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

iOS indie app development looks like

safespace.is

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 90 posts

Re: iOS indie app development looks like

#61

Post by wahnfrieden »

Apocryphon wrote: post #47
CharlesW wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can target Android with Swift/Swift UI with SKIP.tools (skip.tools) and SCADE (scade.io), both of which use native controls on Android as well.

I always hear about projects like this or even back before Swift, like Codename One which allows iOS apps to be written with Java and my question is- does anyone actually use these? Why do this rather than use React Native, Flutter, Kotlin Multiplatform, even .NET MAUI or whatever Microsoft is on? One would assume that if these were good solutions more people would be adopting them.

Skip is very new. It's interesting because it lets you use SwiftUI and results in human-maintainable Kotlin/Jetpack code, so you can walk away from the tool (although you can also now run Swift on Android too without transpiling)

Re: iOS indie app development looks like

#62

Post by chabska »

danielscrubs wrote: post #16

The Swift compiler is still the only compiler I know that times out. Algorithmic complexity is such a large part of a fancy university education that I just don’t understand how they could come up with swifts feature set if they knew it would come back and royally bite them. What an I missing? What is the backstory?

The Swift devs drank the koolaid that Java's method of implementing generics using type erasure is bad, so they implemented Swift's generics by concrete specialization. Turns out that caused a lot of complexity in type lookup.

Re: iOS indie app development looks like

#63

Post by tonyedgecombe »

sylens wrote: post #50
ToucanLoucan wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have a hard time taking people seriously who make such a huge deal out of the developer account pricing. A hundred bucks per year just isn't much money, I'm sorry, maybe it's my privilege talking, but if you're getting into iOS development you have, at base, one mac and one iDevice, if for NO other reason than development and testing of the app you want to make. The cheapest Mac available new is $600, and the cheap…

My problem is that its an annual cost. When I dabbled in Android development, I think I paid a one-time fee of $25. That's a cost I can swallow for someone who wants to release apps for free. If I have to pay $100 a year, I need to make that money back from my apps which means I probably need to make them subscription based. Which leads us to the world we live in today.

>If I have to pay $100 a year, I need to make that money back from my apps

Why do you feel you need to make it back? I can't think of many pastimes that cost that little.

Re: iOS indie app development looks like

#64

Post by tonyedgecombe »

wahnfrieden wrote: post #60
999900000999 wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Itch.io is 100% free. I'd be okay with it, if it was $100 per year while you're actively publishing new content. But just to keep old stuff up there is kind of steep

They don't want your unmaintained and unprofitable apps

This. The $100 fee is inconsequential for Apple. It's there as a filter.

Re: iOS indie app development looks like

#65

Post by danielscrubs »

chabska wrote: post #62
danielscrubs wrote: post #16

The Swift compiler is still the only compiler I know that times out. Algorithmic complexity is such a large part of a fancy university education that I just don’t understand how they could come up with swifts feature set if they knew it would come back and royally bite them. What an I missing? What is the backstory?

The Swift devs drank the koolaid that Java's method of implementing generics using type erasure is bad, so they implemented Swift's generics by concrete specialization. Turns out that caused a lot of complexity in type lookup.

Interesting, I guess the language is now supervised by a committee which means there is no chance in hell it will be fixed.

Re: iOS indie app development looks like

#66

Post by InvertedRhodium »

wahnfrieden wrote: post #60
999900000999 wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Itch.io is 100% free. I'd be okay with it, if it was $100 per year while you're actively publishing new content. But just to keep old stuff up there is kind of steep

They don't want your unmaintained and unprofitable apps

That’s the issue. It’s my phone. I want to run X on it, and the developer of X is willing to provide it. Why is Apple the arbiter in the middle of that exchange?

Re: iOS indie app development looks like

#67

Post by wahnfrieden »

InvertedRhodium wrote: post #66
wahnfrieden wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They don't want your unmaintained and unprofitable apps

That’s the issue. It’s my phone. I want to run X on it, and the developer of X is willing to provide it. Why is Apple the arbiter in the middle of that exchange?

they are protecting their 15/30% of course

Re: iOS indie app development looks like

#68

Post by maheart »

ToucanLoucan wrote: post #39
999900000999 wrote: post #23

I gave up on mobile app dev years ago. To Apple, I'm not giving you $100 per year for four people to play my hobbyist games. Not to mention getting my account approved in the first place was such a horrible process. They can and will deny your app for random reasons. I don't know how any independent developer really wants to base their entire income around such madness . What they want is multi-billion companies publ…

I have a hard time taking people seriously who make such a huge deal out of the developer account pricing. A hundred bucks per year just isn't much money, I'm sorry, maybe it's my privilege talking, but if you're getting into iOS development you have, at base, one mac and one iDevice, if for NO other reason than development and testing of the app you want to make. The cheapest Mac available new is $600, and the cheap…

A huge number of developers started in HTMl/CSS/JS because it was a super-low barrier to entry.

I also know a huge number of professional developers that started off as teenagers tinkering with Linux. They started with Linux because the hurdle was so low. No accounts, no fees. Download an ISO and burn it.

These platforms are hurting themselves long term by increasing the barrier to entry.

I'm not going to spend a second on the Apple/Android platform if I need to fork out money/account to try it out (even if I can afford it).

Re: iOS indie app development looks like

#69

Post by 999900000999 »

wahnfrieden wrote: post #60
999900000999 wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Itch.io is 100% free. I'd be okay with it, if it was $100 per year while you're actively publishing new content. But just to keep old stuff up there is kind of steep

They don't want your unmaintained and unprofitable apps

Who is "they".

I'm not forcing anyone to download my game. But Apple refuses to allow any other market place ( in most of the world) , so unless I pay 100$ a year no one gets to play it on an iPhone.

It's not just the fee, it's the idea that Apple is the final decider of what anyone with an iPhone is allowed to run on devices they own.

I sorta understand this argument with game consoles, since the vast vast majority of console homebrew is just enabling piracy.

But that's not the case with a phone. I can't build a small app to learn and share it with my friends or teachers. I have to build something worthy of Apple, pay a 100$ annual fee and pray the Apple review team feels like being nice.

Re: iOS indie app development looks like

#70

Post by NoMoreNicksLeft »

kalleboo wrote: post #49
NoMoreNicksLeft wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe I'm way out of touch, but does anyone over the 18 bother to hide their stash of pornography unless it's somehow illegal? I mean, be worried whether or not there's parental controls so the kids can't get to it, but to encrypt it?

1. Intimate photos of your SO rather than generic porn 2. A lot of people live in a more prudish/religious society than you may

>Intimate photos of your SO rather than generic porn

I file those under "never worth it to take the picture in the first place since it will eventually be exposed to the internet no matter how careful one is".

Post reply on HN