Apple-Developer Relations(marco.org)
marco.org
Apple-Developer Relations
https://marco.org/2021/06/03/developer-relations
274 comments
I think all your points are pretty strange, but this one I don't even understand:
> - They pretend to have all these problems hosting apps that are somehow solved by fees, while completely ignoring all the free apps that clearly tax that same infrastructure.
Clearly they are not saying that each individual app has to bear its costs, obviously free apps are subsidised by paid apps. And they've never said they are "having problems". They are saying that they are providing a valuable service and want to get paid for that.
> - They conveniently ignore the absurd amount of money they must be making from scams that are constantly top-grossing to add insult to injury.
Do you seriously think that Apple wouldn't prefer a world without scam apps, and without revenues from scam apps. It's very obvious that the presence of scam apps hurts their brand, not to mention their main argument for the walled garden, much more than however many hundreds of million they earn from scam apps, if that.
Apple categorically does not want to make money from scams, even the most rabid Apple hater should acknowledge that.
> - They pretend to have all these problems hosting apps that are somehow solved by fees, while completely ignoring all the free apps that clearly tax that same infrastructure.
Clearly they are not saying that each individual app has to bear its costs, obviously free apps are subsidised by paid apps. And they've never said they are "having problems". They are saying that they are providing a valuable service and want to get paid for that.
> - They conveniently ignore the absurd amount of money they must be making from scams that are constantly top-grossing to add insult to injury.
Do you seriously think that Apple wouldn't prefer a world without scam apps, and without revenues from scam apps. It's very obvious that the presence of scam apps hurts their brand, not to mention their main argument for the walled garden, much more than however many hundreds of million they earn from scam apps, if that.
Apple categorically does not want to make money from scams, even the most rabid Apple hater should acknowledge that.
> ... obviously free apps are subsidised by paid apps ...
If they were so concerned about getting paid, they could easily have an arrangement where companies like Facebook actually have to pay proportional to their use/benefit, aligning incentives. Instead, companies making billions per year pay just $99/year, while developers with a lot less are literally paying a lot more. Obviously, that affects the ability to compete. Worse, the App Store’s economy is so warped that pricing cannot actually reflect true development costs. If Apple wanted to cover infrastructure costs so badly, why would they allow the market to twist to the point where developers cannot reasonably charge higher prices (of which Apple gets a cut)?
> Do you seriously think that Apple wouldn't prefer a world without scam apps ...
One of the trial discoveries was an E-mail from Schiller showing that, while he seemed concerned about such apps reaching the top in 2013, eight YEARS ago, it is still happening (see Washington Post article from just today[1]). A trillion dollar company that is still making money from scams eight YEARS later is showing that it does NOT care about scams. In this case, actions matter, not just words. Scams are stealing money from people, and Apple pockets 30%.
[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27413934
If they were so concerned about getting paid, they could easily have an arrangement where companies like Facebook actually have to pay proportional to their use/benefit, aligning incentives. Instead, companies making billions per year pay just $99/year, while developers with a lot less are literally paying a lot more. Obviously, that affects the ability to compete. Worse, the App Store’s economy is so warped that pricing cannot actually reflect true development costs. If Apple wanted to cover infrastructure costs so badly, why would they allow the market to twist to the point where developers cannot reasonably charge higher prices (of which Apple gets a cut)?
> Do you seriously think that Apple wouldn't prefer a world without scam apps ...
One of the trial discoveries was an E-mail from Schiller showing that, while he seemed concerned about such apps reaching the top in 2013, eight YEARS ago, it is still happening (see Washington Post article from just today[1]). A trillion dollar company that is still making money from scams eight YEARS later is showing that it does NOT care about scams. In this case, actions matter, not just words. Scams are stealing money from people, and Apple pockets 30%.
[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27413934
> obviously free apps are subsidised by paid apps
Subsidised for what exactly?
I'm not suggesting that hosting is free, but even free apps make Apple $99/yr in developer license fees.
Subsidised for what exactly?
I'm not suggesting that hosting is free, but even free apps make Apple $99/yr in developer license fees.
> Subsidised for what exactly?
The cost of running the appstore, which are astronomical. Not just hosting and infrastructure, reviewing 10000+ apps a day is not free either.
> even free apps make Apple $99/yr in developer license fees
Hosting probably costs more than that if the app is popular. Not just the app, but potentially icloud, notifications etc. And 99 dollars is per developer, not per app.
The cost of running the appstore, which are astronomical. Not just hosting and infrastructure, reviewing 10000+ apps a day is not free either.
> even free apps make Apple $99/yr in developer license fees
Hosting probably costs more than that if the app is popular. Not just the app, but potentially icloud, notifications etc. And 99 dollars is per developer, not per app.
> - They pretend with a straight face like it was somehow impossible to sell software or reach customers before their magical store made it happen.
I've never heard them claim that. The claim is that for an appliance like a phone - rather than a general purpose computer - device reliability trumps all, including the ability for the consumer to run arbitrary code on the device.
I've never heard them claim that. The claim is that for an appliance like a phone - rather than a general purpose computer - device reliability trumps all, including the ability for the consumer to run arbitrary code on the device.
They have claimed multiple times that before the App Store you had to get your programs from a brick and mortar store at a large commission, which justifies their 30%. Conveniently omitting that internet has already existed.
They have. See their responses to the Senate anti-trust panel. Also in numerous interviews.
https://www.politico.com/news/2020/07/28/tech-ceo-antitrust-...
> Opening statement from Apple CEO Tim Cook
> When the App Store was created, the prevailing distribution options available to software developers at the time did not work well. Brick-and-mortar stores charged high fees and had limited reach. Physical media like CDs had to be shipped and were hard to update.
> From the beginning, the App Store was a revolutionary alternative.
> App Store developers set prices for their apps and never pay for “shelf space.”
[...]
> [Apple’s commissions] are vastly lower than the 50 to 70 percent that software developers paid to distribute their work before we launched the App Store.
> Opening statement from Apple CEO Tim Cook
> When the App Store was created, the prevailing distribution options available to software developers at the time did not work well. Brick-and-mortar stores charged high fees and had limited reach. Physical media like CDs had to be shipped and were hard to update.
> From the beginning, the App Store was a revolutionary alternative.
> App Store developers set prices for their apps and never pay for “shelf space.”
[...]
> [Apple’s commissions] are vastly lower than the 50 to 70 percent that software developers paid to distribute their work before we launched the App Store.
"Did not work well" is 100% true. It is not the same as "impossible".
> They pretend with a straight face like it was somehow impossible to sell software or reach customers before their magical store made it happen.
I never heard them claim it but speaking as a developer it's obvious that Apple was a driving force here. Sellable desktop software became obsolete due to piracy. Everything is server-based now. Mobile apps, particularly on iOS, is the only place where the general public consistently buys client software. Most people don't want cracked apps on their devices, and they want secure, privacy-focused phones. Apple has had that focus for years.
I never heard them claim it but speaking as a developer it's obvious that Apple was a driving force here. Sellable desktop software became obsolete due to piracy. Everything is server-based now. Mobile apps, particularly on iOS, is the only place where the general public consistently buys client software. Most people don't want cracked apps on their devices, and they want secure, privacy-focused phones. Apple has had that focus for years.
Err, I think you'll find plenty of people still spending heaps of cash on games than run localy on PC, which is where all the money is in the App Store too.
Phrased differently you'll find these kind of statements in the testimonies by Apple execs in the Epic case. On the other hand your claim that:
>Sellable desktop software became obsolete due to piracy.
Is unfounded. Games are sellable desktop software and they're doing just fine. What people want is fair prices and easy availability, which is the business model of every digital store since itunes.
>Sellable desktop software became obsolete due to piracy.
Is unfounded. Games are sellable desktop software and they're doing just fine. What people want is fair prices and easy availability, which is the business model of every digital store since itunes.
> Games are sellable desktop software and they're doing just fine.
Popular ones require an internet connection, and license authentication piggybacks on that. Blizzard and the original WoW's were among the first to do this successfully and the trend continues. Prior to that, people would either crack software and/or refuse remote connections for games that didn't require internet in order to avoid paying for and licensing them.
> What people want is fair prices and easy availability
And developers and investors want to be able to securely sell software. Apple's store provides ease of use along with a secure platform that users trust.
Popular ones require an internet connection, and license authentication piggybacks on that. Blizzard and the original WoW's were among the first to do this successfully and the trend continues. Prior to that, people would either crack software and/or refuse remote connections for games that didn't require internet in order to avoid paying for and licensing them.
> What people want is fair prices and easy availability
And developers and investors want to be able to securely sell software. Apple's store provides ease of use along with a secure platform that users trust.
That wasn’t true for iTunes where copying MP3s was trivial. Of course theirs still piracy, but why did the DRM-free Witcher 3 make millions of dollars? Your argument just doesn’t hold up with real life data.
SaaS and subscriptions are more prevalent and successful than software that does not require a remote connection. When client software sells well it's an exception.
Music was completely different. The RIAA was suing pirates for thousands of dollars, and Apple provided both a store and great hardware for their product. People cheered them on for finally convincing the music industry to make content digitally available. It turns out all people wanted was easy access. And now for things that could be desktop software, we have subscriptions, memberships, etc.
Music was completely different. The RIAA was suing pirates for thousands of dollars, and Apple provided both a store and great hardware for their product. People cheered them on for finally convincing the music industry to make content digitally available. It turns out all people wanted was easy access. And now for things that could be desktop software, we have subscriptions, memberships, etc.
Games have used a form of content protection since the 80s. It's not a new thing. We traded code wheels to CD keys to online activation. Most games actually DON'T require an active internet connection, they require an online activation at install and then they can be played offline. With digital downloads it's basically moot and games can still be pirated anyways. Some big titles like the Witcher 3 are actually entirely DRM free.
Steam is a marketplace that gives developers and investors a place to securely sell software and is easy for consumers to use and have fair prices. And it doesn't require users to give up all control of their PC to the manufacturer. Nor do all purchases have to flow through Valve.
And Steam as a game store predates the App Store by a few years too.
Steam is a marketplace that gives developers and investors a place to securely sell software and is easy for consumers to use and have fair prices. And it doesn't require users to give up all control of their PC to the manufacturer. Nor do all purchases have to flow through Valve.
And Steam as a game store predates the App Store by a few years too.
> Games are sellable desktop software and they're doing just fine.
I don't know anyone who's bought a PC/Mac game from anywhere that isn't an App Store in the past 5 years. Steam is a juggernaut, and so is Microsoft for that matter.
I don't know anyone who's bought a PC/Mac game from anywhere that isn't an App Store in the past 5 years. Steam is a juggernaut, and so is Microsoft for that matter.
>Is unfounded. Games are sellable desktop software and they're doing just fine.
On Stream, the App Store, console stores, and other similar plaforms.
On Stream, the App Store, console stores, and other similar plaforms.
There's piracy, sure, but I'm not losing 30% of sales due to it.
I currently run a freemium software business just fine for Windows and macOS. Just sign the code for Windows, notorize it on macOS and sell it through a service I use called Paddle that handles payment, international sales tax and licensing for about 6%.
I currently run a freemium software business just fine for Windows and macOS. Just sign the code for Windows, notorize it on macOS and sell it through a service I use called Paddle that handles payment, international sales tax and licensing for about 6%.
> Sellable desktop software became obsolete due to piracy.
This is almost certainly not true. If anything hurt selling desktop apps, it was Apples policies encouraging dirt cheap apps on the App Store that then led to customer expectations of the cost of apps dropping dramatically.
There were recent stories about how software shops like Panic are going back to selling only desktop apps and ending their iOS apps.
If anything, the technology to prevent piracy had only gotten significantly better by the time ios came out, and companies were doing just fine even before.
This is almost certainly not true. If anything hurt selling desktop apps, it was Apples policies encouraging dirt cheap apps on the App Store that then led to customer expectations of the cost of apps dropping dramatically.
There were recent stories about how software shops like Panic are going back to selling only desktop apps and ending their iOS apps.
If anything, the technology to prevent piracy had only gotten significantly better by the time ios came out, and companies were doing just fine even before.
How did they encourage dirt cheap apps?
> Most people don't want cracked apps on their devices, and they want secure, privacy-focused phones
I agree - but apple fails on this point.
You should be able to protect your own phone. You should be able to install a firewall or further sandboxing, functions that the app store prohibit.
This is really simple:
- You should be able to find out what an app is doing - you should know what sites an app contacts - you should be able to block this - you should be able to block apple itself
This is so common sense yet not possible using apple's app store.
I agree - but apple fails on this point.
You should be able to protect your own phone. You should be able to install a firewall or further sandboxing, functions that the app store prohibit.
This is really simple:
- You should be able to find out what an app is doing - you should know what sites an app contacts - you should be able to block this - you should be able to block apple itself
This is so common sense yet not possible using apple's app store.
I owned almost every iteration of Blackberry and Nokia's before that. I never once paid for an app on any phone prior to an iPhone. I remember people selling them, but it required me to visit their website on a desktop computer, trust them with my credit card info and then awkwardly get their app on my device through mobile websites or specialized cables plus software on my computer.
In the mobile world I think Apple did indeed lay the groundwork for a viable mobile marketplace.
And except for a few apps like Netflix, I'd happily pay 30% on top of what goes to the dev to avoid having to go through that again.
100% of the sticker price on apps could go to the app maker and then have the fees tacked on top. It would put stronger pressure on Apple to bring down the fees and consumers would actually know where their money is going. (I think the same should be required for credit card fees, fwiw.)
In the mobile world I think Apple did indeed lay the groundwork for a viable mobile marketplace.
And except for a few apps like Netflix, I'd happily pay 30% on top of what goes to the dev to avoid having to go through that again.
100% of the sticker price on apps could go to the app maker and then have the fees tacked on top. It would put stronger pressure on Apple to bring down the fees and consumers would actually know where their money is going. (I think the same should be required for credit card fees, fwiw.)
I think clear pricing is a great potential solution to the App Store fee issue. Thanks
When Nokias were a thing, 15 years ago, all computer interfaces were much inferior to what we have today, not just mobile app downloads. Phone hardware was super basic. SaaS wasn't a thing even. Facebook was a hip new thing, only 3 years old. It was a different world not just because of Apple.
I think the core sentiment here is being lost.
This isn’t so much a call to action against Apple’s fees.
It’s pointing out something that I’ve felt building over the last couple of years out of Apple, which is an attitude of hubris, contempt, and a “taking for granted” of Apple’s developers.
The WWDC spiel of how much they value us has become trite and transparent.
They do produce some really nice tools and APIs. I can’t knock what they provide developers.
But often times the attitude beneath the veneer is a precursor of things to come, and it’s becoming noticeable that Apple’s culture seems to care less about its developers now than before.
You might say “sure, but so what? Developers are part of the means to an end of selling stuff”, and you’re not wrong.
But one of the things I loved about Apple circa 2009 was their respect for their user. It was palpable and magical, even.
Then, learning Cocoa and Interface Builder coming from Eclipse and Java, that same respect seemed to permeate their dev environment as well.
That seems lost. Following some of their tech leads on Twitter exposes some rather vitriolic feelings towards people in general.
Customers, be they users or devs, deserve respect. Apple used to be great at giving that respect. I fear it’s slipping away culturally, and is worth calling out.
This isn’t so much a call to action against Apple’s fees.
It’s pointing out something that I’ve felt building over the last couple of years out of Apple, which is an attitude of hubris, contempt, and a “taking for granted” of Apple’s developers.
The WWDC spiel of how much they value us has become trite and transparent.
They do produce some really nice tools and APIs. I can’t knock what they provide developers.
But often times the attitude beneath the veneer is a precursor of things to come, and it’s becoming noticeable that Apple’s culture seems to care less about its developers now than before.
You might say “sure, but so what? Developers are part of the means to an end of selling stuff”, and you’re not wrong.
But one of the things I loved about Apple circa 2009 was their respect for their user. It was palpable and magical, even.
Then, learning Cocoa and Interface Builder coming from Eclipse and Java, that same respect seemed to permeate their dev environment as well.
That seems lost. Following some of their tech leads on Twitter exposes some rather vitriolic feelings towards people in general.
