I have taken down all my free apps because I cannot afford them.
What are you talking about? Nothing changes for current apps, and nothing stops you from continuing with things as they are.
The disastrous communication from Apple to apps developers
11–20 of 62 posts
Re: The disastrous communication from Apple to apps developers
#12I kinda still don't see the problem. If you don't like it make your own phone.
The problem with this is that you'll never get every 3rd party service to support it. Everybody I've talked to who had a Windows Phone really liked the OS, but with so many apps missing compared to Android and iOS it was dead in the water.
PWAs could bring some improvement here, but there are also plenty of services (ie Dropbox) that are essential to people and need to be integrated into the system more than that.
The moat of 10000 other companies saying "we already maintain our app for two platforms" is basically insurmountable to new entrants.
Re: The disastrous communication from Apple to apps developers
#13I kinda still don't see the problem. If you don't like it make your own phone.
That's like saying "if you don't want to pay taxes, renounce your citizenship and live on a yacht in the ocean". You can, at huge cost, but a lot of stuff you're relying on just doesn't work any more because the people who made them have no interest in servicing you, e.g. your bank accounts. A better option is "use Android", which already does support multiple stores.
The retort makes more sense if you think of it as being addressed to someone like Epic, who frankly could take Android and build it into something more competitive, which would benefit us more than just deciding Apple has won.
Re: The disastrous communication from Apple to apps developers
#14> 1_000_000$
The way most publications would write that value would be $1,000,000, or just $1MM if you're nasty. Either are acceptable because they are clear and follow widely-used conventions.
As to the substance, I think the pricing changes hurts small developers who strike gold, which is bad, but I don't really care how it affects Facebook, or TikTok, or Amazon, or whomever else would hit 1MM downloads. That's a personal choice. I agree with the author that only allowing third-party browser engines in certain locales would create an undue burden on companies like Mozilla, or really anyone who wants to compete without WebKit, and seems mean-spirited in that it follows the letter of the regulation without following the spirit.
Re: The disastrous communication from Apple to apps developers
#15I don't understand the situation. If you publish a popular app via an alternative app store and don't pay Apple, Apple can still block/remove your app? Then what is the point of alternative app stores? I thought it's about who controls which apps get blocked and which get onto the phone?
Apple will no longer block apps based on content, only on malware or accessing private apis. That is the change that 3rd party app stores bring. You could now have porn apps, emulators, copyright infringement (though I assume the rights holders will come after the 3rd party store in that case) and Apple will notarize them so they can be distributed on 3rd party stores.
Re: The disastrous communication from Apple to apps developers
#16I kinda still don't see the problem. If you don't like it make your own phone.
I can't make my own phone, I'm too busy building my steel mill.
Re: The disastrous communication from Apple to apps developers
#17> the developer will have to pay 0.50$ per download and each month to Apple. (It’s per year, not per month.)
Also of note, updates count as downloads.
They count as downloads but the count is download/per-user/per-year. Still not going to be cheap but yeah. If you have 2M users and you ship 1 update or 1,000,000 new updates in a year you just pay $0.50/user (for 1M of them, since the first 1M is "free").
Re: The disastrous communication from Apple to apps developers
#18I have taken down all my free apps because I cannot afford them.
If you don't pick the new terms nothing at all changes for you.
Re: The disastrous communication from Apple to apps developers
#19I kinda still don't see the problem. If you don't like it make your own phone.
The interesting thing about this argument is that if taken all the way, Apple shouldn't see the problem with the new EU rules, i.e. "if you don't like it, sell it in your own country".
For the most part, I have defended Apple's approach because I personally prefer a locked down environment for my phone. I've put up with some of the things I dislike about this walled garden because of the benefits and simplicity it affords me.
But their stance here is impossible for me to defend. It makes me wish it was possible for competition to exist in this space beyond the duopoly. The reality is that "make your own phone" is not viable, and because it is not viable, these kinds of policy decisions are extremely impactful.
I've never been under any illusions about Apple's benevolence, i.e. I know they're a company out to make money like the rest and not some force for good. But I've respected what they've accomplished. This latest move has made me lose quite a bit of respect. They're barely attempting to hide the maliciousness of their "compliance".
I hope the EU takes it to them at this point.
Re: The disastrous communication from Apple to apps developers
#20> the developer will have to pay 0.50$ per download and each month to Apple. (It’s per year, not per month.)
Also of note, updates count as downloads.
It's 0,5 USD for every install after the first 1 000 000, per year. Updates don't make any difference. Worth noting is that a user who never opens the app after the first time will still count as an install.