81–90 of 294 posts
Death by a thousand cuts. All those apps that charge to turn off the ads? Suddenly you pay yearly for that. iAP to unlock those extra levels/features/etc, better pay the tax man because those will now be yearly. Apps will no longer be "upgraded" from 1.0 to 2.0 where you have to pay for the new version. No, you pay that yearly fee whether you like it or not. Sorry this isn't going to turn out well and I might just ha…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What do app developers do now when everyone has 1.0 and you want to release a 2.0 version with more features and not just bugfixes? Do users still expect the upgrade for free?
That's a flaw in all app stores (perhaps by design to force everyone to a subscription model someday?). For example, ImageLine's FL Studio was warning everyone that their new app will be completely different than their old app, but they weren't able to change version for their customers by the store policies, so they were asking users to be careful about upgrade. So currently your only option is to release app2, app3…
Because I want to buy food and pay rent.
Death by a thousand cuts. All those apps that charge to turn off the ads? Suddenly you pay yearly for that. iAP to unlock those extra levels/features/etc, better pay the tax man because those will now be yearly. Apps will no longer be "upgraded" from 1.0 to 2.0 where you have to pay for the new version. No, you pay that yearly fee whether you like it or not. Sorry this isn't going to turn out well and I might just ha…
Clearly a subscription model isn't for many apps - probably most apps. But it was right for us, as we've been maintaining and improving Zombies, Run! for over four years now, and every week we add new content. With a subscription model, we only get paid if people decide we're good enough to commit to over a long period of time. Since we're about helping people exercise, I think that's fair enough.
All I know is that their review process has gotten WAY faster and better over the last month, as in 24 hour review which has been awesome. Have other people noticed this? I wonder if they added capacity or dropped review quality - so far we haven't seen a drop in quality and they are able to catch problems at about the same rate.
That change happened because App Store's management was transferred from Eddy Cue over to Phil Schiller. While Eddy Cue was completely deaf to developers' complaints and needs, Schiller seems to be giving a damn and he's trying to improve things. They now employ ML/algorithmic means to test submitted apps and catch simple rejection issues. I'm also pretty sure that if you have a pretty good record of submissions & ap…
What's the source of this information?
> And if you're just issuing fixes or simple changes, they don't spend any time "human testing" at all.
How do they differentiate between simple fixes and more substantial changes?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That change happened because App Store's management was transferred from Eddy Cue over to Phil Schiller. While Eddy Cue was completely deaf to developers' complaints and needs, Schiller seems to be giving a damn and he's trying to improve things. They now employ ML/algorithmic means to test submitted apps and catch simple rejection issues. I'm also pretty sure that if you have a pretty good record of submissions & ap…
I don't think that everything he touches "is shit or turns to shit quickly". The Apple Online Store, iTunes Music Store, iCloud services, Apple Pay are all great products/servives. He took command over Maps when it was at a terrible stake, and it has improved a lot since. However, I think iTunes, Apple Music and Siri all have weaknesses. But we can only guess who's fault that is - certainly not Cue's alone. Also, he…
And Siri's fallen further behind their competition. Don't forget, Siri was the first (major) assistant on the market and Apple had a year or two of head start on their competition. But that advantage quickly evaporated because of Apple's neglect. Siri's creators left and formed Viv because Apple lowered their ambitions and didn't give them the budget they wanted.
That's all Eddy Cue's fault since he's the one who's in charge of these teams. It's as simple as that. And just because he's been at Apple so long doesn't mean he's great at his job. It could as well mean that he's accumulated so much power that he's untouchable.
Interestingly Sketch app announced today they're changing to a subscription model soon. Sketch app abandoned Apple store last December. Looks like Sketch will be back to Mac App Store this fall. It is sad that Apple only took action now, after years of requests and complains by indie developers. Now that app boom is over, I doubt this App Store changes will have any impact.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That change happened because App Store's management was transferred from Eddy Cue over to Phil Schiller. While Eddy Cue was completely deaf to developers' complaints and needs, Schiller seems to be giving a damn and he's trying to improve things. They now employ ML/algorithmic means to test submitted apps and catch simple rejection issues. I'm also pretty sure that if you have a pretty good record of submissions & ap…
> They now employ ML/algorithmic means to test submitted apps and catch simple rejection issues. What's the source of this information? > And if you're just issuing fixes or simple changes, they don't spend any time "human testing" at all. How do they differentiate between simple fixes and more substantial changes?
The Information had a blurb about this.
>How do they differentiate between simple fixes and more substantial changes?
I have no idea how they do it. I'm guessing it could be as simple as relying on App Store submission form information and as complicated as analyzing amount of code changes.
As someone who buys a lot of apps this is very disappointing. Things that would make me buy MORE apps (demos, upgrade pricing, better support) are still not in the app store, meanwhile the one pricing model I detest (subscriptions) is being added. I suspect I'll be buying far fewer apps if there's a mass movement from a purchase model to a subscription model among app developers. I'm perfectly happy to pay $20-30 for…
What about $0.99/mo, or even $0.49/mo? My initial reaction is the same as yours, but I could see myself agreeing to $0.99/mo for some of the apps I paid $2 or $3 for. Still relatively cheap for me but would dramatically increase income for the developer.