Customers, be they users or devs, deserve respect. Apple used to be great at giving that respect. I fear it’s slipping away culturally, and is worth calling out.
> They do produce some really nice tools and APIs. I can’t knock what they provide developers.
I wish that were true. But Xcode today feels like a bloated, buggy mess. It crashes regularly, and sometimes it lags so badly writing swift code that it drops keystrokes. It feels like permanently beta software, where the team never has time to fix the bugs in the last version before they’re rushing the next version out the door.
Working in javascript and rust sets the bar for tooling and documentation much higher than Apple seems currently able to reach.
I wish that were true. But Xcode today feels like a bloated, buggy mess. It crashes regularly, and sometimes it lags so badly writing swift code that it drops keystrokes. It feels like permanently beta software, where the team never has time to fix the bugs in the last version before they’re rushing the next version out the door.
Working in javascript and rust sets the bar for tooling and documentation much higher than Apple seems currently able to reach.
It pissed me off as a non-iOS developer that it doubled in size overnight because of the ARM stuff. I'm not even writing Mac Apps, I just need the system libraries so I can install Homebrew GCC and get on with my work.
afaict Apple has never had respect for the developer, the user sometimes, maybe, but often they would make choices for you because it was The Apple Way, and any other way was left to languish.
Sometimes The Apple Way was awesome, sometimes, meh.
Sometimes The Apple Way was awesome, sometimes, meh.
Mac developers have been bitching about Apple for 30+ years. There are lots of valid criticisms. At the same time I find the "Apple takes us for granted" complaints a little hollow.
I think a lot of developers discount the platform and think it's all their apps that bring in iOS uses. This was more true in the 90s on the Mac. The platform Apple provided was good but it was the third party software that really made the platform what it was.
There's a handful on Windows applications I remember today. It's only because I used them all the time. On the other hand there's a ton of Mac apps I remember candidly even though I used them far less frequently.
The iOS platform of 2021 is not the Mac platform of 1995 or even 2001. Apple moves more iOS devices in a quarter than they moved Macs for the entirety of the 90s. Third party apps a an important part of the iOS platform but they're not the primary driver of device sales.
I think a lot of developers discount the platform and think it's all their apps that bring in iOS uses. This was more true in the 90s on the Mac. The platform Apple provided was good but it was the third party software that really made the platform what it was.
There's a handful on Windows applications I remember today. It's only because I used them all the time. On the other hand there's a ton of Mac apps I remember candidly even though I used them far less frequently.
The iOS platform of 2021 is not the Mac platform of 1995 or even 2001. Apple moves more iOS devices in a quarter than they moved Macs for the entirety of the 90s. Third party apps a an important part of the iOS platform but they're not the primary driver of device sales.
The iPhone without then apps that run on it is somewhat interesting, but is largely a novelty; they happen to provide a platform on which I can conveniently access Facebook/Twitter/Instagram/TikTok, Lyft/Uber/DoorDash/Instacart, or Flippy Unicorn / Geometry Racer. Many people said Windows Phone's UI was amazing--I even know stanch Apple people who said that--and pretty much everyone I knew thought Palm's WebOS was better than iOS in myriad ways... but I wouldn't even consider buying either of those devices because I wouldn't be able to use the apps I use literally all day every day. Hell: apps are so important that before Apple introduced the APP store, like 50% of the few people who owned the original iPhone (which had potential, but did kind of suck) were jailbreaking it, so they could do something as simple as play a game, as Apple had seriously shipped a phone without even a copy of Snake. The iPhone would merely be an "extravagance" for most people... were it not for the apps that it has managed to get to develop often uniquely for their platform (something I would argue is done using anti-competitive lock-in strategies, and at the extreme disadvantage of the user, more than simply by good engineering).
The iPhone without then apps that run on it is somewhat interesting, but is largely a novelty
Others might have a different perspective. For example, personally I use an iPhone because the following are my requirements in descending order of priority:
1. I now need a smartphone running one of the two major platforms.
2. I do not want anything to do with Google, ever.
3. I don't like a lot of what Apple do but they aren't as bad as Google.
I do use a small number of third party apps on my iPhone, because they are now a practical necessity to function as part of society without extreme restrictions. For example, I do not want to spend 20 minutes trying to navigate a phone system with bad voice recognition in a noisy environment just to pay for 30 minutes of parking, nor do I want to break the law, and that leaves exactly one other option in many of the places I visit: use one of the well-known parking apps.
Other than using those few essential apps when I have to, I mostly use my phone as it was when it came out of the box: for communications, as a poor-but-present web browsing device, and as a general tool with a useful camera, mic and light.
Others might have a different perspective. For example, personally I use an iPhone because the following are my requirements in descending order of priority:
1. I now need a smartphone running one of the two major platforms.
2. I do not want anything to do with Google, ever.
3. I don't like a lot of what Apple do but they aren't as bad as Google.
I do use a small number of third party apps on my iPhone, because they are now a practical necessity to function as part of society without extreme restrictions. For example, I do not want to spend 20 minutes trying to navigate a phone system with bad voice recognition in a noisy environment just to pay for 30 minutes of parking, nor do I want to break the law, and that leaves exactly one other option in many of the places I visit: use one of the well-known parking apps.
Other than using those few essential apps when I have to, I mostly use my phone as it was when it came out of the box: for communications, as a poor-but-present web browsing device, and as a general tool with a useful camera, mic and light.
Why do you need one of the two major platforms if not for apps? Without your parking app available for example on iOS would you still pick the iPhone? Or would you settle for Google and Android? Without third party apps the iPhone would just be a feature phone with a very nice web browser.
Now there's probably people that get away entirely with just the built in set of apps but I bet that's eroding day by day as more and more things require or are greatly simplified by apps, like banking, parking,eetc .
Now there's probably people that get away entirely with just the built in set of apps but I bet that's eroding day by day as more and more things require or are greatly simplified by apps, like banking, parking,eetc .
Yes, the small number of essential apps are why I need a smartphone on one of the two dominant platforms. As you say, it's mostly for "official business", and those apps are invariably free and typically provided by or used with some "official" organisation. I don't need them often, but when I do, there may be no sensible alternative any more.
If it weren't for those, I think personally I would be quite happy to have more of a "dumbphone". A digital Swiss army knife is a very useful device. A poor imitation of general purpose computing is not, and something like a laptop or a desktop workstation is a more suitable tool in that case.
If it weren't for those, I think personally I would be quite happy to have more of a "dumbphone". A digital Swiss army knife is a very useful device. A poor imitation of general purpose computing is not, and something like a laptop or a desktop workstation is a more suitable tool in that case.
Ask yourself this, then. Would you be content to replace your iPhone with an older iPhone that fulfills the same needs? Maybe an iPhone 6S for a half-decent camera by today's standards? Or even an iPhone 5c? If you only need it for essential needs, how basic should an iPhone be?
No, I wouldn't use a much older Apple phone.
One of the things I really dislike about Apple is that they don't give clear statements of how long they will provide software updates and in particular security updates for on each product. For a device like a phone that is inherently connecting to external networks all the time, I regard those updates as essential. There also seem to be some vulnerabilities inherent in the design of older iPhones that have been addressed in newer models.
Another thing I really dislike about Apple is that iOS Safari lags behind everyone else in the industry when it comes to new features and supporting high performance pages. Regardless of why you believe this is the case, again an older device that either no longer gets updates or is unlikely to get many more is a liability.
Finally, while the camera on older iPhones might be half-decent by today's standards, I prefer one that is actually decent.
One of the things I really dislike about Apple is that they don't give clear statements of how long they will provide software updates and in particular security updates for on each product. For a device like a phone that is inherently connecting to external networks all the time, I regard those updates as essential. There also seem to be some vulnerabilities inherent in the design of older iPhones that have been addressed in newer models.
Another thing I really dislike about Apple is that iOS Safari lags behind everyone else in the industry when it comes to new features and supporting high performance pages. Regardless of why you believe this is the case, again an older device that either no longer gets updates or is unlikely to get many more is a liability.
Finally, while the camera on older iPhones might be half-decent by today's standards, I prefer one that is actually decent.
I'd gladly go back to my iPhone SE (2016) if I could downgrade it back to iOS 13, where it was able to do both turn-by-turn navigation and music playback when using wired CarPlay.
The only reason I bought a new iPhone was because that functionality stopped working reliably under iOS 14, and it effectively became and either/or proposition, which wasn't acceptable.
The only reason I bought a new iPhone was because that functionality stopped working reliably under iOS 14, and it effectively became and either/or proposition, which wasn't acceptable.
Absolutely - till this year I was rocking an iPhone 7+ as my daily driver. If the screen didn’t crack I’d have kept it for another year.
I put on a screen protector, gave it away to a friends kid, and I hear he still uses it.
I put on a screen protector, gave it away to a friends kid, and I hear he still uses it.
At D5 [1], What did Steve & Bill Gate admire in the other?
Bill: Steve’s taste,
Steve: Microsoft’s ability to partner.
Apple is basically repeating a lot of their early mistakes. Some of those lessons Steve took it to heart when he returns to Apple from NeXT.
>This isn’t about the 30%, or the 15%,.......It’s about what Apple’s leadership thinks of us and our work.
There is also another point Marco didn't mention. It is not your customers either. Apple has been very clear in all of their communications. The user of iPhone, are Apple's customers. Even the third party Apps, they are accessing Apple's customers. And hence the relationship is very much not a partnership. Since Apple claims ownership on both the Apps and the customers. In the name of privacy and user experience.
>but Apple uses their position of power to double-dip.
Finally! Someone in the Apple community use the term double-dip! A term Apple has used against Qualcomm and sent a whole PR team to damage their reputation.
>But the leaders have already shown us who they really are, what they really think of us, and how little they value our work.
Unfortunately Tim Cook isn't the type of person who understand this. You should probably listen to his testimony to make your own judgement. But after the Epic Vs Apple trial it became very clear why Steve said Tim Cook isn't a product person. There are quite possibly zero product sensibility within Tim Cook. And I am not sure who is in-charge of the PR now either. Their message are delusional, hypocritical and reminds me a lot of Google in the 00s. I missed Katie Cotton's era.
[1] (76:30 ) https://on.wsj.com/2zWWqPU
Bill: Steve’s taste,
Steve: Microsoft’s ability to partner.
Apple is basically repeating a lot of their early mistakes. Some of those lessons Steve took it to heart when he returns to Apple from NeXT.
>This isn’t about the 30%, or the 15%,.......It’s about what Apple’s leadership thinks of us and our work.
There is also another point Marco didn't mention. It is not your customers either. Apple has been very clear in all of their communications. The user of iPhone, are Apple's customers. Even the third party Apps, they are accessing Apple's customers. And hence the relationship is very much not a partnership. Since Apple claims ownership on both the Apps and the customers. In the name of privacy and user experience.
>but Apple uses their position of power to double-dip.
Finally! Someone in the Apple community use the term double-dip! A term Apple has used against Qualcomm and sent a whole PR team to damage their reputation.
>But the leaders have already shown us who they really are, what they really think of us, and how little they value our work.
Unfortunately Tim Cook isn't the type of person who understand this. You should probably listen to his testimony to make your own judgement. But after the Epic Vs Apple trial it became very clear why Steve said Tim Cook isn't a product person. There are quite possibly zero product sensibility within Tim Cook. And I am not sure who is in-charge of the PR now either. Their message are delusional, hypocritical and reminds me a lot of Google in the 00s. I missed Katie Cotton's era.
[1] (76:30 ) https://on.wsj.com/2zWWqPU
[deleted]
I used to love browsing the app store looking for cool apps. Now I can't even trust searching for the app by name because sometimes a completely different app shows up, and then there is the case of appstore ads. It's a joke.
It's a bit unfair to state that you are the only option when it comes to ios apps, to then push ads on your captive customers and provide them with a lower quality of service. iPhone is a premium product, ads have always seemed to me to be a symbol of tacky seediness, a cheap alternative for the masses. It's not in line with Apples image. At least it shouldn't be.
Not adding ads to a platform was the whole basis of "A million dollars isn't cool. You know what's cool? A billion dollars is cool."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k5fJmkv02is&t=93s
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k5fJmkv02is&t=93s
The iPhone is certainly expensive, but it's a bit to abusive to its users to be called "premium."
Maybe if it had a self hosting dev environment like macs do but certainly not the way it is now.
Maybe if it had a self hosting dev environment like macs do but certainly not the way it is now.
At least the App Store ads are completely contextual.
Not for long. The search page by default shows one non-contextual app above their ranked list of apps you might like.
Also, these ads along with ones in News and Stocks are targeted ads based on a user targeting profile from your data. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27261273
Personalized ads can be disabled in Settings -> Privacy -> Apple ads.
So Apple pushes others to be Opt-in meanwhile they are Opt-out?
The Apple ad setting is about personalized ads, not tracking.
> App Tracking Transparency allows you to choose whether an app can track your activity across other companies’ apps and websites for the purposes of advertising or sharing with data brokers.
https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT212025
Apple does not track you across other companies' apps and websites so I don't see how this is related. Facebook can still do personalized ads even if you click on "ask app not to track".
> App Tracking Transparency allows you to choose whether an app can track your activity across other companies’ apps and websites for the purposes of advertising or sharing with data brokers.
https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT212025
Apple does not track you across other companies' apps and websites so I don't see how this is related. Facebook can still do personalized ads even if you click on "ask app not to track".
Totally agree. I'm using your phone, your app store and download APP which leads me paying 30% to you, and you show me Ads for more money?!
That's because Apple introduced their own targeted ads, which you don't need to opt-in to (since there is no opt-out). See more below:
https://searchads.apple.com/advanced/
https://searchads.apple.com/advanced/
This is another way to extract money from developers -- you have to purchase the search ad for your own app in order to show up first when someone searches for the exact name of your app. Not only does this cost feel a bit silly, it can also be substantial. From the blog's author, Marco Arment, who develops Overcast: https://twitter.com/marcoarment/status/1392089383864393728/p...
CPT (cost for a single tap): $2.18
CPA (cost for a single download): $53.43
CPT (cost for a single tap): $2.18
CPA (cost for a single download): $53.43
Would fewer restrictions on publishing apps that pretend to be other apps somehow improve the situation?
Trust is supposed to be one of the things the AppStore provides, which is used as an argument against third-party stores. But since Apple is failing so miserably in this regard it’s not a good argument.
I agree that Apple is nowhere near restrictive enough with what makes it into the App Store, which is an argument that they ought to be more restrictive.
Which is an argument for why they should either be regulated or be forced to introduce competition since otherwise there is no incentive for them to fix these issues.
They should start by being more restrictive with the problems they’ve created for themselves, like ads in search, fake reviews, and editorial recommendations for the worst-of-the-worst adware.
It would be better than outright lying to their customers by saying that they are protecting them, yes.
I’m not in favor of them lying to their customers by saying that they are protecting them, but I’m in favor of them resolving the discrepancy by protecting their customers rather than by retracting their claim.
I recently released an app with one word purposely misspelt (the first word has a z at the end instead of an s). Even if you type in the full app name it still appears as the 5th search result.
"The “way” is already paid by the hardware — but Apple uses their position of power to double-dip."
I understand the optics of this don't look good, but is it wrong to have multiple sources of revenue derived from the "way"?
1. what happens if supply chain dynamics and smartphone market competition negatively impact the hardware margins? What happens when consumer appetite for innovation in the phone stagnates and margins collapse? This would happen because Apple couldn't leverage new hw+sw features to differentiate itself.
2. How do we know the price of the hardware today isn't offset by services revenue? service revenue disappearing might increase the upfront cost of the phone for everyone.
In either of these scenarios, if Apple got to the point of _needing_ the app store fees to make the iPhone an attractive product to build and support, they couldn't start charging in the future. It needs to be set in advance and continue. They can always decrease the fees, but cannot make them go up. It would not be fair for developers to decide on making an app as a business venture only to find out in the future there is a 30% platform. This is something that has been known and transparent since day, yet developers continue to see the value of the platform.
Just looking at it from their position
I understand the optics of this don't look good, but is it wrong to have multiple sources of revenue derived from the "way"?
