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

The disastrous communication from Apple to apps developers

carette.xyz

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 62 posts

Re: The disastrous communication from Apple to apps developers

#51

Post by rstuart4133 »

karaterobot wrote: post #14

> 1_000_000$ The way most publications would write that value would be $1,000,000, or just $1MM if you're nasty. Either are acceptable because they are clear and follow widely-used conventions. As to the substance, I think the pricing changes hurts small developers who strike gold, which is bad, but I don't really care how it affects Facebook, or TikTok, or Amazon, or whomever else would hit 1MM downloads. That's a p…

> The way most publications would write that value

He doesn't appear to be a "most publications" to me. He's a computer programmer, blogging his thoughts, presumably speaking to other computer programmers.

The convention he uses is widely used, in computer programming languages. Swift, Python, Rust, C and javascript all allow it.

Re: The disastrous communication from Apple to apps developers

#52

Post by malermeister »

a_wild_dandan wrote: post #34
graemep wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The point is malicious compliance with EU regulations. They cannot overtly say they are not going to do what they were told to.

How could the EU strongly respond to Apple's malicious compliance here? (Assuming regulators see blatant violation in Apple's new policy.)

The digital markets act allows for fines of up to 20% annual turnover for repeat offenders.

Re: The disastrous communication from Apple to apps developers

#53

Post by dkonofalski »

haswell wrote: post #19
foobarian wrote: post #6

I kinda still don't see the problem. If you don't like it make your own phone.

The interesting thing about this argument is that if taken all the way, Apple shouldn't see the problem with the new EU rules, i.e. "if you don't like it, sell it in your own country". For the most part, I have defended Apple's approach because I personally prefer a locked down environment for my phone. I've put up with some of the things I dislike about this walled garden because of the benefits and simplicity it af…

My only hesitation with these rules is that I feel like Apple, as a business, has a right to do whatever they want with their business so long as there are alternatives and I do consider Android to be a viable alternative. I wouldn't want the government forcing my business to do anything that I felt devalued my brand or my product so I do understand the "maliciousness of their compliance".

Let's say that I created some kind of device, not as complex as a phone, but something that was like a little portable video game system or something. If the government can tell Apple that they have to allow third-parties to be able to do whatever they want to these devices, then it may hurt my business if third-parties don't have the same standards of quality as I do. Apple's standard is really, really high (insanely high by some accounts) and I feel like mine is too.

That's the only reason that I would oppose this type of legislation. The people complaining about Apple's behavior are the people that have become successful off of Apple's ecosystem and customer base. They want the benefits of having access to Apple's highly curated customer base without the downsides of having to develop and foster is themselves. It feels entitled in a way that I only begrudgingly support because of Apple's size and resources. If it was any other large corporation, I'd feel the same way. I wouldn't feel this way about any regular company, though. I would be rallying against the governance.

Re: The disastrous communication from Apple to apps developers

#54

Post by dkonofalski »

Terretta wrote: post #43
haswell wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The interesting thing about this argument is that if taken all the way, Apple shouldn't see the problem with the new EU rules, i.e. "if you don't like it, sell it in your own country". For the most part, I have defended Apple's approach because I personally prefer a locked down environment for my phone. I've put up with some of the things I dislike about this walled garden because of the benefits and simplicity it af…

It's not impossible to defend. Here's the former head of Microsoft's Windows division defending it easily: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39194445

Thanks for that. That was a great read. It's really interesting to see a perspective from someone that understands that the current state of systems came from years and years of intentionally working within a paradigm and that changing regulations rarely, if ever, consider that paradigm. It really does fundamentally break the "brand promise" as he calls it.

Re: The disastrous communication from Apple to apps developers

#55

Post by asadotzler »

Tagbert wrote: post #38
TekMol wrote: post #2

I don't understand the situation. If you publish a popular app via an alternative app store and don't pay Apple, Apple can still block/remove your app? Then what is the point of alternative app stores? I thought it's about who controls which apps get blocked and which get onto the phone?

