Live data from Hacker News

iOS indie app development looks like

safespace.is

81–90 of 90 posts

Re: iOS indie app development looks like

#81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The iOS/MacOS ecosystem is changing all the time, a decent amount of that time, they're good changes to be making. Sometimes they're arbitrary. Sometimes they're stupid. Either way, you know all of this before you publish anything there, so complaining after the fact that Apple is not sufficiently incentivizing you to maintain your code that runs on and is distributed by their operating systems is bizarre to me. Yes,…

> complaining after the fact that Apple is not sufficiently incentivizing you to maintain your code that runs on and is distributed by their operating systems is bizarre to me. Let me tie things up a bit for you then. To repeat myself; I'm not complaining! I don't pay Apple a dime anymore, not for services nor hardware. I had a brief, happy stint as an iOS dev in my nascent, foolish years as a programmer and moved on…

Yes it is all about protecting that 15/30%

Re: iOS indie app development looks like

#82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Programming is a job, not a pasttime. If you enjoy doing your job, so be it, but you are trivializing this to an offensive extent.

It sounds like it is a pastime for the GP. If it wasn’t then $100 is trivial for a business.

1) You're still overgeneralizing 2) If $100 was actually trivial for a business then Apple wouldn't demand it.

Re: iOS indie app development looks like

#83
post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People I know who are iOS developers say differently. The Swift language itself is bloated? Compared to what? Golang?

Something like go, yes. Imo there is benefit to only being able to do things one way, and in swift there are a lot of ways to do everything. A trivial example: why can you bind variables in pattern matches with both case let .some(x) and case .some(let x)?

Because the former works with all associated values in a case, whereas the latter does not. `case let .some(x, y, z)` vs `case .some(let x, let y, let z)`. And the latter exists because you may want some to be immutable and others to be mutable: `case .some(let x, var y, _)`.

Re: iOS indie app development looks like

#84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It sounds like it is a pastime for the GP. If it wasn’t then $100 is trivial for a business.

1) You're still overgeneralizing 2) If $100 was actually trivial for a business then Apple wouldn't demand it.

>1) You're still overgeneralizing

Do you think the OP is not doing this as a pastime? There is nothing in their statement to indicate anything but.

>2) If $100 was actually trivial for a business then Apple wouldn't demand it.

I'm not sure how you can make that leap.

Re: iOS indie app development looks like

#85
post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Something like go, yes. Imo there is benefit to only being able to do things one way, and in swift there are a lot of ways to do everything. A trivial example: why can you bind variables in pattern matches with both case let .some(x) and case .some(let x)?

Because the former works with all associated values in a case, whereas the latter does not. `case let .some(x, y, z)` vs `case .some(let x, let y, let z)`. And the latter exists because you may want some to be immutable and others to be mutable: `case .some(let x, var y, _)`.

In other words, the former is syntactic sugar and having just the latter option would suffice

Re: iOS indie app development looks like

#86
post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because the former works with all associated values in a case, whereas the latter does not. `case let .some(x, y, z)` vs `case .some(let x, let y, let z)`. And the latter exists because you may want some to be immutable and others to be mutable: `case .some(let x, var y, _)`.

In other words, the former is syntactic sugar and having just the latter option would suffice

Yes, but I also don't want to have to go around writing Optional> everywhere, so syntactic sugar is fine.

Re: iOS indie app development looks like

#88

Won't folks prefer to use native system features (e.g. password protected apps or the "hidden" album in Photos app)?

That, and how did Apple managed to approve an application that hides its true purpose like that?

What's exactly wrong with that? We live in a society fully online, virt and nudes are literally a part of normal healthy communication

Re: iOS indie app development looks like

#89

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 actually fully agree with sentiment. iOS is my side project which I've started to literally figure out, why AppStore became so bad. Old school AppStore was a Klondike of good indie apps, but not any more, and now I actually do know the answer. P.S. Being Apple developer made more for my desire to switch to Android, than anything else

Re: iOS indie app development looks like

#90
post #25

> we decided to test a sharp pivot just before shutting it down: rename the app, change the concept from a photo vault to a converter disguise, and sell encryption as a feature. I’m not really convinced that by just changing those you can suddenly get a lot of downloads.

we didn't all core metrics fall 3 times
Post reply on HN