1. what happens if supply chain dynamics and smartphone market competition negatively impact the hardware margins? What happens when consumer appetite for innovation in the phone stagnates and margins collapse? This would happen because Apple couldn't leverage new hw+sw features to differentiate itself.
2. How do we know the price of the hardware today isn't offset by services revenue? service revenue disappearing might increase the upfront cost of the phone for everyone.
In either of these scenarios, if Apple got to the point of _needing_ the app store fees to make the iPhone an attractive product to build and support, they couldn't start charging in the future. It needs to be set in advance and continue. They can always decrease the fees, but cannot make them go up. It would not be fair for developers to decide on making an app as a business venture only to find out in the future there is a 30% platform. This is something that has been known and transparent since day, yet developers continue to see the value of the platform.
Just looking at it from their position
Hmm, I generally take the pro-Apple stance on this. I don’t want side loading or third party stores. It’s Apples product and they get to decide what features it has, IMHO. I don’t want government committees dictating the security model and software architecture of my phone, thanks.
However Marco’s argument is spot on. Apple is saying in Senate hearings that App developers are picking up crumbs from the App Store’s floor and should be grateful for what they get, while reassuring devs that they are what makes iPhone so great. Too many of Apples moves against devs on the store recently have bordered on the abusive. Yes they’re greatly trimmed charges for small dev shops, but the rules on that are awkward and are clearly about optics not substance.
To your questions.
1. Then Apple would have failed to offer a compelling product. There are other phones and app stores out there. If Apple can’t compete with Samsung on the quality of their phones, then they’re not the Apple I know and love anymore. It’s up to them to add value, not leech it off others. They do deserve fair recompense for their services, but that’s all.
2. We know very well what their hardware margins are. From their own filings, their phone hardware margins are over 35%.
However Marco’s argument is spot on. Apple is saying in Senate hearings that App developers are picking up crumbs from the App Store’s floor and should be grateful for what they get, while reassuring devs that they are what makes iPhone so great. Too many of Apples moves against devs on the store recently have bordered on the abusive. Yes they’re greatly trimmed charges for small dev shops, but the rules on that are awkward and are clearly about optics not substance.
To your questions.
1. Then Apple would have failed to offer a compelling product. There are other phones and app stores out there. If Apple can’t compete with Samsung on the quality of their phones, then they’re not the Apple I know and love anymore. It’s up to them to add value, not leech it off others. They do deserve fair recompense for their services, but that’s all.
2. We know very well what their hardware margins are. From their own filings, their phone hardware margins are over 35%.
I also "don’t want government committees dictating the security model", but IMHO it's a big leap from that to advocating against consumer choice within a general purpose product.
So you get Apple dictating both the security model and the commercial model, to developer detriment.
It's clearly monopolistic - exploitative, monolithic, controlling.
The app store is the biggest source of friction standing between app developers and their customers.
Now - this wouldn't be a problem if Apple did the job they claim they do, improved search so it worked well, provided easy visibility for relevant apps, and threw out the scams and the trash.
That isn't what's happening. And that is a problem.
The security angle is a non-issue. Returning the app ecosystem to some semblance of functionality and fairness would is an orthogonal issue.
Apple can keep its walled garden. But it needs to start treating it like a valuable garden, not like a pile of burning trash that happens to generate huge amounts of free money.
It's clearly monopolistic - exploitative, monolithic, controlling.
The app store is the biggest source of friction standing between app developers and their customers.
Now - this wouldn't be a problem if Apple did the job they claim they do, improved search so it worked well, provided easy visibility for relevant apps, and threw out the scams and the trash.
That isn't what's happening. And that is a problem.
The security angle is a non-issue. Returning the app ecosystem to some semblance of functionality and fairness would is an orthogonal issue.
Apple can keep its walled garden. But it needs to start treating it like a valuable garden, not like a pile of burning trash that happens to generate huge amounts of free money.
>That isn’t happening.
When Apple says they rejected 1 million app submissions in 2020 and cancelled 470,000 developer accounts for fraud in the same period, do you think they’re lying?
https://www.cnbc.com/2021/05/11/apple-rejected-nearly-1-mill...
When Apple says they rejected 1 million app submissions in 2020 and cancelled 470,000 developer accounts for fraud in the same period, do you think they’re lying?
https://www.cnbc.com/2021/05/11/apple-rejected-nearly-1-mill...
Why is it a big leap? Consumers also choose to buy Apple and the assumption is we're too stupid to know we can buy something else and do more with it. It's just as big an insult. If I can't get your app on iOS then I just won't use your app. I don't care if it's on Android because I didn't buy an iPhone to use your specific app.
If you want to legislate for consumer choice do so but can we stop pretending this is some battle for choice when it's literally about two behemoth corporations arguing over how they split our money.
If you want to legislate for consumer choice do so but can we stop pretending this is some battle for choice when it's literally about two behemoth corporations arguing over how they split our money.
I don’t think it’s a big leap at all. On summers have a choice if they buy a product. They don’t get to dictate what products a company is allowed to make. Safety and consumer protection, fine, but I don’t see this as about consumer protection. It’s about some people wishing Apple would change their phones to suit their preferences, but there’s no obligation on Apple to do so.
People have always wished Apple would sell computers with this or that feature, this or that peripheral or option. That’s not how it works though. If they don’t sell a device that suits your needs, you have the same recourse the rest of us have.
But do you really think they would stop with specifications for side loading and App Store APIs, security profiles and associated OS services? How about specs for police and security services back doors, tracking and surveillance. They won’t be able to help themselves. And if the US can pass laws demanding these things, that creates a precedent for Russia, China, Saudi Arabia etc to follow suit.
People have always wished Apple would sell computers with this or that feature, this or that peripheral or option. That’s not how it works though. If they don’t sell a device that suits your needs, you have the same recourse the rest of us have.
But do you really think they would stop with specifications for side loading and App Store APIs, security profiles and associated OS services? How about specs for police and security services back doors, tracking and surveillance. They won’t be able to help themselves. And if the US can pass laws demanding these things, that creates a precedent for Russia, China, Saudi Arabia etc to follow suit.
This is definitely a case where our Senate is out of it's depths. Software licensing and the world of software distribution is still a remarkably new field in the political world, so it makes sense that our government is totally lost here. There is no precedent for what Apple is doing. This is the licensing nightmare scenario all of the BSD developers warned about when Sony sold the Playstation Linux Kit: we no longer own the hardware we buy, we simply lease it from someone who provisions us authority to it as they see fit. It's a harrowing paradigm.
>How do we know the price of the hardware today isn't offset by services revenue?
Unless you want to some doggy NRE number into accounting. Apple's hardware are extremely profitable doesn't matter how you spin or slice it.
But, yes. Today's price are subsidise by their services revenue. The keyword here is price. Apple still gets to keep their same margin. Basically Apple shifted the cost of macOS, cloud and other software expenses from Hardware / Product cost to Services revenue. This was stated in their 2018 investor notes.
Again, Macro's point isn't just about 30%. There is an Anti-Competitive, Anti Trust play here. Of course those two words have difference definition to quite literally everyone, and especially different from a US and EU stand point.
Unless you want to some doggy NRE number into accounting. Apple's hardware are extremely profitable doesn't matter how you spin or slice it.
But, yes. Today's price are subsidise by their services revenue. The keyword here is price. Apple still gets to keep their same margin. Basically Apple shifted the cost of macOS, cloud and other software expenses from Hardware / Product cost to Services revenue. This was stated in their 2018 investor notes.
Again, Macro's point isn't just about 30%. There is an Anti-Competitive, Anti Trust play here. Of course those two words have difference definition to quite literally everyone, and especially different from a US and EU stand point.
I don't think they shifted anything, they just added the new revenue on top and became more profitable.
Apple used to account their software development cost as part of their product COGS. Which is what Steve's way of saying you buy iPhone for iOS. Both are the same and one. I believe this was listed in their late 00s investor notes. We dont know how much they account for those development though. It was never listed, but in the case of 2018, $10 / devices were put to Services Revenue. Which is roughly $3B annual revenue to Services Revenue.
Marco literally states that it’s not wrong pointing out that it’s their business prerogative and further they aren’t known for being very generous anyways.
So you’re arguing a straw man.
And if the service revenue was supporting hardware revenue Apple’s services wouldn’t largely be limited to Apple devices.
Besides, Apple is a public company and we can see how those revenues break out. Further, we can guess that even the relatively minuscule service income would largely disappear, if, for example, I could download apps at a 15% discount using a non Apple App Store to an iPhone and not have to jailbreak the iPhone.
So you’re arguing a straw man.
And if the service revenue was supporting hardware revenue Apple’s services wouldn’t largely be limited to Apple devices.
Besides, Apple is a public company and we can see how those revenues break out. Further, we can guess that even the relatively minuscule service income would largely disappear, if, for example, I could download apps at a 15% discount using a non Apple App Store to an iPhone and not have to jailbreak the iPhone.
I was just arguing the quote "Apple uses their position of power to double-dip"
Double dip has connotations that they are taking twice when they should only be taking once. I am simply saying that diverse revenue streams to capture value from a product is not wrong. Therefore, calling out "double dipping" behavior is unfair.
Double dip has connotations that they are taking twice when they should only be taking once. I am simply saying that diverse revenue streams to capture value from a product is not wrong. Therefore, calling out "double dipping" behavior is unfair.
If the optics of it don't look good, there's a very good chance that it isn't good.
Optics is just another word for propaganda in this case. The optics just come down to who is able to "control the narrative".
If you read my argument I'm saying the optics don't look good because the margins on phones are high AND they are taking platform fees on top of that. As the margins on phones decrease in the future, the optics won't look as bad.
So basically in your opinion businesses making a lot of money makes for bad optics.
I would have to agree with that. Excessive greed is bad optics.
Apple is literally the world's largest company. I would argue that increasing their market share of anything, anywhere is harmful to the future of humanity, full stop.
No the optics around charging developers large platform fees when they also highly profitable on the phone itself. This whole thread is about double dipping. I am specifically talking about "double dipping" and the optics of that.
That's not an excuse for them to be driving such insane margins then. Plus, who's to say that the iPhone doesn't receive another overhaul in the next few years, driving the margins back down? Apple will continue to play this game of cat-and-mouse for as long as you let them, and that's ultimately how they accumulate wealth. It's a campaign almost entirely ran on deception.
It's a campaign ran on Apple making products that a lot of people like enough to buy them at the price Apple is selling them.
Yes, and at some point it's possible consumers simply won't pay for some new technology down the road. Say for example, a very expensive health/bio sensor. However, Apple might feel that 1) it's good for the world to be able to monitor/improve health, 2) will give safe access to this sensor to 3rd party developers, so it's good Apple can draw on this revenue source from platform fees to make it happen, by killing margins to ship this sensor. I am not saying this is happening today at all. I just think it's good for the platform to have diverse revenue sources. It's good for Apple, but it might also be good for developers too
This is an idyllic situation which has sadly never panned out. Apple has had plenty of times to integrate their hardware and software with open standards, but time and time again they reject it in favor of overcomplicated and inherently insecure solutions. Imagine how simple messaging would be if iMessage was an open protocol, or Airdrop was a standardized and unlicensed. The solution isn't to crush your competitors, it's to coexist with them. Google, Microsoft, Amazon and Facebook have all accepted their postmodern places in the industry, and Apple will continue to stick out like a sore thumb until they return to their core competencies and quit repeating the mistakes Microsoft made in the late 90s.
Customers aren't the only factor here, though. Developers are coming out en-masse to denounce Apple's business practices right now, and the government has been starting to intervene lately too. It's obvious that there is contention in Apple's ecosystem, so they'd be much better suited to addressing it outright instead of dragging it into the world's longest media fiasco. This is (and has been) one of Tim Cook's massive pitfalls, and he repeatedly falls into these asinine grudge matches that only further destroy what little digital cogency there is in this world.
IMHO, Apple can keep their 30% fee on their store if they open the platform to 3rd party stores.
If Apple has to raise prices on their hardware to stay is business, that seems much fairer that using addicted mobile gamers to subsidize hardware for everyone else.
If Apple has to raise prices on their hardware to stay is business, that seems much fairer that using addicted mobile gamers to subsidize hardware for everyone else.
I’ve never paid for an app, and don’t want to pay more for an AppStore that I don’t use. Only app I use other than Apple stock apps is a bank app which I can use safari and Instagram. Which should work on web browsers but I don’t care about it enough to pay money for it
I don't get it, how would you be paying more for an AppStore?
If Apple reduces platform fees the price of the phone could go up to compensate for that.
Also, my experience aligns with this too. I dont game on my phone and basically use default apps. I use the United app to book flights but could easily use the mobile website. Same with Twitter
Also, my experience aligns with this too. I dont game on my phone and basically use default apps. I use the United app to book flights but could easily use the mobile website. Same with Twitter
The profit margin on the iPhone is 35%.
The App Store currently runs at a large profit (estimated to be 70%) primarily from in app purchases in the gaming category.
Your purchasing habits are not indicative of the mainstream; further, the iPhone isn't priced based on cost to the cost to design or manufacture.
Your purchasing habits are not indicative of the mainstream; further, the iPhone isn't priced based on cost to the cost to design or manufacture.
I'm not sure how anything you've said here relates to anything Iv'e said
But then you wouldn't be paying for an AppStore, you would be paying the real cost of the hardware.
This is also entirely hypothetical because Apple has really good margins on their phone sales.
This is also entirely hypothetical because Apple has really good margins on their phone sales.
enos_feedler(2)
I too don't see any issue with this. They built the phone and created a platform to build upon. They exact a 30% tax. So be it. I will not use, install, or tell my friends or family to use, install, or get software from any third party app on their phones as it would break one of the biggest selling points of the iPhone: it's appliance nature and how difficult it is to brick or screw up.
I also don't want the podcasts I subscribe to to have my email. Podcasters claim to want to own the customer and the flow. They only want this for upselling or cross-selling. No. I will pay you through apple-pay without revealing my email, and you can talk about promotions and things in the podcast but otherwise let's leave it at that.
I also don't want the podcasts I subscribe to to have my email. Podcasters claim to want to own the customer and the flow. They only want this for upselling or cross-selling. No. I will pay you through apple-pay without revealing my email, and you can talk about promotions and things in the podcast but otherwise let's leave it at that.
You are not alone. Consumer satisfaction of the iPhone as a product is through the roof. Android has been steadily losing customers who jump over to iPhone.
I am deeply invested in the Apple ecosystem and yet, can’t wait for the DoJ to throw the gauntlet on the App Store.
I really hope they get broken up, with the App Store being extracted into a separate business.
I really hope they get broken up, with the App Store being extracted into a separate business.
1000%.
Apple created the most anti-developer, anti-computing protection racket our industry has ever seen. They captured 50% of all American consumer computing and won't let you have a relationship with your customer, won't let you bill your customer without extracting obscene margin, make you jump through weird hoops, won't let you deploy at your cadence, and won't let you write software the way you want.
This shouldn't have been allowed to happen. The closed nature of the platform is abnormal and has been anticompetitive from the start, and the DOJ fell asleep at the wheel.
iPhone computing is general purpose computing and commerce. It's not video game toys.
All platforms like this should be open like Microsoft Windows.
Make no question. Apple's stance is about capturing every ingress to American consumers they possibly can so that they can tax it.
They're fleecing American companies.
DOJ has one action to take: Force Apple and Google to allow web-based installs of any software (including non-Safari web browsers!) and prevent both companies from running any form of required payment gateway.
Apple created the most anti-developer, anti-computing protection racket our industry has ever seen. They captured 50% of all American consumer computing and won't let you have a relationship with your customer, won't let you bill your customer without extracting obscene margin, make you jump through weird hoops, won't let you deploy at your cadence, and won't let you write software the way you want.
This shouldn't have been allowed to happen. The closed nature of the platform is abnormal and has been anticompetitive from the start, and the DOJ fell asleep at the wheel.
iPhone computing is general purpose computing and commerce. It's not video game toys.
All platforms like this should be open like Microsoft Windows.
Make no question. Apple's stance is about capturing every ingress to American consumers they possibly can so that they can tax it.
They're fleecing American companies.
DOJ has one action to take: Force Apple and Google to allow web-based installs of any software (including non-Safari web browsers!) and prevent both companies from running any form of required payment gateway.
