15 ms·

Apple Starts to Woo Its App Developers

77 points by hvo 10y ago

tomglynch 10y ago
The complaint by Fanify is ridiculous. It's very clear the app "violated Apple’s requirement that all in-app payments be routed through iTunes" so you can't pay through paypal. Sounds like poor planning by Fanify to submit the app only 10 days before their planned launch, when they clearly didn't bother following Apple's T&Cs.
- softbuilder 10y ago
  It does sound like poor planning, given the known realities of the app store. But I've never understood why Apple feels entitled to a cut of in-app purchases. They aren't providing any added value and in some cases (like w/ Kindle) they seem to be begging for an anti-trust suit.
  - danso 10y ago
    > But I've never understood why Apple feels entitled to a cut of in-app purchases. You mean besides maintaining and securing the entire distribution network and ecosystem that makes such apps profitable in the first place?
    - kuschku 10y ago
      They may charge for that service, if they wish. But they can’t get a cut of in-app payments, especially for Kindle stuff. Also, what if I say for every user who buys an autogram card they get premium of the app for free? Is that enough to get around them getting a cut? This is a big legal issue.
    - mkching 10y ago
      The second half of this is particularly important. Apple keeps iOS desirable to an enormous number of end users who are willing to spend money on apps. They benefit from this by selling a lot of iPhones, but the developers benefit as well by having a market to target.
  - sokoloff 10y ago
    One reason is that without it, there'd be nearly no paid apps. Every app would be free with some minute amount of functionality (to pass the review process) and an in-app purchase to unlock the "pro" version, with Apple getting nothing. Apple built a platform and wants to extract value from that platform. It seems perfectly reasonable to me.
    - softbuilder 10y ago
      >Every app would be free with some minute amount of functionality Maybe. But that already happens w/ free and "pro", etc.. I expect that the marketplace would sort that out. When everything is a come-on genuine offerings start to have more appeal. >Apple built a platform and wants to extract value from that platform. Sure. No problems with that as long as there is some value they are providing. At least in the case of a paid app, once that sale is made Apple shouldn't be involved unless they are doing something useful.
    - LanceH 10y ago
      Nothing except the very large margins on the hardware.
      - sokoloff 10y ago
        A good rule of thumb is that a consumer electronics product should retail for about 2.5x the COGS (cost of goods sold). That's pretty much where the iPhone sits. I don't see evidence of excessive margins on hardware; I see a company that's planned for and executed on proper margins.
  - Razengan 10y ago
    Uhh hosting your files and providing the bandwidth for potentially millions of downloads?
  - paulcole 10y ago
    Value in my opinion is to the customer. I trust an IAP won't rip me off, do something weird, etc.
- chris_wot 10y ago
  Don't you find the App Store review process somewhat arbitrary and opaque though? Have they really improved their processes in terms of responsiveness?
  - agmcleod 10y ago
    The time to review & release is definitely faster. I wonder if quality will suffer because of it. One time when I had a rejection, I asked for some more details and got a fairly automated response. So it does feel a bit inhuman unfortunately.
    - sthielen 10y ago
      I think this is part of the new changes as well. I was dealing with a rejection a few days ago because of the new IPv6-only restriction and someone from App Store Review actually called me and we discussed and resolved the issue over the phone. After only ever communicating with them via contact forms and automated responses, I was in disbelief. Speaking to a real person from App Store Review was so absurd in my mind that it may as well have been God calling to discuss my prayers.
      - agmcleod 10y ago
        Oh wow, that's rather awesome :D
MBlume 10y ago
The fact that you have to build an iOS app on a Mac, that you can't even set up a CI build on commodity hardware, or in the cloud, is pretty fundamentally developer-hostile. I'll start to feel wooed when they take steps toward fixing that.
- knucklesandwich 10y ago
  I don't disagree with your general point that it's ridiculous how locked down the tooling is, but I think you can build an iOS app on a CI in the cloud, can't you? TravisCI and CircleCI at least offer options for this, I believe.
  - Fr0styMatt88 10y ago
    I think Unity Cloud Build is another example. They say it supports iOS (I've personally never used it though). https://unity3d.com/services/cloud-build https://unity3d.com/services/cloud-build
  - joshdickson 10y ago
    They said CI build on commodity hardware. Yes folks like Circle have CI for iOS and OS X apps, but (1) it's on Apple hardware and (2) as a result, way more expensive.
    - knucklesandwich 10y ago
      The above person said or in the cloud. Agreed that its a pain. I only have experience with OS X builds (not for cocoa apps, but for a CLI tool) in TravisCI, but I can tell you that their build box offerings are much weaker than what you can get for Linux (presumably because of the cost).
- asimuvPR 10y ago
  Great point. The whole process seems alien to me. More so when its forced by one of the biggest computer companies in the world.
- 10y ago
guelo 10y ago