The removing of the app is not the problem. Apple requires signed apps before they can be installed. They retain the right to remove apps specifically for security violations. This does not give them the right to block apps based on content or similar factors. You could publish a porn app that Apple would normally disallow. In this program Apple would not try to prevent that from being installed. If it started steali…

This absolutely gives them the ability (they have all the rights here, and publishers and users have none -- they only need abilities) so your entire line of argument is rendered silly and moot. What they can do they can do and no amount of fanboy defense changes that. Apple has given itself the ability (rights are immaterial, you have none) to do this, and that's that.

Re: The disastrous communication from Apple to apps developers

#56

Post by asadotzler »

Terretta wrote: post #42

For those interested in what's really going on, strongly suggest reading former President of Windows Division at Microsoft's take on Apple vs. DMA. Contrary to the conventional wisdom, Sinofsky -- hardly an Apple fanboy -- says Apple has handled its response, including its proposed App Store changes, to the EU's DMA with aplomb, despite the law being an assault on Apple's brand promise: https://news.ycombinator.com/i…

In case you're new to this industry, let me illuminate this for you. All these rich guys and tech companies are trying to get richer and if that means supporting their competitors positions some of the time, they do it. Everyone wants the kind of control Apple stole from users with the App Store so everyone, including Apple competitors, are going to do what they can, including praising Apple, to get some of that sweet, sweet lock-in for themselves. This is not a difficult concept and I'm surprised to see HN commenters so oblivious and so obsequious.

Re: The disastrous communication from Apple to apps developers

#57

Post by asadotzler »

Terretta wrote: post #43
haswell wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The interesting thing about this argument is that if taken all the way, Apple shouldn't see the problem with the new EU rules, i.e. "if you don't like it, sell it in your own country". For the most part, I have defended Apple's approach because I personally prefer a locked down environment for my phone. I've put up with some of the things I dislike about this walled garden because of the benefits and simplicity it af…

It's not impossible to defend. Here's the former head of Microsoft's Windows division defending it easily: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39194445

Here's a guy that agrees with the other guy that taking authority away from users is lucrative and desirable. Wow. Shocking.

Re: The disastrous communication from Apple to apps developers

#58

Post by karaterobot »

newaccount74 wrote: post #41
karaterobot wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As I said, most publications would use commas, and they'd put the dollar sign in front of the value.

That's a US thing. in the EU we use periods and currencies go after the value.

Well, the currency in this case was presumably USD, so I don't think it's relevant.

But in any case, the convention for both the Euro and the USD is to put it in front of the number when writing in English, according to EU standards for internal writing. If there's another standard that just says "do whatever" then I'd love to see it.

And again, as I believe I mentioned, most publications would put the dollar sign in front of the number, and use commas. Dots are acceptable, but I can't find a lot of publications that do it the way it's written in the linked article.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euro_sign#Use

Re: The disastrous communication from Apple to apps developers

#59

Post by Jcowell »

asadotzler wrote: post #55
Tagbert wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The removing of the app is not the problem. Apple requires signed apps before they can be installed. They retain the right to remove apps specifically for security violations. This does not give them the right to block apps based on content or similar factors. You could publish a porn app that Apple would normally disallow. In this program Apple would not try to prevent that from being installed. If it started steali…

This absolutely gives them the ability (they have all the rights here, and publishers and users have none -- they only need abilities) so your entire line of argument is rendered silly and moot. What they can do they can do and no amount of fanboy defense changes that. Apple has given itself the ability (rights are immaterial, you have none) to do this, and that's that.

You’re arguing ability when they are only taking about rights

Re: The disastrous communication from Apple to apps developers

#60

Post by Brian_K_White »

jeffgreco wrote: post #4
comex wrote: post #3

> the developer will have to pay 0.50$ per download and each month to Apple. (It’s per year, not per month.)

Also of note, updates count as downloads.

There is a couple of interesting ramifications there.

1 obvious, so, they just disincentivised updates? Brilliant. Or maybe the idea is for app developers to charge for updates.

2 oh right, developers have to update frequently or else Apple will remove the app for being a security risk or simply no longer being compatible with current os and apis, os and apis whose changes are controlled by who again?

So they charge for updates, and make it a rule that you must update.

What a great racket!

Post reply on HN