On one hand, the developer in me agrees with you that it does make life harder. On the other hand, as a consumer I've found that I'd rather not trust developers to write software however they want. I want them to have restrictions on how much of my stuff they can access, how they can update their software and how much of a blast radius there would be from messing something up.
Those two things are not fully related. Apple could (and to some extend does) design a system that keeps YOU in control without being an anti-competitive platform that prevents competition in non-OS / non-platform markets.
Preinstalling and pushing Apple Music / iCloud (not to mention giving it private entitlements the competitors can't use) is not related to the iOS security model by itself.
There's also no reason that the curator of your app store has to be the same entity that sold you your hardware - there are plenty of even more trustworthy organizations and people that could create curated stores which might be even more relevant than AppStore haphazard and inconsistent curation.
Imagine if AppStore could just be a framework where you can choose curators you trust more than a Californian megacorp.
Preinstalling and pushing Apple Music / iCloud (not to mention giving it private entitlements the competitors can't use) is not related to the iOS security model by itself.
There's also no reason that the curator of your app store has to be the same entity that sold you your hardware - there are plenty of even more trustworthy organizations and people that could create curated stores which might be even more relevant than AppStore haphazard and inconsistent curation.
Imagine if AppStore could just be a framework where you can choose curators you trust more than a Californian megacorp.
I don't think that's possible if your goal is zero (system-altering) malware - pretty much all (with the exception of checkra1n) recent iOS releases have had a jailbreak that works by chaining exploits to break out of the app sandbox and can be installed via just signing an IPA, gain root and install Cydia/other dpkg frontends. Without the app store you would see these making their way to things people can download, just in the form of 'free vbucks' or other illegitimate apps that silently alter the system to install system-wide adware that replaces ads in other apps with their own.
You're again mistaking security and software safety for anticompetitive business practices.
Apple loves to mix this too - after all, their marketing is spending a lot of money persuading it that those two are related. They're not. Even currently, AppStore is not without malware, so they have failed at that goal and us users have paid too great of a price by distortion of no.1 tenement that makes capitalism a functioning and decent system to live in: competition.
It's like an abused wife being afraid to run away from her husband because she thinks he's the only one that can protect her.
Apple loves to mix this too - after all, their marketing is spending a lot of money persuading it that those two are related. They're not. Even currently, AppStore is not without malware, so they have failed at that goal and us users have paid too great of a price by distortion of no.1 tenement that makes capitalism a functioning and decent system to live in: competition.
It's like an abused wife being afraid to run away from her husband because she thinks he's the only one that can protect her.
[deleted]
I'm not mistaking those - surely the human aspect helps avoid most (if not all) system-altering malware, while 'malware' in general (which includes apps that trick users into subscriptions and such) is severely cut down with some apps avoiding it by hiding from Cupertino and such[0].
0: https://youtu.be/tJeEuxn9mug?t=799
0: https://youtu.be/tJeEuxn9mug?t=799
Don't trivialize domestic abuse with this kind of comparison.
Life is hairy and complicated. Every day millions of Americans jump into death chariots and we expect them to mostly be fine.
We should not err on the side of creating a locked down Fisher Price playpen for consumers. Not at the expense of our freedoms and the rest of our industry. Think about how much damage this has done to innovation because costs are redirected to Apple's coffers rather than putting more engineers behind novel ideas.
Apple is sitting on mountains -- a continental shelf -- of opportunity cost. What a waste.
We should not err on the side of creating a locked down Fisher Price playpen for consumers. Not at the expense of our freedoms and the rest of our industry. Think about how much damage this has done to innovation because costs are redirected to Apple's coffers rather than putting more engineers behind novel ideas.
Apple is sitting on mountains -- a continental shelf -- of opportunity cost. What a waste.
You don't need control of the app store to do that.
> how they can update their software
I agree on all your points except this one. The App Store update process has grown long in the tooth. It was fine for the first 5 years or so, then they added auto-update, great.
But now 10 years in it is still all or nothing. Either the OS allows all apps to auto-upgrade, or you do it yourself. There is no way to "remove" an app from the update list if you want to keep an old version. There is no way to ever go back to an old version if you accidentally upgrade. Backing up an old version of an app requires a Mac to extract the binary. Each app already has it's own settings screen, why not add an "auto-update" toggle to each (And by default it gets your system-wide setting.)
And from the developer side - no way to have paid upgrades, unless you release the "new" version as a separate app with a bundle discount alongside the old version.
So instead you get either more apps moving to subscriptions, or more abandoned apps because the developer can't support free updates.
But now 10 years in it is still all or nothing. Either the OS allows all apps to auto-upgrade, or you do it yourself. There is no way to "remove" an app from the update list if you want to keep an old version. There is no way to ever go back to an old version if you accidentally upgrade. Backing up an old version of an app requires a Mac to extract the binary. Each app already has it's own settings screen, why not add an "auto-update" toggle to each (And by default it gets your system-wide setting.)
And from the developer side - no way to have paid upgrades, unless you release the "new" version as a separate app with a bundle discount alongside the old version.
So instead you get either more apps moving to subscriptions, or more abandoned apps because the developer can't support free updates.
> I want them to have restrictions on how much of my stuff they can access, how they can update their software and how much of a blast radius there would be from messing something up.
The OS already does this for you, no software distribution monopoly (App Store) needed.
This idea that an App Store is the only path to security is FUD. If allowing 3rd party app distribution on iOS actually did allow some sort of destruction of iOS user's privacy and security, then iOS is clearly garbage.
The OS already does this for you, no software distribution monopoly (App Store) needed.
This idea that an App Store is the only path to security is FUD. If allowing 3rd party app distribution on iOS actually did allow some sort of destruction of iOS user's privacy and security, then iOS is clearly garbage.
App Store should be just the start.
Mobile web for more than 50% of the US users is also restricted to Apple's whims. They should be forced to allow competing browser engines(not just skins on Safari engine) on the platform. If Microsoft couldn't even bundle IE on Windows, it should be possible to make an alternative browser(along with engines) for iOS.
Mobile web for more than 50% of the US users is also restricted to Apple's whims. They should be forced to allow competing browser engines(not just skins on Safari engine) on the platform. If Microsoft couldn't even bundle IE on Windows, it should be possible to make an alternative browser(along with engines) for iOS.
Be careful what you wish for. Safari's forced presence on the most lucrative mobile platform is the reason we don't, for all practical purposes, have only one browser engine, period, now. Which is something only nerds like us care about on a technical level, so I don't think the typical user is harmed or bothered by all browsers on iOS sharing an engine, but the social harm of Google 100% owning the Web would reach beyond us.
[EDIT] Incidentally, I see the fact that there's an angle for this being beneficial as a comment on the beyond-terrible state of privacy legislation and anti-trust enforcement in the US, same as the reasons that the App Store is a good thing (by which I mean, the worst things it forbids should just be illegal, and those restrictions enforced everywhere)
[EDIT] Incidentally, I see the fact that there's an angle for this being beneficial as a comment on the beyond-terrible state of privacy legislation and anti-trust enforcement in the US, same as the reasons that the App Store is a good thing (by which I mean, the worst things it forbids should just be illegal, and those restrictions enforced everywhere)
While your concern is genuine, Apple almost has 60% of the active mobile device market share(according to Statcounter). I think my concern is two fold.
- Apple holds the gateway to both App Store and Web(through standard support). Having worked on web apps in the past, I truly admire the amazing distribution capability the web provides. I can spin up an obscure Linux distro and my web app works on it as long as a browser with good standard support is available. This gives platforms parity at some level and doesn't concentrate the power in the hands of a single platform. I would want most apps to be just web apps.
- If Apple's marketshare keeps on increasing like it has been, we might run into a situation where just one company controls your hardware, OS, services and even web. This is way more scary.
- Apple holds the gateway to both App Store and Web(through standard support). Having worked on web apps in the past, I truly admire the amazing distribution capability the web provides. I can spin up an obscure Linux distro and my web app works on it as long as a browser with good standard support is available. This gives platforms parity at some level and doesn't concentrate the power in the hands of a single platform. I would want most apps to be just web apps.
- If Apple's marketshare keeps on increasing like it has been, we might run into a situation where just one company controls your hardware, OS, services and even web. This is way more scary.
> This gives platforms parity at some level and doesn't concentrate the power in the hands of a single platform.
Chrome would be that platform, is what I'm saying. That would be your new OS, on every "platform". Devs & companies already skip testing on FF fairly often. Chrome good? Mobile Safari good? Ship it. You'll notice that IE/Edge used to be on that short list of must-test browsers, but it's just Chrome now. That's not going to get better for FF or WebKit-derived alternative browsers if mobile Safari gets banner-ad'd ("Google Docs is so much better in Chrome! Click here to download it now!" just like they did on desktop) into irrelevance. Google would get to dictate features, and the Web would just have them, and that's it, no step of trying to get anyone else on board (right now, "anyone else" is, for practical purposes, just Apple)
Chrome would be that platform, is what I'm saying. That would be your new OS, on every "platform". Devs & companies already skip testing on FF fairly often. Chrome good? Mobile Safari good? Ship it. You'll notice that IE/Edge used to be on that short list of must-test browsers, but it's just Chrome now. That's not going to get better for FF or WebKit-derived alternative browsers if mobile Safari gets banner-ad'd ("Google Docs is so much better in Chrome! Click here to download it now!" just like they did on desktop) into irrelevance. Google would get to dictate features, and the Web would just have them, and that's it, no step of trying to get anyone else on board (right now, "anyone else" is, for practical purposes, just Apple)
I get what you are saying about web apps, but I hope Apple doesn't open up to more browsers.
It seems like every additional sensor or OS feature that is exposed through the browser is used as an additional way to erode privacy and security.
Plus I like that there are incentives for developers to make native apps for anything non-trivial. In my experience well written web apps use too much bandwidth, battery, and memory compared to well written native apps.
It seems like every additional sensor or OS feature that is exposed through the browser is used as an additional way to erode privacy and security.
Plus I like that there are incentives for developers to make native apps for anything non-trivial. In my experience well written web apps use too much bandwidth, battery, and memory compared to well written native apps.
Android is showing 72.72% of market share on statcounter.
I don't understand this argument. End users don't care about browser engines and they can install "Chrome" right now. But most iOS users don't.
Google's not pushing it hard on iOS, and it can't offer enhanced features or tailor (ahem) its sites to run better on the Chrome engine on iOS. That makes it a harder sell, and the "Google sites all works better on Chrome (because we made sure they do...) download it here!" ads they had success with on desktop would simply be lies, if they tried that. They also can't get other apps to embed their engine so they get those sweet, sweet analytics from those, too. FB would likely do the same (probably with a fork of Chrome, for obvious reasons).
Google can do all the data harvesting they want with the wrapped version and that's mostly what they care about. There are already a lot of benefits to iOS users that are heavily involved in Google's ecosystem to use Chrome but mostly they don't.
End users certainly cares about browser engines, so many things doesn't work in Safary since it doesn't support any new features. So they would see "please upgrade your browser to play this game" etc everywhere, and they would upgrade to real chrome. Instead since ios doesn't support other browser engines those games simply wont run on ios period.
Looking back on Microsoft in the 90s they seem almost childish. If the Apple/Google duopoly had existed forty years ago the government would have smashed both companies into dozens of pieces.
I don't dispute that the regulatory climate has become far less responsive over the decades, but why forty years ago- during the Reagan administration?
>They should be forced to allow competing browser engines (not just skins on Safari engine) on the platform.
While this sounds good in theory, what would likely happen is Safari would be replaced with Chrome.
While this sounds good in theory, what would likely happen is Safari would be replaced with Chrome.
More than 50% of US users on iOS forced to use Safari is the last counter force to a worldwide Google hegemony on nearly everything (Android, Chrome, Search, Mail, ...). It's clearly a lesser evil for me.
> They should be forced to allow competing browser engines(not just skins on Safari engine) on the platform
I really don't want to have multiple browsers installed on my phone & swap between them because some web app works in one browser, but not another. Mobile browsing is already pretty shitty, I don't think fragmentation will make it any better.
I really don't want to have multiple browsers installed on my phone & swap between them because some web app works in one browser, but not another. Mobile browsing is already pretty shitty, I don't think fragmentation will make it any better.
I'm not sure the solution to that is "so app developers are forced to make sure their app works better in 'your' browser (Safari) because that's the only choice for a large number of users".
Why not?
It's a two-way street.
Despite selling less than 20% [1] of smartphones across the world, its App Store accounts for over 64% [2] of app revenue. Apple and its developers somehow built an App Store that people are willing to spend more money on.
If it's purely thanks to developers, why isn't there more revenue on Google's Play Store?
[1] https://www.counterpointresearch.com/global-smartphone-share...
[2] https://sensortower.com/blog/app-revenue-and-downloads-q1-20...
Despite selling less than 20% [1] of smartphones across the world, its App Store accounts for over 64% [2] of app revenue. Apple and its developers somehow built an App Store that people are willing to spend more money on.
If it's purely thanks to developers, why isn't there more revenue on Google's Play Store?
[1] https://www.counterpointresearch.com/global-smartphone-share...
[2] https://sensortower.com/blog/app-revenue-and-downloads-q1-20...
This feels like such a disingenuous argument. Most of the countries where Android sells well are countries with way lower purchasing power and this would even reflect in sales of all software, not just Android one. Also, Android phones in China are not necessarily using Play Store.
Most of the sales of Android phones are at a lower price bracket which might indicate the purchasing power of customers, so they would naturally have less purchasing power than ones on iOS. People with more purchasing power would spend more on even apps and this reflects in the App Store revenue.
There are certainly people who buy Android flagships because they prefer the platform/device but this might not be true for lower end Android phones. iPhone has an aspirational value in many parts of the world.
Most of the sales of Android phones are at a lower price bracket which might indicate the purchasing power of customers, so they would naturally have less purchasing power than ones on iOS. People with more purchasing power would spend more on even apps and this reflects in the App Store revenue.
There are certainly people who buy Android flagships because they prefer the platform/device but this might not be true for lower end Android phones. iPhone has an aspirational value in many parts of the world.
It’s not clear how this is relevant to the parent’s point. Android phones are also available in rich countries.
Sure, but we aren't talking about Android phones. We're talking about platforms, since that's what Apple wants to sell. The barrier to entry for this platform is money, and many people cannot afford to use their platform, therefore it stands to reason that only people with a modest expendable income will buy an iPhone. It then also makes sense that those same users will also spend more money on the App Store, since they also had the expendable income to buy a "premium" product.
> It then also makes sense that those same users will also spend more money on the App Store, since they also had the expendable income to buy a "premium" product.
Those users will also be more likely to spend on apps and accessories in order to justify or supplement the much bigger phone purchase. Someone who's got the same amount of expendable income but chooses a cheap android for frugality is also more likely to be frugal in extraneous purchases like apps, especially when free but slightly inconvenient alternatives are available. At the end of the day, focus on the customers not the app platforms.
Those users will also be more likely to spend on apps and accessories in order to justify or supplement the much bigger phone purchase. Someone who's got the same amount of expendable income but chooses a cheap android for frugality is also more likely to be frugal in extraneous purchases like apps, especially when free but slightly inconvenient alternatives are available. At the end of the day, focus on the customers not the app platforms.
on top of that it's a chicken and egg problem too. Because purchasing power is higher, developers also charge more compared to similar apps on Android
I hate seeing these downvotes, because you're absolutely right. The parent comment is missing that the average price of these Android phones is often an order of magnitude less than the price of the average iPhone, so it makes sense that the phone which costs 10x as much has people willing to spend more money. It's not rocket science, and arguably not even economics.
I'm not 100% sure on this, but I've suspected that this often-quoted disparity has something to do with China, and how Apple still controls iOS app distribution in China but the Play Store has much lower usage. So, you get weird aggregates because the total revenue numbers don't include the Chinese specific Android app stores (which, by the way, are insane; Huawei takes a 50% commission on game sales in their's, and its the biggest by far).
All given the size of the Chinese market, their love of mobile games, and the massive portion of App Store revenue games represent.