Weak. The evidence provided by this article that Apple is wooing developers is : - Shorter review times. This is a genuine improvement. Can be seen here http://appreviewtimes.com/ios/annual-trend-graph http://appreviewtimes.com/ios/annual-trend-graph - App store ads. If you have an app marketing budget this does nothing besides shift who you spend it with. We'll see if the roi is better but you'll be competing with some heavy spenders for the limited inventory. - The new subscriptions pay model with the 15% cut after one year. In my opinion Apple doesn't deserve any cut of the recurring money since they don't have to do anything to earn it. - Some new marketing documentation. woop dee do
- IBM 10y ago
  I don't see it as any different from a shopping mall that takes a cut of a retailer's sales/profit as rent.
  - Oletros 10y ago
    No, the analogy here is the mall taking a cut from someone that buys from a catalog taken from the mall.
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
- agmcleod 10y ago
  > In my opinion Apple doesn't deserve any cut of the recurring money since they have to do nothing to earn it. Aside from host the infrastructure that delivers the apps. Are they doing this to make money? Of course. But saying they haven't earned it is flat out wrong.
  - themartorana 10y ago
    They haven't earned 15-30% by any stretch.
  - guelo 10y ago
    > Aside from host the infrastructure that delivers the apps Under that logic they should charge for upgrades. But subscriptions is not really related to upgrades. Subscription implies that your app is tied to your own backend service that you keep up and running without Apple's help.
PostThisTooFast 10y ago
I can't see writing any more apps for a platform that's hurtling backward so rapidly. With grossly offensive (or just cravenly stupid) moves like deleting the headphone jack and making the iPhone nearly useless by removing battery capacity, Apple is calling consumers stupid and making its products incapable of running the applications that many of us write (or would like to). Jony Ive is a pompous hack with no ideas for making better products. He has presided over a precipitous decline in Apple's quality, including everything from design to physical construction. The UI regressions, the glued-together computers, the computers with no proper I/O or video output (only an outdated USB port, WTF), the idiotic crippling of phones to make them "thinner..." No self-respecting person should vote with his money for this sorry lineup of ever-more-useless junk from Apple. When the vast majority of users don't think your product can withstand being used for its primary purpose... that product's design is a failure. That's why everyone buries his "thin, elegant" iPhone in a bulky, tacky rubber diaper. And a lot of people carry a diaper with a full load, meaning a battery to replace the one Apple left out. I hate hypocrisy. So I can't support Apple's scams with applications.
chris_wot 10y ago
I really feel that at this point the biggest issue is Apple's lack of openness. My biggest issue with Android is the UI. For whatever reason it's fragmented between devices, and when I worked in an area that needed to support both iOS and Android devices, I preferred helping those with iOS because it was much, much easier to support them. However, in terms of troubleshooting beyond a certain point I discovered that Android devices were by far superior. On an Android I can get access to log files, low level network features and a host of other goodies (like the filesystem!) much more easily. Heck, some of the devices we eventually ended up using had great emulators and remote access tools - something iOS devices just don't have. The company I worked for had a custom mobile app-based solution. Like any solution it had bugs, but we fixed more bugs in the Android version in shorter timeframes than we did for iPhones - largely because we had more options for people in the field who experienced intermittent and hard to track down problems. The fact I can't view logs on an iPhone app on my iPhone seems ridiculous. And not being able to setup network filtering ion the device, well I know why Apple doesn't want that but it's not for any good technical reason - it's only to "protect" their ecosystem.
FreedomToCreate 10y ago
The App store has reached maturity and at this point, breaking through the noise is near to impossible if you don't have millions to begin with. There are those odd apps that like in the first couple of years, tear through to the top and are made over a month by an independent dev, but that is rare. The app store is no where close to as exciting as it was. Its basically become like the PC software market now, though with less liberty.
jsemrau 10y ago
Here is the beef that I have with Apple. Hands down the app store is rotten infrastructure to the core for app developers. In my experience, app discovery is so bad it shows everything but the app you were looking for unless the app you were looking for is in the top 10. Most indy-apps are brutally left out in the cold. As a result, app downloads are stagnating. [2014]http://qz.com/253618/most-smartphone-users-download-zero-apps-per-month/ http://qz.com/253618/most-smartphone-users-download-zero-app... [2015]http://www.businessinsider.sg/how-many-apps-people-download-per-month-2014-8/?r=US&IR=T http://www.businessinsider.sg/how-many-apps-people-download-... So it boggles the mind why going forward we should invest months into the development in an app where the only benefit the app store brings is payment (for a free app) and versioning. Apple is in dire need for an app store disruption.
