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

Avoid the Apple App Store

heyman.info

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

191–200 of 271 posts

Re: Avoid the Apple App Store

#191

Post by pandemicsoul »

_fat_santa wrote: post #123
JKCalhoun wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It points out to me another issue with the App Store though. While the author's "Wordle" was Swedish and different in other regards, why would you even want to submit a Wordle-like app into that fray? I think it's almost a given that you cannot charge for your app. A neighbor's adult daughter down the street told me (and this was perhaps eight years ago), "No one wants to even pay 99 cents for an app." In-App purchas…

Apple needs to reign in subscriptions. I was looking for a "photo vault" app the other day, basically a place to store photos that is password protected. I didn't need cloud storage, no fancy features, just a place to store photos with a passcode lock. So I went looking for an app and I must have reviewed close to 50, every single one had a "subscription". Now I get it, apps aren't easy to make and aren't free either…

Doesn't Apple REQUIRE a subscription on most apps? Like haven't there been multiple devs talking about how Apple rejects "free" apps if they "don't seem to have a unique purpose" or whatever, and you need to have either an up-front cost or a subscription model for Apple to accept it?

Re: Avoid the Apple App Store

#192

Post by vinceguidry »

ryandrake wrote: post #99
vinceguidry wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you think Apple is doing this because they care about you, gentle user, then you will get burned, eventually, probably really badly, and you won't even have any kind of inkling as to why or how you could have avoided it. Behind the cutesy facade is a rapacious, consumer-hostile monster. The facade is paper-thin, and it's only a matter of time until you rub it the wrong way and it flakes off, then the monster will…

Nowhere in OP's comment did they imply that Apple provides the App Store out of the goodness of their hearts. Obviously they do it to make money, like every other corporation. They have clearly sat down and said "We think building this 'walled garden' will make us more money." No debate there. Why does it make them money? It makes them money because a lot of end users are like OP, prefer the 'walled garden,' and are…

And they're going to get burned. Each and every one of them. And when they do, they'll make excuses. Other companies that burn them, they won't make excuses for. Apple, they will.

Re: Avoid the Apple App Store

#193

Post by McDyver »

sleepybrett wrote: post #155
amelius wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I'm not ideologically opposed to the idea of a walled-garden phone (though my preference would be to have the ability to sideload). The App-Store is, in this context, merely a Content Filter. So why not allow multiple content filters?

Because it creates customer confusion and anger when they hit the genius bar with a phone that is bricked because the customer used a non-apple appstore to install software that resulted in a bricked phone. It further causes apple support increased support costs when they have to prove that it wasn't their fault. Perhaps if apple had approval on those third-party appstores and held them to a standard and charged push…

If I buy a diesel car, should I only be allowed to use Apple Diesel? What happens if I fill up with MS petrol and damage the engine? Do I need to go to some Genius to tell me I'm an idiot?

Re: Avoid the Apple App Store

#194

Post by jonatanheyman »

pmarreck wrote: post #84

If you make a game that specifically deals with one particular language, do you automatically own the rights to all language versions of that game? I think this is a difficult question to answer and may be part of the problem. For example, Wordle (English) likely has a catered list of 5-letter words; someone else would have to completely redo this work for any other language

OP here. Fun to talk about something technical :). I didn't make a curated list of words (also, my app supports 4-7 letter words). Instead, I use word frequency data to exclude 80% of the least used Swedish words. The frequency data is based on text from novels released since the 50th, popular Swedish web forums, and Swedish newspapers. Surprisingly, even with the 20% most common words, I've still seen odd words a few times. However, I find it quite enjoyable that it's possible to get a really hard word now and then.

Re: Avoid the Apple App Store

#195

Post by _fat_santa »

pandemicsoul wrote: post #191
_fat_santa wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Apple needs to reign in subscriptions. I was looking for a "photo vault" app the other day, basically a place to store photos that is password protected. I didn't need cloud storage, no fancy features, just a place to store photos with a passcode lock. So I went looking for an app and I must have reviewed close to 50, every single one had a "subscription". Now I get it, apps aren't easy to make and aren't free either…

Doesn't Apple REQUIRE a subscription on most apps? Like haven't there been multiple devs talking about how Apple rejects "free" apps if they "don't seem to have a unique purpose" or whatever, and you need to have either an up-front cost or a subscription model for Apple to accept it?