That's not to say the App Store isn't more profitable than the Play Store, per user, just in the US, but its a closer margin here, and I think the massive disparity on a global scale has to signal that something else is going on
(in addition to the obvious: Apple doesn't make good cheap phones, just not in their DNA, but Android manufacturers do, so lower income individuals will bias toward Android phones, and these people would spend less in the associated application stores)
All given the size of the Chinese market, their love of mobile games, and the massive portion of App Store revenue games represent.
That's not to say the App Store isn't more profitable than the Play Store, per user, just in the US, but its a closer margin here, and I think the massive disparity on a global scale has to signal that something else is going on
(in addition to the obvious: Apple doesn't make good cheap phones, just not in their DNA, but Android manufacturers do, so lower income individuals will bias toward Android phones, and these people would spend less in the associated application stores)
iOS apps are more profitable on a per install basis. So the discrepancy cannot be explained by there being multiple Android stores. Your hypothesis in brackets is the more likely explanation.
Source: I worked on an app with millions of paid subscribers.
Source: I worked on an app with millions of paid subscribers.
iPhone had first mover advantage and comes from an American company.
As a result iPhones have 50% of the smartphone market in the US, and Americans have the highest disposable income per capita of any large country (>20 million people).
iPhones tend to have much smaller market shares outside of the US. In some places they're maybe around 30% but generally they're much, much lower.
As a result iPhones have 50% of the smartphone market in the US, and Americans have the highest disposable income per capita of any large country (>20 million people).
iPhones tend to have much smaller market shares outside of the US. In some places they're maybe around 30% but generally they're much, much lower.
iPhone has a smaller market share in poor countries. In rich European countries the market share is much higher than in the US. In Scandinavia seeing an Android phone is a rare occurrence, if your friend has one you're surprised and ask how come.
It's a function of wealth, not first mover advantage. Well off people choose iPhones. That should tell you something.
It's a function of wealth, not first mover advantage. Well off people choose iPhones. That should tell you something.
The demographic for our app was primarily the US.
Somewhat true. There are 300M iPhone install base in China, on an equal bases you can take the 30% of App Store Revenue away to compare to Google's Play Store. But generally speaking iOS user spend double the amount of money compared to Android users.
And to the OP's number, Apple has ~25% market share. Not 20%. Those numbers are shipments, not usage. which is for the 100th times meaningless in nearly all topics.
And to the OP's number, Apple has ~25% market share. Not 20%. Those numbers are shipments, not usage. which is for the 100th times meaningless in nearly all topics.
Right, yeah. There's just so many unknowns when it comes to "how profitable are App Stores" that any conversation about it is seriously pointless. Like, I don't even want to guess; I refuse to believe that iOS is more profitable than Android, because I'm not even sure if that's the right question.
All the data we have on global/domestic smartphone shipments, active users, monthly actives, daily actives, dollars spent, ruples spent, per app category, minus games, fiscal/calendar quarterly, it all comes from these dodgy "Global Insights" app consulting firms. You head to Google and search "App Store Quarterly Revenue" and you find a different Statista or BusinessOfApps or whatever site each quarter, all their data just linear extrapolations from active pings from trackers they pay apps to install which are increasingly getting blocked by OS security controls. Google and Apple almost never share explicit data (this Epic trial has been a nice departure from that, to be fair); if they share anything, its an overtly generalized market segment like "Services", which of course they're using to inflate the apparent revenue of bad business divisions they want to look good by combining them with the actually good divisions (same reason why Microsoft put Azure in the same shareholder-reported category as Office early on; of course, nowadays, its amazing on its own).
And then, re-read that last paragraph and realize I said "Google & Apple" and you didn't even blink. Sure, Google & Apple, that's who we're talking about. No; we're talking about Android & iOS. Android; that operating system that has unlocked computing for the entire world, including vast swaths of people who can barely afford plumbing and electricity, that's side-loaded and hacked to the ends of the earth, that's startlingly popular and preloaded with hardware-specific storefronts in countries that, traditionally, don't like sharing data with the west.
Sure, "your" app was more profitable per-install on iOS than Android. An excellent, informative experiment. The assertion is that iOS has "special sauce" that makes consumers money-drunk, and they spend more. Did we control for income disparity? Surprise; No. Did we aggregate a broad swath of consumer application categories, including (especially) gaming, as gaming is by-far the largest source of consumer application spending, globally? Surprise; No.
How's this sound: People spend a shit-ton of money in apps. This fact, alone, is reason enough that letting a single company gatekeep the experience for any significant number of people is unacceptable. Justifying Apple's monopoly by saying they're better at making consumers money-drunk is psychotic.
All the data we have on global/domestic smartphone shipments, active users, monthly actives, daily actives, dollars spent, ruples spent, per app category, minus games, fiscal/calendar quarterly, it all comes from these dodgy "Global Insights" app consulting firms. You head to Google and search "App Store Quarterly Revenue" and you find a different Statista or BusinessOfApps or whatever site each quarter, all their data just linear extrapolations from active pings from trackers they pay apps to install which are increasingly getting blocked by OS security controls. Google and Apple almost never share explicit data (this Epic trial has been a nice departure from that, to be fair); if they share anything, its an overtly generalized market segment like "Services", which of course they're using to inflate the apparent revenue of bad business divisions they want to look good by combining them with the actually good divisions (same reason why Microsoft put Azure in the same shareholder-reported category as Office early on; of course, nowadays, its amazing on its own).
And then, re-read that last paragraph and realize I said "Google & Apple" and you didn't even blink. Sure, Google & Apple, that's who we're talking about. No; we're talking about Android & iOS. Android; that operating system that has unlocked computing for the entire world, including vast swaths of people who can barely afford plumbing and electricity, that's side-loaded and hacked to the ends of the earth, that's startlingly popular and preloaded with hardware-specific storefronts in countries that, traditionally, don't like sharing data with the west.
Sure, "your" app was more profitable per-install on iOS than Android. An excellent, informative experiment. The assertion is that iOS has "special sauce" that makes consumers money-drunk, and they spend more. Did we control for income disparity? Surprise; No. Did we aggregate a broad swath of consumer application categories, including (especially) gaming, as gaming is by-far the largest source of consumer application spending, globally? Surprise; No.
How's this sound: People spend a shit-ton of money in apps. This fact, alone, is reason enough that letting a single company gatekeep the experience for any significant number of people is unacceptable. Justifying Apple's monopoly by saying they're better at making consumers money-drunk is psychotic.
>it all comes from these dodgy "Global Insights" app consulting firms.
Most of my Data were deduced /inferred from Official Apple and Google, Mobile Carrier, Government Numbers. For more numbers Benedict Evans slides has many more details.
Most of my Data were deduced /inferred from Official Apple and Google, Mobile Carrier, Government Numbers. For more numbers Benedict Evans slides has many more details.
Apple has literally said, under oath, that they do not track App Store profitability (as, I assume, a separate entity from their much larger "Services" slush fund). [1]
Well, we can argue until we go blue about how maybe he's lying, or twisting words, or how the App Store alone represents a business larger than many Fortune 500 companies and its irresponsible/incompetent of them to not track it. Reality is probably a little of all of the above. But it speaks to how insane these conversations are; magical incantations of deductions and inferences to arrive at seemingly significant percentages and magnitudes which have no basis in reality.
Here's a statement I'll agree with: "An application distributed on iOS is likely to return higher per-install revenue than the same application distributed on Android." But if you read that, and believe for a second that it should inform some broader policy or even application development decision making, then we're on completely different pages.
[1] https://www.gamesindustry.biz/articles/2021-05-19-apple-exec...
Well, we can argue until we go blue about how maybe he's lying, or twisting words, or how the App Store alone represents a business larger than many Fortune 500 companies and its irresponsible/incompetent of them to not track it. Reality is probably a little of all of the above. But it speaks to how insane these conversations are; magical incantations of deductions and inferences to arrive at seemingly significant percentages and magnitudes which have no basis in reality.
Here's a statement I'll agree with: "An application distributed on iOS is likely to return higher per-install revenue than the same application distributed on Android." But if you read that, and believe for a second that it should inform some broader policy or even application development decision making, then we're on completely different pages.
[1] https://www.gamesindustry.biz/articles/2021-05-19-apple-exec...
[deleted]
iPhone users are much more willing to buy IAPs outside of china too. So it’s not just china that brings in the money.
Because Apple markets and sells a product to the middle class, who are willing to spend that kind of money. Furthermore, the Indian market is almost entirely ignored by Apple, so it's no wonder that they're able to get Android phones into so many hands. The optics of this check out, are you trying to suggest that Apple's App Store is magically more profitable than Google Play, therefore better?
So Apple’s argument stands…
Basically, Apple is a wealthy neighborhood. If you sell nice bags or expensive cars, you want to be near the people who can afford them. So you need to rent store space in the wealthy neighborhood. Where rent is higher than in the outskirts.
Sure you could try to sell your goods in the outskirts (the Play Store) but you won’t sell as much.
To bring it back to non-metaphors. Apple is the only maker of premium phones. Therefor people who are willing to spend on apps are very often iPhone users. So if you want to reach these people and their money you need to be on the App Store. Apple knows this, and charges developers accordingly for the privilege.
Basically, Apple is a wealthy neighborhood. If you sell nice bags or expensive cars, you want to be near the people who can afford them. So you need to rent store space in the wealthy neighborhood. Where rent is higher than in the outskirts.
Sure you could try to sell your goods in the outskirts (the Play Store) but you won’t sell as much.
To bring it back to non-metaphors. Apple is the only maker of premium phones. Therefor people who are willing to spend on apps are very often iPhone users. So if you want to reach these people and their money you need to be on the App Store. Apple knows this, and charges developers accordingly for the privilege.
> Apple is the only maker of premium phones
So by your own admission, Apple has a monopoly on the premium market, and is using that power to broker their audience for a premium fee to developers who simply want to sell their code to someone who's willing to pay for it?
That is one of the most dystopian arguments I've ever heard, bravo.
So by your own admission, Apple has a monopoly on the premium market, and is using that power to broker their audience for a premium fee to developers who simply want to sell their code to someone who's willing to pay for it?
That is one of the most dystopian arguments I've ever heard, bravo.
I’m not sure if it’s a monopoly, but a stronghold for sure.
I’m not seeing how Apple’s behavior is any different than that of other players who have a stronghold in their markets though?
It’s exactly the same with $10.000 rents in San Francisco or super expensive country clubs where you can mingle/deal with fellow rich people: it’s expensive to get access to a scarce resource.
Apple has the scarce resource (people willing to pay for apps) so they charge you a lot of money to access it (30% of your revenue).
I’m not seeing how Apple’s behavior is any different than that of other players who have a stronghold in their markets though?
It’s exactly the same with $10.000 rents in San Francisco or super expensive country clubs where you can mingle/deal with fellow rich people: it’s expensive to get access to a scarce resource.
Apple has the scarce resource (people willing to pay for apps) so they charge you a lot of money to access it (30% of your revenue).
Is a segment a market?
And it is also simply untrue that Apple is the only premium handset maker- plenty of Chinese competition in China and Samsung elsewhere.
It is dominant in the segment but it is at best part of a duopoly.
And it is also simply untrue that Apple is the only premium handset maker- plenty of Chinese competition in China and Samsung elsewhere.
It is dominant in the segment but it is at best part of a duopoly.
If Apple's AppStore is really so good, it should be able to withstand a little healthy competition from 3rd party stores. Who knows, a little competition might even inspire the AppStore to become even better?
One could argue that this is a bit like saying “if McDonald’s burgers are so good, they should be able to withstand putting competing restaurants’ burgers on their menu.”
A restaurant only sells its own merchandise so this comparison does not make any sense.
The App Store is a 'store' in this case (it's in the name) and is the only store where you can buy items for your Apple home.
Imagine if Walmart sold homes and you could only put items in it that were bought at Walmart.
The App Store is a 'store' in this case (it's in the name) and is the only store where you can buy items for your Apple home.
Imagine if Walmart sold homes and you could only put items in it that were bought at Walmart.
McDonald’s sells other companies’ products too, like Coca-Cola. Also, you actually can buy an entire McDonald’s and I’m pretty sure you wouldn’t be allowed to sell Burger King products there.
I’m not sure why you introduced homes to the analogy. That’s a very different scenario.
I’m not sure why you introduced homes to the analogy. That’s a very different scenario.
> I’m not sure why you introduced homes to the analogy. That’s a very different scenario.
In what way is a home that you fill with stuff you bought in a store different from a computer that you fill with stuff you bought in a store?
In what way is a home that you fill with stuff you bought in a store different from a computer that you fill with stuff you bought in a store?
It's more like saying "if McDonald's burgers are so good they should be able to withstand competing restaurants in the same town."
The users buy the phone, not Apple. It's amazing this is even contraversial.
The users buy the phone, not Apple. It's amazing this is even contraversial.
I don’t see how an individual iPhone is analogous to an entire town. Is a video game console also analogous to an entire town?
In the analogy you have to buy a house somewhere else if you want to eat anything else.
It's really not a complex idea, hopefully that's enough for you.
It's really not a complex idea, hopefully that's enough for you.
> Is a video game console also analogous to an entire town?
Kinda, except that video game consoles, unlike iPhones, usually allow you to play physical media that you can buy from any source (so consoles aren't quite as bad.)
Kinda, except that video game consoles, unlike iPhones, usually allow you to play physical media that you can buy from any source (so consoles aren't quite as bad.)
No, this is more like asking McDonald's not to blow up new restaurants within a week of them coming to town because they didn't "ask permission" from them first.
What does Apple do that is analogous to destroying competitors’ property?
Apple isn't a competitor in this analogy, they're the government. They own every piece of land and decide how to use it, and also how many burgers they want to sell you.
That’s a weird analogy, since you get to choose which “government” to be a part of, and they’re only chosen by 45% of the United States and 17% of the world.
It's your lopsided analogy, since Apple isn't analogous to a restaurant in the first place. My point is that Apple holds a lot more power than you give them credit for.
Then one would be making an argument using an analogy that is quite obviously not actually analagous at all.
The more correct analogy is a McDonald's franchise that actively uses every method at their disposal to prevent other fast food restaurants from opening near where you live.
The more correct analogy is a McDonald's franchise that actively uses every method at their disposal to prevent other fast food restaurants from opening near where you live.
In what way does Apple do that?
I have a feeling this is a facetious question, but:
Take a look at the history of Apple's efforts to block jailbreaking in combination with the AppStore rules that disallow 3rd party app stores. It is quite clear that Apple has use multiple methods to successfully fighr off the arisal of any alternative stores.
Apple openly admits to doing this, it really isn't a controversial claim.
Take a look at the history of Apple's efforts to block jailbreaking in combination with the AppStore rules that disallow 3rd party app stores. It is quite clear that Apple has use multiple methods to successfully fighr off the arisal of any alternative stores.
Apple openly admits to doing this, it really isn't a controversial claim.
This is nothing like destroying competitors’ property. Coca-Cola can be sold in McDonald’s because the two parties have an explicit business arrangement. But they’ll kick you out if you set up a lemonade stand in their store (they still probably won’t destroy your property, they’ll likely ask you to leave and call the police if you refuse).
McDonald’s will probably, however, make no effort to prevent you from selling lemonade from your driveway, or even prevent Coca-Cola (or Coca-Cola’s direct competitors) from selling soda at McDonald’s direct competitors. (If they did do this, I would agree that it’s anti-competitive behavior that ought to be opposed.)
McDonald’s will probably, however, make no effort to prevent you from selling lemonade from your driveway, or even prevent Coca-Cola (or Coca-Cola’s direct competitors) from selling soda at McDonald’s direct competitors. (If they did do this, I would agree that it’s anti-competitive behavior that ought to be opposed.)
McDonald's pays the rent for their storefronts and owns all the food it cooks for its customers - McDonald's carries all of the inventory risk. It doesn't try to exert any control on the food after the customer has bought it and left the premises and the deals it makes with Coca Cola are about payment terms, branding, and cost of inventory.
If Apple wanted to take on development risk for all of the apps on the app store by paying for all that developer time, then we'd be talking about something that is sorta kinda not really the same thing.
If Apple wanted to take on development risk for all of the apps on the app store by paying for all that developer time, then we'd be talking about something that is sorta kinda not really the same thing.