- kranner 10y ago
  These are complaints about visibility. Can you market it yourself? Then the app store provides cryptographically-signed peace of mind to users that they can use your app without their contacts stolen or their phones hijacked.
  - sjtgraham 10y ago
    Unfortunately this is far from true. It's trivial use private APIs and beat AppStore static analysis. There is also a MITM attack on FairPlay DRM that has enabled malware to be installed via AppStore apps.
    - kranner 10y ago
      Thanks, I wasn't aware of the latter, but looks like it requires a user to install a Windows client called 爱思助手 (Aisi Helper), purportedly for jailbreaking etc., then connect their iOS device to a Windows PC running this software. So it's hardly a typical case. Reference: http://researchcenter.paloaltonetworks.com/2016/03/acedeceiver-first-ios-trojan-exploiting-apple-drm-design-flaws-to-infect-any-ios-device/ http://researchcenter.paloaltonetworks.com/2016/03/acedeceiv... Regarding the former, yes it may be possible to hardcode addresses for private APIs and target specific devices running specific iOS versions, but Apple routinely weeds these out. Edit: I assume Apple weeds these out. I have no reference for this. I realize it's not bulletproof, but it's still good enough to trust for me as an iOS user compared to the Android phone I was using until last year.
knucklesandwich 10y ago
I used to work at a company whose flagship product is an iOS app. I have typically worked on web things and was working on the API used by the product. But it always struck me as strange how different of perceptions iOS devs had from most developers I've met about what constituted "reasonable requirements" from platform providers. I get that you play ball with these things and pay what you owe to get access to the market of Apple customers. I do get that. But I also think that relationship is mutualistic, and that app developers bring a tremendous amount of value to the platform that causes people to buy Apple products in the first place. And I would argue that their value has not been assessed fairly by Apple given the amount of cut they require and the amount of stipulations they create about permissible ideas. Yes, a certain amount of these rules do make sense, but some are unbelievably arcane and arbitrary. For instance: "Apps that unlock or enable additional features or functionality with mechanisms other than the App Store will be rejected" It's absurd that something like this would be in your platform's rules. That eliminates a huge number of possibilities in app development that would have absolutely no negative impact on Apple's reputation or the safety of the App Store. And it would be another thing if these rules weren't given much credence, but from what I've seen, developers are generally worried about being caught for these kinds of things during app review, and they take the policies very seriously. I don't know if the iOS developers I've known are representative or not, but in any case I'm happy that some of them are starting to push back.
- IBM 10y ago
  How doesn't that make sense? What if app developers started saying you could unlock 100 gold coins for free if you visit some website and click 3 ads or some other shitty experience? Maybe having that restriction is bad for developers but developers aren't Apple's only constituency, customers are too (Apple has definitely shown they care more about their customers than the needs of developers). From a pure business strategy of commoditize your complements, encouraging app developers to have subscription pricing works against the interests of their customers (who want to minimize their costs). Yet they're obviously doing it because the long-term interests of customers is in having sustainable businesses develop those apps/services.
  - 10y ago
galistoca 10y ago
More like "Apple does a PR piece to convince developers that everyone else is being wooed so they should be wooed too". I miss the days when Apple used to generate hype simply based on great product, instead of artificial pieces like this.
waynecochran 10y ago
"At one point, Apple raised a fundamental objection, saying that Fanify’s method for tipping artists, which used the online payment services Venmo and PayPal, violated Apple’s requirement that all in-app payments be routed through iTunes so the company could take its 30 percent cut." Duh Fanify.. I am amazed at developers who complain about their apps not getting accepted when they clearly never read the App Store Review Guidelines. "11.2 Apps utilizing a system other than the In-App Purchase API (IAP) to purchase content, functionality, or services in an App will be rejected." https://developer.apple.com/app-store/review/guidelines/#purchasing-currencies https://developer.apple.com/app-store/review/guidelines/#pur...
tianlins 10y ago
I am very surprised that it takes Apple years before they finally decide to release Siri API (supposedly). The benefit of speech assistant for apps seems huge. And would it been released earlier, Apple can collect much more speech data as well, which may help build next-gen Siri.
datashovel 10y ago
"Developers Developers Developers Developers!" --Tim Cook WWDC 2016
nathanvanfleet 10y ago
I don't really get the whole wedge of the article. Giving developers a Siri Kit is them trying to make it easier for them? Apple has continually improved developers access to the different hardware and software on the iPhone. Same thing for the improvement of app review times. It's great they did it. I don't see the connection between that and "stagnating" iPhone sales.

