns out all people wanted was easy access. And now for things that could be desktop software, we have subscriptions, memberships, etc.

Post reply on HN