> This is nothing like destroying competitors’ property.
I certainly did not say it was. Your whole comment reads like you are replying to someone else.
The best I can tell, you agree that Apple is engaged in anti-competive behavior by preventing developers from selling "lemonade" in other stores (because they prevent those stores from existing.) Not only that, but users aren't even allowed to buy "lemonade" in their own driveway, they are forced to go buy "lemonade" through Apple.
I certainly did not say it was. Your whole comment reads like you are replying to someone else.
The best I can tell, you agree that Apple is engaged in anti-competive behavior by preventing developers from selling "lemonade" in other stores (because they prevent those stores from existing.) Not only that, but users aren't even allowed to buy "lemonade" in their own driveway, they are forced to go buy "lemonade" through Apple.
iPhones are more expensive on average, hence used by people who spend more money on average.
The simple answer is people with more disposable income buy iPhones. Smart of Apple to position themselves this way in the market and build a product good enough to sustain that position, but I don't think that invalidates Marco's argument.
The comments in this thread are pulling this idea apart, but the fact of the matter is that before the App Store, people were not willing to pay for apps. Apple created the market singlehandedly.
How far this extends into the current day is up for debate, and how much rent keeping Apple should be allowed to do, sure, but being dismissive of the instrumental role Apple played in the past and to this day is turning a blind eye.
How far this extends into the current day is up for debate, and how much rent keeping Apple should be allowed to do, sure, but being dismissive of the instrumental role Apple played in the past and to this day is turning a blind eye.
> but the fact of the matter is that before the App Store, people were not willing to pay for apps. Apple created the market singlehandedly.
Umm.. this is some serious revision of the history.
- People did pay for apps. I along with plenty of other devs happily paid for Sublime Text while not going through an app store.
- There have been app stores that predate 'iOS App Store' like the Steam store, people paid for apps in it as well. It is infact cross platform and competes with other app stores.
Apple did not invent app distribution or the concept of paid apps.
Umm.. this is some serious revision of the history.
- People did pay for apps. I along with plenty of other devs happily paid for Sublime Text while not going through an app store.
- There have been app stores that predate 'iOS App Store' like the Steam store, people paid for apps in it as well. It is infact cross platform and competes with other app stores.
Apple did not invent app distribution or the concept of paid apps.
I recently finished porting an app to Windows. I decided to publish on the MS Store (UWP + Desktop Bridge). Don't mind sharing 12% in return for MS's seal of approval
But if I could, I would terminate my iOS appstore presence in a heartbeat.
This is how different Apple and MS make me feel as a developer. Google falls somewhere in between
Everything these companies do is geared towards making us develop (often for free) the features their users want on their devices in a way that their users increase their appreciation for them, not for us. Youtube "developers" at least get paid for their success. We just get made forced to comply. They also won't doubt to use you as a pawn in their war against other big tech (i.e. mandatory requirement to offer Apple Sign in if you want to offer Google/FB Sign in).
And yes, Apple dropping the annual fee would be a nice start
But if I could, I would terminate my iOS appstore presence in a heartbeat.
This is how different Apple and MS make me feel as a developer. Google falls somewhere in between
Everything these companies do is geared towards making us develop (often for free) the features their users want on their devices in a way that their users increase their appreciation for them, not for us. Youtube "developers" at least get paid for their success. We just get made forced to comply. They also won't doubt to use you as a pawn in their war against other big tech (i.e. mandatory requirement to offer Apple Sign in if you want to offer Google/FB Sign in).
And yes, Apple dropping the annual fee would be a nice start
It's great that you feel so good about Microsoft, but that isn't really an argument.
> And yes, Apple dropping the annual fee would be a nice start
They already dropped the fee to 15%. Well unless you make more than 1 m a year.
> And yes, Apple dropping the annual fee would be a nice start
They already dropped the fee to 15%. Well unless you make more than 1 m a year.
> Everything these companies do is geared towards making us develop (often for free) the features their users want on their devices in a way that their users increase their appreciation for them, not for us.
Be careful what you wish for. MS and Apple constantly build new OS features that 'borrow' ideas from third-party developers.
Be careful what you wish for. MS and Apple constantly build new OS features that 'borrow' ideas from third-party developers.
To me, it’s very evident that many app developers provide substantial value to iOS. But it’s also very evident that many app developers (and I would argue it’s the overwhelming majority) have a hostile relationship with iOS customers.
It sucks that Apple’s App Store restrictions cause so many problems for the legit app developers, but I actually wish Apple was significantly more restrictive with what makes it into the App Store. Maybe this is a crazy opinion since I’m a programmer myself, but I would honestly prefer to use an iOS ecosystem with no App Store that allows self-serve third-party app distribution than to use an iOS ecosystem that allows unrestricted third-party software.
It sucks that Apple’s App Store restrictions cause so many problems for the legit app developers, but I actually wish Apple was significantly more restrictive with what makes it into the App Store. Maybe this is a crazy opinion since I’m a programmer myself, but I would honestly prefer to use an iOS ecosystem with no App Store that allows self-serve third-party app distribution than to use an iOS ecosystem that allows unrestricted third-party software.
I'm wondering if webapps are achieving parity with native apps. My intuition says that most of the use cases today could transfer over if they really wanted to.
Does anyone have any insight into the major differences between native and web app in 2021?
The biggest disparity between webapp and native used to be Notifications - but with Twilio, it appears trivial to make an arguably better notifications user flow through SMS and direct link to user content.
For the rest of the differences, it feels like much of the benefit Apple brings to the table (view management, security, continuity between devices, distribution, ...), does appear to carry a premium when placed in comparison to building a monolith web app.
Does anyone have any insight into the major differences between native and web app in 2021?
The biggest disparity between webapp and native used to be Notifications - but with Twilio, it appears trivial to make an arguably better notifications user flow through SMS and direct link to user content.
For the rest of the differences, it feels like much of the benefit Apple brings to the table (view management, security, continuity between devices, distribution, ...), does appear to carry a premium when placed in comparison to building a monolith web app.
Not on iOS. The biggest issue are indeed native notifications which I don’t believe will ever happen (unless Apple is forced to by legislation). Web Bluetooth is also unlikely to happen. Storage is another issue that is heavily restricted on iOS and in my experience offline use is completely unreliable.
> The biggest disparity between webapp and native used to be Notifications - but with Twilio, it appears trivial to make an arguably better notifications user flow through SMS and direct link to user content.
Oh god please no.
I can turn off app-level notifications. I don't want to have to deal with app-level texts instead.
Oh god please no.
I can turn off app-level notifications. I don't want to have to deal with app-level texts instead.
> I can turn off app-level notifications. I don't want to have to deal with app-level texts instead.
Ha!! See, I think SMS notifications are still stellar! Because right when the offender steps in, in the height of righteous anger, you can yell (text) "STOP" and by law it must bug off!!
Not to mention the cool new commands that could emerge like, "give me a week" or other conversational ways to interact with your notifications on a person level... which to me, is what it was all about in the first place!
Ha!! See, I think SMS notifications are still stellar! Because right when the offender steps in, in the height of righteous anger, you can yell (text) "STOP" and by law it must bug off!!
Not to mention the cool new commands that could emerge like, "give me a week" or other conversational ways to interact with your notifications on a person level... which to me, is what it was all about in the first place!
> you can yell (text) "STOP" and by law it must bug off!!
Is that the law everywhere in the world?
> Not to mention the cool new (…) conversational ways to interact with your notifications
Which you could achieve by allowing replies from within the notification itself, like Messages on macOS.
And SMSs cost money. It doesn’t matter how cool your conversational interactions are, no one would be happy being charged for international text messages to respond to a bot, especially when the norm today is automated assistants barely understand what you mean.
Is that the law everywhere in the world?
> Not to mention the cool new (…) conversational ways to interact with your notifications
Which you could achieve by allowing replies from within the notification itself, like Messages on macOS.
And SMSs cost money. It doesn’t matter how cool your conversational interactions are, no one would be happy being charged for international text messages to respond to a bot, especially when the norm today is automated assistants barely understand what you mean.
In practice, the lion share of revenue on the App Store is made by games.
Running games as web apps is technically possible, but performance tend to be an issue, even for simple 2D games.
I don't think Apple is embracing Webassembly enough to facilitate this transition, this is not their best interest.
Running games as web apps is technically possible, but performance tend to be an issue, even for simple 2D games.
I don't think Apple is embracing Webassembly enough to facilitate this transition, this is not their best interest.
TikTok, Starbucks, and Lyft all have fully capable webapps. If you have an Android phone, you can "install" them directly from their websites to have a completely equivalent UX to a native app. This is super interesting when you consider the primary argument in the article (that most download funnels are driven by the app developer, not Apple).
I've yet to encounter a webapp whose UX made me as happy as native apps do. The platform simply doesn't offer enough affordances for it.
Write once, run everywhere has a cost, and one that is largely borne by users.
Write once, run everywhere has a cost, and one that is largely borne by users.
For my personal use cases (visible or invisible) push messages are the major missing feature for replacing native with web apps. And I doubt it’s possible to do without platform support.
Twilio or other SMS based services aren’t a solution as in lots of countries they still cost $0.10 per 160 characters, require an active SIM card and cannot be opened into an app.
Maybe something can be done with websockets but that will also require platform support to improve battery life and allow web apps to run in the background.
Twilio or other SMS based services aren’t a solution as in lots of countries they still cost $0.10 per 160 characters, require an active SIM card and cannot be opened into an app.
Maybe something can be done with websockets but that will also require platform support to improve battery life and allow web apps to run in the background.
> Does anyone have any insight into the major differences between native and web app in 2021?
No general insight, but Telegram has two web apps that try to emulate the native app [1]. They do work fairly well but are definitely glitchier than the native app (or any native chat app).
> For the rest of the differences, it feels like much of the benefit Apple brings to the table (view management, security, continuity between devices, distribution, ...), does appear to carry a premium when placed in comparison to building a monolith web app.
That might be true, but the value free apps like WhatsApp bring to the iPhone is unmeasurable and WhatsApp pays exactly 100$ a year to Apple for access to all the tooling.
[1]: https://telegram.org/blog/payments-2-0-scheduled-voice-chats...
No general insight, but Telegram has two web apps that try to emulate the native app [1]. They do work fairly well but are definitely glitchier than the native app (or any native chat app).
> For the rest of the differences, it feels like much of the benefit Apple brings to the table (view management, security, continuity between devices, distribution, ...), does appear to carry a premium when placed in comparison to building a monolith web app.
That might be true, but the value free apps like WhatsApp bring to the iPhone is unmeasurable and WhatsApp pays exactly 100$ a year to Apple for access to all the tooling.
[1]: https://telegram.org/blog/payments-2-0-scheduled-voice-chats...
No choice in graphics API and no general purpose compute on the GPU. WebGL is a start but it's missing major features.
If you want to build a competitive game engine or do any sort of machine learning on device then it has to be native.
If you want to build a competitive game engine or do any sort of machine learning on device then it has to be native.
This is why I'm optimistic about WebAssembly, beyond time and investment, what prohibits it from achieve performance parity with native?
> This is why I'm optimistic about WebAssembly, beyond time and investment, what prohibits it from achieve performance parity with native?
It's cross-platform VM-enabled bytecode? Approaching native performance very closely is the best plausible outcome. Measured on all metrics and not just pure number-crunching (start-up time generally, "cold" start-up, memory use, memory use over time, et c., all in real-world applications and not bespoke benchmarking programs) it's unlikely it'll even get very close. Close enough? Maybe, but I'm skeptical that there is such a (realistic) achievable state as "close enough" on a platform that runs on a small battery. Look at Android's decades of playing catch-up on performance & power use, for instance.
[EDIT] Down-voters, please comment: do first-year CS principles and direct observation of existing, long-lived, real-world cross-platform VM systems (the JVM, for example) somehow not apply to WebAssembly?
It's cross-platform VM-enabled bytecode? Approaching native performance very closely is the best plausible outcome. Measured on all metrics and not just pure number-crunching (start-up time generally, "cold" start-up, memory use, memory use over time, et c., all in real-world applications and not bespoke benchmarking programs) it's unlikely it'll even get very close. Close enough? Maybe, but I'm skeptical that there is such a (realistic) achievable state as "close enough" on a platform that runs on a small battery. Look at Android's decades of playing catch-up on performance & power use, for instance.
[EDIT] Down-voters, please comment: do first-year CS principles and direct observation of existing, long-lived, real-world cross-platform VM systems (the JVM, for example) somehow not apply to WebAssembly?
Politics.
This is what Flash was already capable of doing in 2011 with CrossBridge, their C++ compiler stack.
https://adobe-flash.github.io/crossbridge/
"Unreal Engine 3 Support for Adobe Flash Player - Unreal Tournament 3"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UQiUP2Hd60Y
Here we are 10 years later with WebAssembly still mostly stuck at MVP 1.0, browsers that bork WebGL experience thanks blacklisting, which no matter what will never go beyond OpenGL ES 3.0.
Even if WebGPU gets released tomorrow, I would like to point out that WebGL 2.0 was released in 2017 and still isn't available across all browsers.
Then there are all other native capabilities that I glanced over.
This is what Flash was already capable of doing in 2011 with CrossBridge, their C++ compiler stack.
https://adobe-flash.github.io/crossbridge/
"Unreal Engine 3 Support for Adobe Flash Player - Unreal Tournament 3"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UQiUP2Hd60Y
Here we are 10 years later with WebAssembly still mostly stuck at MVP 1.0, browsers that bork WebGL experience thanks blacklisting, which no matter what will never go beyond OpenGL ES 3.0.
Even if WebGPU gets released tomorrow, I would like to point out that WebGL 2.0 was released in 2017 and still isn't available across all browsers.
Then there are all other native capabilities that I glanced over.
> This is what Flash was already capable of doing in 2011 with CrossBridge, their C++ compiler stack.
Then why was the Android Flash experience so bad that it got quickly killed off?
There was a time where Adobe could have shown a performant, stable version of mobile Flash, and Apple would have had to find a way to accept it. But it never got there, on any mobile OS.
Then why was the Android Flash experience so bad that it got quickly killed off?
There was a time where Adobe could have shown a performant, stable version of mobile Flash, and Apple would have had to find a way to accept it. But it never got there, on any mobile OS.
Politics.
While everyone was celebrating iOS victory over Flash, they were playing Flash games on iOS, AOT compiled to native code without knowing it.
Adobe eventually let it go thanks to the competition of Cocos, Unreal and Unity.
While everyone was celebrating iOS victory over Flash, they were playing Flash games on iOS, AOT compiled to native code without knowing it.
Adobe eventually let it go thanks to the competition of Cocos, Unreal and Unity.
> what prohibits it from achieve performance parity with native?
On what axes are you measuring performance? I care about how quickly and smoothly something runs, but also how much battery, memory, and bandwidth it consumes.
On what axes are you measuring performance? I care about how quickly and smoothly something runs, but also how much battery, memory, and bandwidth it consumes.
Apple support?
I'd like to hear the thoughts on this of people who are arguing with me in another thread that "Apple planned for web apps to be the only apps for the iPhone until they just happened to come up with the idea for the store full of native apps".
Honestly, if you believe that Apple ever planned for iPhone to be web only you've got to buy this bridge from me. No kidding.
Apple used the "web only apps" angle as a stopgap until their SDK was ready. Then they did everything they could to ensure that web apps ran like crap without making it too obvious.
Honestly, if you believe that Apple ever planned for iPhone to be web only you've got to buy this bridge from me. No kidding.
Apple used the "web only apps" angle as a stopgap until their SDK was ready. Then they did everything they could to ensure that web apps ran like crap without making it too obvious.
It really seems that was the original plan.
An email from the Apple vs Epic trial where Steve Jobs gives the go ahead for the app store in October 2007. They had to rush to get the sdk done in three months.
https://twitter.com/TechEmails/status/1400270458608664577
https://twitter.com/TechEmails/status/1400270458608664577
No it doesn't. Not even a little bit.
That's a go ahead email. That's not an email showing the conception of the idea.
We already had app stores on phones before this. You think they didn't come up with the idea until that email? It's perhaps the most obvious idea in the world.