77 points by hvo 10y ago

The complaint by Fanify is ridiculous. It's very clear the app "violated Apple’s requirement that all in-app payments be routed through iTunes" so you can't pay through paypal. Sounds like poor planning by Fanify to submit the app only 10 days before their planned launch, when they clearly didn't bother following Apple's T&Cs.

softbuilder 10y ago
It does sound like poor planning, given the known realities of the app store. But I've never understood why Apple feels entitled to a cut of in-app purchases. They aren't providing any added value and in some cases (like w/ Kindle) they seem to be begging for an anti-trust suit.
- danso 10y ago
  > But I've never understood why Apple feels entitled to a cut of in-app purchases. You mean besides maintaining and securing the entire distribution network and ecosystem that makes such apps profitable in the first place?
  - kuschku 10y ago
    They may charge for that service, if they wish. But they can’t get a cut of in-app payments, especially for Kindle stuff. Also, what if I say for every user who buys an autogram card they get premium of the app for free? Is that enough to get around them getting a cut? This is a big legal issue.
  - mkching 10y ago
    The second half of this is particularly important. Apple keeps iOS desirable to an enormous number of end users who are willing to spend money on apps. They benefit from this by selling a lot of iPhones, but the developers benefit as well by having a market to target.
- sokoloff 10y ago
  One reason is that without it, there'd be nearly no paid apps. Every app would be free with some minute amount of functionality (to pass the review process) and an in-app purchase to unlock the "pro" version, with Apple getting nothing. Apple built a platform and wants to extract value from that platform. It seems perfectly reasonable to me.
  - softbuilder 10y ago
    >Every app would be free with some minute amount of functionality Maybe. But that already happens w/ free and "pro", etc.. I expect that the marketplace would sort that out. When everything is a come-on genuine offerings start to have more appeal. >Apple built a platform and wants to extract value from that platform. Sure. No problems with that as long as there is some value they are providing. At least in the case of a paid app, once that sale is made Apple shouldn't be involved unless they are doing something useful.
  - LanceH 10y ago
    Nothing except the very large margins on the hardware.
    - sokoloff 10y ago
      A good rule of thumb is that a consumer electronics product should retail for about 2.5x the COGS (cost of goods sold). That's pretty much where the iPhone sits. I don't see evidence of excessive margins on hardware; I see a company that's planned for and executed on proper margins.
- Razengan 10y ago
  Uhh hosting your files and providing the bandwidth for potentially millions of downloads?
- paulcole 10y ago
  Value in my opinion is to the customer. I trust an IAP won't rip me off, do something weird, etc.
chris_wot 10y ago
Don't you find the App Store review process somewhat arbitrary and opaque though? Have they really improved their processes in terms of responsiveness?
- agmcleod 10y ago
  The time to review & release is definitely faster. I wonder if quality will suffer because of it. One time when I had a rejection, I asked for some more details and got a fairly automated response. So it does feel a bit inhuman unfortunately.
  - sthielen 10y ago
    I think this is part of the new changes as well. I was dealing with a rejection a few days ago because of the new IPv6-only restriction and someone from App Store Review actually called me and we discussed and resolved the issue over the phone. After only ever communicating with them via contact forms and automated responses, I was in disbelief. Speaking to a real person from App Store Review was so absurd in my mind that it may as well have been God calling to discuss my prayers.
    - agmcleod 10y ago
      Oh wow, that's rather awesome :D