No. I have a free app (100% free) on the app store for a few years now. No issues with Apple.

Re: Avoid the Apple App Store

#196

Post by Damogran6 »

imoverclocked wrote: post #176
_fat_santa wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Apple needs to reign in subscriptions. I was looking for a "photo vault" app the other day, basically a place to store photos that is password protected. I didn't need cloud storage, no fancy features, just a place to store photos with a passcode lock. So I went looking for an app and I must have reviewed close to 50, every single one had a "subscription". Now I get it, apps aren't easy to make and aren't free either…

> But to charge for a subscription to just use an offline app? So, if they make you sign in to their service to use the app, you would be ok with a subscription? Do you want/expect that app to be updated/supported over time? As someone who grew up with purchased box software followed by the pervasive availability of open source software, I severely dislike subscriptions for software products. In fact, auto-renew subs…

I've known several people that were exceptionally talented and provided a product that couldn't otherwise be had...They were also really bad at business. Paying on time, Billing on time, TRACKING DOWN outstanding bills...pricing their services at a fair and competitive rate and doing so in a way that keeps them fed.

It's not the magic trick, it's the marketing that makes or breaks a business.

Re: Avoid the Apple App Store

#197

Post by FalconSensei »

Apocryphon wrote: post #179
sleepybrett wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because it creates customer confusion and anger when they hit the genius bar with a phone that is bricked because the customer used a non-apple appstore to install software that resulted in a bricked phone. It further causes apple support increased support costs when they have to prove that it wasn't their fault. Perhaps if apple had approval on those third-party appstores and held them to a standard and charged push…

Apple can just very publicly and visibly issue disclaimers that it is not responsible for the after effects of users installing non-App Store content. Just as it does not offer coverage for water damage to MacBooks. Then the boundaries are made clear, and user anger will be directed at whatever malicious third party instead of Apple itself.

But how do you prevent the users from thinking the problem was the non-App Store content instead of an update? They ARE going to contact support anyway

Re: Avoid the Apple App Store

#198

Post by wintermutestwin »

InTheArena wrote: post #31
gjsman-1000 wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If I were Apple, the clones should not be on the App Store and Apple appears to be removing them. However, I don't really know if the OP's original submission should be approved either. Yes, it uses a different language, but the name is very similar, it's being released around the same time as a trend, it looks like a clone.

Yes. Apple still sucks at curation (as does google, as does Steam), and needs to be more consistent here.

Exactly this. I am all too happy for a walled garden on my phone, but spend some of your $$$ actually curating it to prove that your walled garden is worthy. What we need is an ecosystem of competing curated app stores.

Re: Avoid the Apple App Store

#199

Post by dawnbreez »

sleepybrett wrote: post #155
amelius wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I'm not ideologically opposed to the idea of a walled-garden phone (though my preference would be to have the ability to sideload). The App-Store is, in this context, merely a Content Filter. So why not allow multiple content filters?

Because it creates customer confusion and anger when they hit the genius bar with a phone that is bricked because the customer used a non-apple appstore to install software that resulted in a bricked phone. It further causes apple support increased support costs when they have to prove that it wasn't their fault. Perhaps if apple had approval on those third-party appstores and held them to a standard and charged push…

Begging the question, what part of the Apple app store prevents a bricked phone, and why would that not be a feature of non-Apple stores?

Re: Avoid the Apple App Store

#200

Post by munch117 »

dcow wrote: post #153
whizzter wrote: post #152

I think the main lesson here is to not to jump onto trains copying the latest trend. As for double-standards of later clones being allowed, it's probably just that this app got caught in the initial copycat-sweep with some rejection-notice visible for reviewers that will be re-used for later updates and unless fundamentally different it isn't going to pass. Later apps probably pass since they don't care adding new no…

No! That’s not the lesson. Swedish people cant play Wordle . Period. This contribution to the space brings an existing english-only experience to Swedish people. It’s by definition NOT A COPY. It’s a derivative work at best which the original Wordle also is. To write this off as a fad and say only English speakers get to experience Wordle is frankly racist.

https://www.ordlig.se/
Post reply on HN