Sorry, y'all are just wrong. This email is evidence that its all been discussed many times before the "go ahead".
That's a go ahead email. That's not an email showing the conception of the idea.
We already had app stores on phones before this. You think they didn't come up with the idea until that email? It's perhaps the most obvious idea in the world.
Sorry, y'all are just wrong. This email is evidence that its all been discussed many times before the "go ahead".
The iPod never had an app store, an Apple are known to prefer to be in control of the experience. How can you be so sure they were planning an app store all along?
Sure thing.
Apple told developers that webapps were the solution. They didn’t give any public indication that this would change. Now, one could argue that this was just cover while they got the native SDK ready, but that Bertrand Serlet email from the other thread was the point at which they even officially decided to have a native SDK at all (months after telling devs to write webapps).
I think the real issue is with the phrase “Apple planned”, because Apple is not one person, and the people disagree on “the plan”. We mythologize them sometimes as an all-planning “the Vatican thinks in centuries” kind of organization. But as emails like that one and others show, there are often legitimate arguments within Apple. In this case, some folks[0]were arguing that native apps would be too much of a security nightmare to be worth it, and that anything that needed to be native could just be built by Apple themselves.
So in conclusion: “Apple” planned nothing, some people at Apple had clear plans to push through a native SDK from day zero, and some people at Apple spent months being deadset that that would never happen.
[0] I’m too lazy to look up these sources right now, check out Melton and Ganatra’s multi-part interview on the Debug podcast.
Apple told developers that webapps were the solution. They didn’t give any public indication that this would change. Now, one could argue that this was just cover while they got the native SDK ready, but that Bertrand Serlet email from the other thread was the point at which they even officially decided to have a native SDK at all (months after telling devs to write webapps).
I think the real issue is with the phrase “Apple planned”, because Apple is not one person, and the people disagree on “the plan”. We mythologize them sometimes as an all-planning “the Vatican thinks in centuries” kind of organization. But as emails like that one and others show, there are often legitimate arguments within Apple. In this case, some folks[0]were arguing that native apps would be too much of a security nightmare to be worth it, and that anything that needed to be native could just be built by Apple themselves.
So in conclusion: “Apple” planned nothing, some people at Apple had clear plans to push through a native SDK from day zero, and some people at Apple spent months being deadset that that would never happen.
[0] I’m too lazy to look up these sources right now, check out Melton and Ganatra’s multi-part interview on the Debug podcast.
Nobody, especially not Apple, decides something like that in one email or even a single conversation. Also this is the company that goes to great pains to hide what everybody can see about their plans. Keep that in mind.
Obviously, This is something that has been discussed over and over and over since they started planning the iPhone. I've watched Apple work, they don't hash out what their products are going to do through emails.
Sorry, but you're wrong. The idea had clearly occurred to them way before any of these emails that you're referencing.
Obviously, This is something that has been discussed over and over and over since they started planning the iPhone. I've watched Apple work, they don't hash out what their products are going to do through emails.
Sorry, but you're wrong. The idea had clearly occurred to them way before any of these emails that you're referencing.
The point is not that the email came up with the idea and they decided it on the spot. But the email show that there was an open discussion, there was a point where they weren't sure.
CC processing and CDN is disingenuously reductive of the experience users have been subjected to buying digital software other ways.
Users don’t choose an app store based on how good the processor or download is, or even on discovery, but on trust. Some portion of this fee, arguably much of it, is a friction and trust gap between one experience and the experiences they have elsewhere.
Just as someone doesn’t choose their hospital based on patient outcomes but patient experience, normals buy from the app store because they believe it’s easy and pro user, while their experience buying software directly elsewhere has felt cumbersome or even user hostile.
All that said, I 100% agree that if people buy your app because of who you are, instead of what the app is, Apple’s app store model is not set up for you.
Users don’t choose an app store based on how good the processor or download is, or even on discovery, but on trust. Some portion of this fee, arguably much of it, is a friction and trust gap between one experience and the experiences they have elsewhere.
Just as someone doesn’t choose their hospital based on patient outcomes but patient experience, normals buy from the app store because they believe it’s easy and pro user, while their experience buying software directly elsewhere has felt cumbersome or even user hostile.
All that said, I 100% agree that if people buy your app because of who you are, instead of what the app is, Apple’s app store model is not set up for you.
> Users don’t choose an app store based on how good the processor or download is, or even on discovery, but on trust.
Yes. For instance if people could install the Steam store on their phones, gamers would do so in droves and Apple don’t want people to be given that choice.
That would cut into their ability to tax and control all commerce happening on the user’s device, which to be clear, is not Apple’s property.
The monopolistic AppStore we’re forced to use is a BS arrangement and Apple is just afraid of what real competition would bring.
Yes. For instance if people could install the Steam store on their phones, gamers would do so in droves and Apple don’t want people to be given that choice.
That would cut into their ability to tax and control all commerce happening on the user’s device, which to be clear, is not Apple’s property.
The monopolistic AppStore we’re forced to use is a BS arrangement and Apple is just afraid of what real competition would bring.
Or, say, SetApp’s iOS apps.
Are droves doing that? (I am.)
Are droves doing that? (I am.)
> Users don’t choose an app store based on how good the processor or download is
> normals buy from the app store because they believe it’s easy and pro user
This is iOS, people don't choose an app store at all. People buy from the Apple App Store because there's literally no alternative that isn't incredibly convoluted and well beyond all but technical users.
> normals buy from the app store because they believe it’s easy and pro user
This is iOS, people don't choose an app store at all. People buy from the Apple App Store because there's literally no alternative that isn't incredibly convoluted and well beyond all but technical users.
The AppStore is not good for finding apps. You can’t even filter or sort the search on any kind of metadata. So you try to type some keywords in and you get irrelevant adware (after the ads for other adware). While I occasionally try apps or games I discover through the AppStore, nearly every app that actually matters to me I’ve learned about through other channels.
It seems like a year ago there was a big dust-up over the 30% cut and Apple's management of the App Store- does anyone remember that? I believe it might've related to the Hey controversy. Or the House antitrust hearings. I just remember a storm of unhappiness, followed by WWDC 2020 and everyone just forgetting about it until the Epic lawsuit picked up again.
Blast from a year's past:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23504251
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23571320
Blast from a year's past:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23504251
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23571320
If Apple believes they are offering so much value to developers then they should open their devices to other stores. Surely no one would choose a competing store when Apple offers such a great deal to them.
Monopoly power is not illegal itself. Abusing monopoly power is.
Apple can argue that their App Store should be the only way to sell apps in Apple phones because security and other stuff. But they can't take huge markup unless they are actually spending most of it into security and providing App Store (they are not).
If they drop their cut into 5% or so, and they would 3% of that running App Store, it's still handsome 40% gross margin and regulators would leave them be.
Apple can argue that their App Store should be the only way to sell apps in Apple phones because security and other stuff. But they can't take huge markup unless they are actually spending most of it into security and providing App Store (they are not).
If they drop their cut into 5% or so, and they would 3% of that running App Store, it's still handsome 40% gross margin and regulators would leave them be.
I still haven't come across a convincing argument why Apple should be compelled by regulation to open up the iPhone and let anyone do anything they want with it, ie be a general purpose mobile computer.
It sucks that they simultaneously have (1) such restrictive policies on what you can do with your device and (2) a well-designed hardware and software ecosystem that serves as a foundation that's hard to move away from.
However, what's stopping others from coming out with a better, less restrictive alternative that benefits from the publicly visible work and lessons that Apple has done/taught us to get us to the great products we have today?
This would be a lot of work. It would require lots of investment of resources. But there's nothing explicitly stopping anyone else from doing this. With global hardware and software advances, and the mobile ecosystem becoming more mature and less changing, the technical moat between only Apple being able to make a good phone vs others doing the same is decreasing.
If Apple's behavior is unacceptable, we should move on to an alternative even if we have to create one to do so. An analogy of a relationship seems fitting. At the start of the relationship, it was all love, roses and fun dates. Now, years into the relationship, we are seeing that Apple is actually kind of a control freak and maybe not so good for us after all. Instead of futilely fighting with someone who won't change after so many fights, maybe we should use the free market to move on to a healthier relationship. There is no gun to our head forcing us to stay with Apple.
I personally dislike the fact that we aren't free to do what we want on our iPhones. But instead of being obsessed with Apple, maybe we should let Apple be Apple, and appreciate what they have contributed to the world. And then create the change in the world that we would like to see.
It sucks that they simultaneously have (1) such restrictive policies on what you can do with your device and (2) a well-designed hardware and software ecosystem that serves as a foundation that's hard to move away from.
However, what's stopping others from coming out with a better, less restrictive alternative that benefits from the publicly visible work and lessons that Apple has done/taught us to get us to the great products we have today?
This would be a lot of work. It would require lots of investment of resources. But there's nothing explicitly stopping anyone else from doing this. With global hardware and software advances, and the mobile ecosystem becoming more mature and less changing, the technical moat between only Apple being able to make a good phone vs others doing the same is decreasing.
If Apple's behavior is unacceptable, we should move on to an alternative even if we have to create one to do so. An analogy of a relationship seems fitting. At the start of the relationship, it was all love, roses and fun dates. Now, years into the relationship, we are seeing that Apple is actually kind of a control freak and maybe not so good for us after all. Instead of futilely fighting with someone who won't change after so many fights, maybe we should use the free market to move on to a healthier relationship. There is no gun to our head forcing us to stay with Apple.
I personally dislike the fact that we aren't free to do what we want on our iPhones. But instead of being obsessed with Apple, maybe we should let Apple be Apple, and appreciate what they have contributed to the world. And then create the change in the world that we would like to see.
Lots of people with lots of resources tried, and made pretty good phones/OSes - Nokia, Palm, Microsoft, Blackberry.
They all fell down on the lack of apps.
If your phone doesn't have apps for Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, TikTok, WhatsApp, LINE, tens of thousands of banks across the globe, credit cards, transit cards, various government ID schemes (try booking your vaccine in Sweden without an iPhone/Android) etc etc you'll never make it.
They all fell down on the lack of apps.
If your phone doesn't have apps for Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, TikTok, WhatsApp, LINE, tens of thousands of banks across the globe, credit cards, transit cards, various government ID schemes (try booking your vaccine in Sweden without an iPhone/Android) etc etc you'll never make it.
All those companies were around before and during the existence of the iPhone. At least some had apps, and had an equal or better chance at having all those apps, so I wonder why they weren’t successful.
You have to start somewhere. If there were a good alternative, then adoption of it would drive gradual availability of these apps.
You have to start somewhere. If there were a good alternative, then adoption of it would drive gradual availability of these apps.
Software ecosystems with more than 2 platforms that need to be supported by developers just never happen.
Look at the desktop - we have Windows and Mac (and for a while it looked like we'd lose the Mac), Linux is still a desktop also-ran.
Look at the web - it took Microsoft completely neglecting IE for 5 years before there was any momentum at all towards other browsers. And now we're back to web developers mostly neglecting Firefox and praying for the day they can drop Safari support so we're 100% Chrome.
Look at the desktop - we have Windows and Mac (and for a while it looked like we'd lose the Mac), Linux is still a desktop also-ran.
Look at the web - it took Microsoft completely neglecting IE for 5 years before there was any momentum at all towards other browsers. And now we're back to web developers mostly neglecting Firefox and praying for the day they can drop Safari support so we're 100% Chrome.
There does seem to be strong market pressure to have no more than 2 major platforms to support, and understandably so due to the amount of work.
Linux never became mainstream because of how poor the user experience was, not necessarily because there’s only room for 2 at the top. Even technically experienced people don’t want to muck around with drivers and deep-dive into configuration. Since few used linux, few apps were written for it.
I think there is usually room for new players, whether they have to usurp an existing one or have compatibility with others to do it.
Linux never became mainstream because of how poor the user experience was, not necessarily because there’s only room for 2 at the top. Even technically experienced people don’t want to muck around with drivers and deep-dive into configuration. Since few used linux, few apps were written for it.
I think there is usually room for new players, whether they have to usurp an existing one or have compatibility with others to do it.
So I've seen some thoughts of web apps here and a consistent grumbling about app stores (and some pro app store comments, though fewer). With the further encroachment of Webassembly into rich applications over the internet, do you think the mobile browsers will resist putting WA functionality into their codebase to stop losing market share? Or is their monopolistic(?) behavior going to be plied only on those who want an Icon launcher?
I was flagged for saying this, but I agree to disagree, and that should not be controversial. I think we succeed when Apple succeeds and that's just my opinion.
The apparent disconnect for me:
1. Apps, as a rule, absolutely add value to the iOS ecosystem, and are a necessity.
2. But any single specific application doesn't.
iOS needs podcasting apps, but if Overcast disappeared, something else would just take its place. "Developers" as a whole are important for Apple to keep happy, but no specific developer matters all that much to them.
1. Apps, as a rule, absolutely add value to the iOS ecosystem, and are a necessity.
2. But any single specific application doesn't.
iOS needs podcasting apps, but if Overcast disappeared, something else would just take its place. "Developers" as a whole are important for Apple to keep happy, but no specific developer matters all that much to them.
>If Apple wishes to continue advancing bizarre corporate-accounting arguments, the massive profits from the hardware business are what therefore truly “pay the way” of the App Store, public APIs, developer tools, and other app-development resources, just as the hardware profits must fund the development of Apple’s own hardware, software, and services that make the iPhone appeal to customers.
You can ignore everything else from this post. The developer gripes with the App Store have always been a contractual dispute between businesses over terms. Marco would like Apple to have the Mac business model apply to the iPhone. He wants to be able to use the SDK and tools for free (or for the nominal developer program annual fee).
This is understandable from a business perspective; everyone wants lower costs and higher profits. But it's certainly not in Apple's customers' interests for their business model to change to accommodate developers.
You can ignore everything else from this post. The developer gripes with the App Store have always been a contractual dispute between businesses over terms. Marco would like Apple to have the Mac business model apply to the iPhone. He wants to be able to use the SDK and tools for free (or for the nominal developer program annual fee).
This is understandable from a business perspective; everyone wants lower costs and higher profits. But it's certainly not in Apple's customers' interests for their business model to change to accommodate developers.
That's so uncharitable. Somebody who makes their living off iOS apps obviously doesn't care about the $100 annual developer fee. This isn't just about the contractual dispute, this is also -- as the post clearly explains -- about respect, fairness, and acknowledgement.
> This is understandable from a business perspective; everyone wants lower costs and higher profits. But it's certainly not in Apple's customers' interests for their business model to change to accommodate developers.
I’ll bite. Why not?
I’ll bite. Why not?
The reasons are discussed (well, flame-war'd, and there's a lot of talking past one another) in practically every HN thread in which Apple is mentioned, even when it's not about the store. I haven't looked but can almost guarantee there's a thread here already covering it. Allow me to summarize the last 100 times I've engaged in or witnessed this:
Party 1: Apple's store hurts consumers and contributes to making their devices not even real computers, just consumption devices, not for creation! It's a shame and they should be broken up or made to allow other app stores. It's plainly anti-competitive, and anti-choice.
Party 2: Hi, I'm a consumer, and I like that they force 3rd parties not to be shitty. I don't really care how that hurts 3rd parties, as long as Apple's big enough that the 3rd parties can't afford to turn down that slice of the pie so they keep providing me the apps I want. Also I do work & creation on iOS devices, often. So. (here party 2 may or may not concede that it is anti-competitive and they simply don't care since it happens to be benefiting them, and may or may not argue that it's not anti-choice, since without Apple's model the kinds of app store ecosystem model the consumer can choose would be reduced by one)
Party 1: 3rd party stores wouldn't hurt you, you could just not use the apps that move to those if you don't like what they're able to do on the other stores. (this is usually where insults to Party 2's intelligence are placed, and in fact this post is often mostly that, and probably also push-back on allowing other stores representing a reduction of choice, if Party 2 chose to advance that line in the previous post)
Party 2: But... right now I have all the apps I want, and none of them can do things I don't like because Apple doesn't let them. How's it better to replace this situation with multiple app stores, so I might have to choose between privacy and using the apps I want? That seems strictly worse for me. (if the which-kind-of-choice-matters argument is in play, an argument that the ecosystem of Apple's store will be harmed by adding more stores, so in fact Party 2's preferred choice of the current, non-so-harmed App Store ecosystem will be removed by adding more, may be employed)
From here things mostly just go in circles and hypotheticals and examples from Android's Play store, which probably won't be particularly relevant to the much-more-restricted Apple App Store and any hypothetical changes to its position given 3rd party app stores.
Party 1: Apple's store hurts consumers and contributes to making their devices not even real computers, just consumption devices, not for creation! It's a shame and they should be broken up or made to allow other app stores. It's plainly anti-competitive, and anti-choice.
Party 2: Hi, I'm a consumer, and I like that they force 3rd parties not to be shitty. I don't really care how that hurts 3rd parties, as long as Apple's big enough that the 3rd parties can't afford to turn down that slice of the pie so they keep providing me the apps I want. Also I do work & creation on iOS devices, often. So. (here party 2 may or may not concede that it is anti-competitive and they simply don't care since it happens to be benefiting them, and may or may not argue that it's not anti-choice, since without Apple's model the kinds of app store ecosystem model the consumer can choose would be reduced by one)
Party 1: 3rd party stores wouldn't hurt you, you could just not use the apps that move to those if you don't like what they're able to do on the other stores. (this is usually where insults to Party 2's intelligence are placed, and in fact this post is often mostly that, and probably also push-back on allowing other stores representing a reduction of choice, if Party 2 chose to advance that line in the previous post)
Party 2: But... right now I have all the apps I want, and none of them can do things I don't like because Apple doesn't let them. How's it better to replace this situation with multiple app stores, so I might have to choose between privacy and using the apps I want? That seems strictly worse for me. (if the which-kind-of-choice-matters argument is in play, an argument that the ecosystem of Apple's store will be harmed by adding more stores, so in fact Party 2's preferred choice of the current, non-so-harmed App Store ecosystem will be removed by adding more, may be employed)
From here things mostly just go in circles and hypotheticals and examples from Android's Play store, which probably won't be particularly relevant to the much-more-restricted Apple App Store and any hypothetical changes to its position given 3rd party app stores.
Their current business model incentivizes Apple to make high quality products that last a long time. The larger Apple's installed base is, the more money they make from the App Store. You can tell from the used market prices for iPhones that they've been doing a great job of this.
This also happens to be more environmentally sustainable, so it's not in society's broader interest for Apple to change their business model.
A world in which Apple only earns profits from hardware sales removes those incentives. Not only would they try to get you to upgrade more often, they'd also invest less R&D in the hardware as well. Instead of doing the iPhone X redesign, with its higher component costs, they'd try to milk the iPhone 6 design for as long as possible.
This also happens to be more environmentally sustainable, so it's not in society's broader interest for Apple to change their business model.
A world in which Apple only earns profits from hardware sales removes those incentives. Not only would they try to get you to upgrade more often, they'd also invest less R&D in the hardware as well. Instead of doing the iPhone X redesign, with its higher component costs, they'd try to milk the iPhone 6 design for as long as possible.
I really wish Overcast was available on Android (and via F-Droid so I could use it on Graphene OS). I say this having no idea how hard that would be... I would GLADLYpay Marco if I could use Overcast on Graphene.
[deleted]
anyone remember Steve's job's remark that Apple was a software company. Better software on integrated hardware. and likewise, developers need to start acting like they're software companies not just "developers". End of day "developers" are what makes a platform valuable.
I was once like that, enamoured by Apple while throwing business sense out of the window.
in street terms, it's like the difference between a street prostitute and a mistress.
„ Without our apps, the iPhone has little value to most of its customers today.” I call bs on that. I can’t be the only person who uses stock apple email and very few 3rd party apps. Yes it’s even better with those apps, but even on its own, a nicely working phone with email and good camera provides a lot of value and utility for me. The 3rd party apps only add like 5% for me.
You are probably in an extremely small minority. At the very least most people have their 2-3 messaging apps of choice, without which the phone might as well be a brick.
OK, if developers hate Apple so much for taking 15-30% of their revenue, why aren't they:
- banding together and suing Apple together
- still writing apps for Apple and giving them money?
Aren't iPhones about 20% of the smartphone market? Wouldn't you make more money from the Google Store or are they extorting the same rates?
- banding together and suing Apple together
- still writing apps for Apple and giving them money?
Aren't iPhones about 20% of the smartphone market? Wouldn't you make more money from the Google Store or are they extorting the same rates?
Outside of games people aren't building directly for app stores anymore. They're building apps that are part of some other profitable business that need to have a presence on the phone. And lately Apple is insisting they get a cut off those kinds of apps too.
Apple cannot force developers to develop for the Apple ecosystem. If you don't like the terms, leave. And I say this as someone who did just that. I used to be all-Apple all the time, but even as far back as 20
> If you don't like the terms, leave.
Apple captured 50% of the American economy. You have no choice. This is why the DOJ must act to bring an end to these anticompetitive behaviors.
Apple captured 50% of the American economy. You have no choice. This is why the DOJ must act to bring an end to these anticompetitive behaviors.
50% is not 100%, which matters if you're accusing a company of monopolistic practices. (and why the Epic lawsuit is fighting that gray area)
False. Monopolies and monopoly practices are legal. Anti-competitive practices, however, are not. Microsoft was not convicted of being a monopoly, it was convicted of leveraging its monopoly to stifle competition in another market.
In the US, this is further narrowed to include "harm to the consumer". For example: increased prices or deception. Under this guideline, Apple's on shaky ground.
In the US, this is further narrowed to include "harm to the consumer". For example: increased prices or deception. Under this guideline, Apple's on shaky ground.
Armchair lawyers again, not knowing how monopolies does not mean 100% of a market.
Don't need to have 100% market share to be anti-trusted in the US. You just need to use your market power in anti-competitive ways that harm consumers.
50% of consumers for any way you want to reach them.
You can't get them anymore because Apple has them locked up.
It doesn't matter if you're a video game or a dating app or a movie marketplace. You have to pay the Piper.
You can't get them anymore because Apple has them locked up.
It doesn't matter if you're a video game or a dating app or a movie marketplace. You have to pay the Piper.
I don't get it, what's his actual point?
This post should’ve been a tweet instead.
Marco likes to complain. This is why Apple needs to be cold to developers, they're already on its head, and even more so if they pay attention.
He spent 20 minutes of the latest podcast episode complaining too. I couldn't catch a single argument, he was just talking about how he "felt insulted".
One profit maximizer vs another.
> Modern society has come to rely so heavily on mobile apps that any phone manufacturer must ensure that such a healthy ecosystem exists as table stakes for anyone to buy their phones.
I don't think this is true. It may be an unfortunate end. I'm actually intending to move to a flip phone since...
I don't think this is true. It may be an unfortunate end. I'm actually intending to move to a flip phone since...
One statistical point versus billions of smartphone users.
Clearly a strong argument...
Clearly a strong argument...
Apple has historically never considered their products as a platform, but rather as a final product, useable as-is.
iOS was initially completely closed, for bullshit reasons.
Helping developers is never a priority, and it is easy to feel when you try to build something running on their products.
This is unfortunate and I think it is highly irrational.
iOS was initially completely closed, for bullshit reasons.
Helping developers is never a priority, and it is easy to feel when you try to build something running on their products.
This is unfortunate and I think it is highly irrational.
Arguably iOS was originally intended and designed to run HTML5 web apps without intermediation. Web tech based applets downloadable and runnable from a home screen, similar to Palm Pre and WebOS.
Not quite (HTML5 wasn’t even finalized for release until 2014). Jobs really intended for Apple-only Native Apps, one of which was a Safari, that allowed third party services via webpages
> similar to Palm Pre and WebOS.
not quite. webOS was more than 'tech based applets'. webOS tried to leverage HTML and CSS as the programming language for native apps much like Android leveraged Java. It was not the same philosophy as iPhone OS 1.0
> similar to Palm Pre and WebOS.
not quite. webOS was more than 'tech based applets'. webOS tried to leverage HTML and CSS as the programming language for native apps much like Android leveraged Java. It was not the same philosophy as iPhone OS 1.0
> Without our apps, the iPhone has little value to most of its customers today.
Looking at my iPhone I see no 3rd party apps. I use safari to access websites and eschew any service that wants me to "use our app" and doesn't have a web version.
Looking at my iPhone I see no 3rd party apps. I use safari to access websites and eschew any service that wants me to "use our app" and doesn't have a web version.
I believe you, but surely you realize that you are an outlier?
So your use case effectively represents maybe 1% of iOS/iPadOS users? :P Realistically probably less?
Because, as a musician - I should just use the Web App version of GarageBand, right?
Because I'm sure the Web App version of GarageBand will run circles around the native version, right? :P And it'll have all the support for things like Audio Bus, USB Midi support, and USB Audio card I/O - of course. And that'll all be totally secure, too!
...
(GarageBand adds immense and completely irreplaceable value for iOS for me...it's actually the reason I use iOS/iPadOS as I can import those creations into Logic Pro on my Mac and that ease of workflow is absolutely impossible to reproduce anywhere else. I'd pay $200 for GarageBand if it wasn't shockingly free, minus the requirement to stick with iOS/iPadOS.)
Plus - who could forget about that fantastic Web-only version of ProCreate, for all the millions of hobbyist and professional designers who buy an iPad Pro and Apple Pencil for - y'know - art.
I love using the Apple Pencil to manipulate extremely high-resolution art in the browser - it never crashes and it's so much more responsive than a native app!
...
(Obviously there is not - nor ever will there be - a Web version of ProCreate. Or GarageBand. And the replacements will certainly not perform better or support awesome things like AudioBus.)
Gotta love how well Garageband, ProCreate; and all those native video games hundreds of millions of people like to play and use work in a browser on iOS - you're right - better scrap the App Store altogether!
Clearly nobody installs apps and there are no potential use cases for tens of or hundreds of millions of users to do so.
...okay, I'm done. :P
Because, as a musician - I should just use the Web App version of GarageBand, right?
Because I'm sure the Web App version of GarageBand will run circles around the native version, right? :P And it'll have all the support for things like Audio Bus, USB Midi support, and USB Audio card I/O - of course. And that'll all be totally secure, too!
...
(GarageBand adds immense and completely irreplaceable value for iOS for me...it's actually the reason I use iOS/iPadOS as I can import those creations into Logic Pro on my Mac and that ease of workflow is absolutely impossible to reproduce anywhere else. I'd pay $200 for GarageBand if it wasn't shockingly free, minus the requirement to stick with iOS/iPadOS.)
Plus - who could forget about that fantastic Web-only version of ProCreate, for all the millions of hobbyist and professional designers who buy an iPad Pro and Apple Pencil for - y'know - art.
I love using the Apple Pencil to manipulate extremely high-resolution art in the browser - it never crashes and it's so much more responsive than a native app!
...
(Obviously there is not - nor ever will there be - a Web version of ProCreate. Or GarageBand. And the replacements will certainly not perform better or support awesome things like AudioBus.)
Gotta love how well Garageband, ProCreate; and all those native video games hundreds of millions of people like to play and use work in a browser on iOS - you're right - better scrap the App Store altogether!
Clearly nobody installs apps and there are no potential use cases for tens of or hundreds of millions of users to do so.
...okay, I'm done. :P
>USB Midi support
Web apps certainly could have this if Apple wanted them to. Works perfectly find on computers and Android devices.
>Obviously there is not - nor ever will there be - a Web version of ProCreate. Or GarageBand
There absolutely could be, just needs a talented team. Figma is a web app and runs circles around any native app in the design space, nothing too magical going on in ProCreate or Garageband that couldn't be done on the web with a talented team and an OS that didn't intentionally limit it's power.
Web apps certainly could have this if Apple wanted them to. Works perfectly find on computers and Android devices.
>Obviously there is not - nor ever will there be - a Web version of ProCreate. Or GarageBand
There absolutely could be, just needs a talented team. Figma is a web app and runs circles around any native app in the design space, nothing too magical going on in ProCreate or Garageband that couldn't be done on the web with a talented team and an OS that didn't intentionally limit it's power.
I'm the same way on iPhone—I use several 3rd-party apps, but it'd be 90% as useful to me without any of them.
iPad? Oh hell no. I'd not bother with one, at all, without third-party apps. With them it's amazing, probably my single favorite computer platform for anything that's not programming. Without them it's just a huge, worse (there's not even a calculator!) iPhone.
iPad? Oh hell no. I'd not bother with one, at all, without third-party apps. With them it's amazing, probably my single favorite computer platform for anything that's not programming. Without them it's just a huge, worse (there's not even a calculator!) iPhone.
I care very little about the App store. In my world the iOS app is a small part of our ecosystem.
What I care about is getting charged for a developer licence that was never delivered.
Needing a licence to use hardware I paid money for. Without the licence I cannot put apps on the iPad I own connected to the Mac I own, apps I write on said Mac.
Buggy developer tools that they will not fix. Xcode (and its Swift ecosystem) work well for a small project, really great. Until you realise that the debugger is lying about the state of your variables.
Get to 100,000+ lines of code (or whatever measure of size you like, big) Xcode stops working, the tools to navigate your code start getting flaky, the editor with its slick features gets very slow....
And the debugger: It tells lies - but the worst, the very worst, is that in Swift, on iOs comparing a optional to `nil` is unreliable. No shit, this is needed:
if foo == nil { if let _ = nil { // foo is not really nil
About 1% of nil comparisons fail...
A trillion dollar company built off the work of developers and the tools are like this? They take money for access?
Times like this I am glad I am on a salary...
What I care about is getting charged for a developer licence that was never delivered.
Needing a licence to use hardware I paid money for. Without the licence I cannot put apps on the iPad I own connected to the Mac I own, apps I write on said Mac.
Buggy developer tools that they will not fix. Xcode (and its Swift ecosystem) work well for a small project, really great. Until you realise that the debugger is lying about the state of your variables.
Get to 100,000+ lines of code (or whatever measure of size you like, big) Xcode stops working, the tools to navigate your code start getting flaky, the editor with its slick features gets very slow....
And the debugger: It tells lies - but the worst, the very worst, is that in Swift, on iOs comparing a optional to `nil` is unreliable. No shit, this is needed:
if foo == nil { if let _ = nil { // foo is not really nil
About 1% of nil comparisons fail...
A trillion dollar company built off the work of developers and the tools are like this? They take money for access?
Times like this I am glad I am on a salary...
Optionals are of course 100% reliable.
What are you actually trying to do? "if let _ = nil" makes no sense and doesn't compile.
What are you actually trying to do? "if let _ = nil" makes no sense and doesn't compile.
Duh!
if the_variable_that_might_be_nil == nil {
The Swift ecosystem has important bugs in some corner cases.
Fact.
if the_variable_that_might_be_nil == nil {
if let _ = the_variable_that_might_be_nil
// Nope not really nil
The Swift ecosystem has important bugs in some corner cases.
Fact.
This is different from what you wrote the first time though. This time it makes sense syntactically and compiles, but why would you write it? It makes no logical sense, the inner block would never be executed.
If the inner block is actually called, that's an extremely serious bug. I know people in the Swift core team, can you share a code sample with me the exposes the bug and I will bring it up?
If the inner block is actually called, that's an extremely serious bug. I know people in the Swift core team, can you share a code sample with me the exposes the bug and I will bring it up?
The inner block is, roughly 1% of the time (in the code base this is from) executed.
This is my point: The flagship development system of the most valuable company in the world is buggy. It is one example, but I have several examples of flaws like this.
This is my point: The flagship development system of the most valuable company in the world is buggy. It is one example, but I have several examples of flaws like this.
Remember:
- They pretend with a straight face like it was somehow impossible to sell software or reach customers before their magical store made it happen.
- They pretend like the current “search” feature of the App Store is not a sad reduction of what it used to be (or what it could be if a trillion dollar company put any effort into it at all).
- They pretend to have all these problems hosting apps that are somehow solved by fees, while completely ignoring all the free apps that clearly tax that same infrastructure.
- They conveniently ignore the absurd amount of money they must be making from scams that are constantly top-grossing to add insult to injury.
I could go on but there are entire blogs written about this by now.