MBlume 10y ago

The fact that you have to build an iOS app on a Mac, that you can't even set up a CI build on commodity hardware, or in the cloud, is pretty fundamentally developer-hostile. I'll start to feel wooed when they take steps toward fixing that.

knucklesandwich 10y ago
I don't disagree with your general point that it's ridiculous how locked down the tooling is, but I think you can build an iOS app on a CI in the cloud, can't you? TravisCI and CircleCI at least offer options for this, I believe.
- Fr0styMatt88 10y ago
  I think Unity Cloud Build is another example. They say it supports iOS (I've personally never used it though). https://unity3d.com/services/cloud-build https://unity3d.com/services/cloud-build
- joshdickson 10y ago
  They said CI build on commodity hardware. Yes folks like Circle have CI for iOS and OS X apps, but (1) it's on Apple hardware and (2) as a result, way more expensive.
  - knucklesandwich 10y ago
    The above person said or in the cloud. Agreed that its a pain. I only have experience with OS X builds (not for cocoa apps, but for a CLI tool) in TravisCI, but I can tell you that their build box offerings are much weaker than what you can get for Linux (presumably because of the cost).
asimuvPR 10y ago
Great point. The whole process seems alien to me. More so when its forced by one of the biggest computer companies in the world.
10y ago

guelo 10y ago

Weak. The evidence provided by this article that Apple is wooing developers is : - Shorter review times. This is a genuine improvement. Can be seen here http://appreviewtimes.com/ios/annual-trend-graph http://appreviewtimes.com/ios/annual-trend-graph - App store ads. If you have an app marketing budget this does nothing besides shift who you spend it with. We'll see if the roi is better but you'll be competing with some heavy spenders for the limited inventory. - The new subscriptions pay model with the 15% cut after one year. In my opinion Apple doesn't deserve any cut of the recurring money since they don't have to do anything to earn it. - Some new marketing documentation. woop dee do

IBM 10y ago
I don't see it as any different from a shopping mall that takes a cut of a retailer's sales/profit as rent.
- Oletros 10y ago
  No, the analogy here is the mall taking a cut from someone that buys from a catalog taken from the mall.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
agmcleod 10y ago
> In my opinion Apple doesn't deserve any cut of the recurring money since they have to do nothing to earn it. Aside from host the infrastructure that delivers the apps. Are they doing this to make money? Of course. But saying they haven't earned it is flat out wrong.
- themartorana 10y ago
  They haven't earned 15-30% by any stretch.
- guelo 10y ago
  > Aside from host the infrastructure that delivers the apps Under that logic they should charge for upgrades. But subscriptions is not really related to upgrades. Subscription implies that your app is tied to your own backend service that you keep up and running without Apple's help.

PostThisTooFast 10y ago

I can't see writing any more apps for a platform that's hurtling backward so rapidly. With grossly offensive (or just cravenly stupid) moves like deleting the headphone jack and making the iPhone nearly useless by removing battery capacity, Apple is calling consumers stupid and making its products incapable of running the applications that many of us write (or would like to). Jony Ive is a pompous hack with no ideas for making better products. He has presided over a precipitous decline in Apple's quality, including everything from design to physical construction. The UI regressions, the glued-together computers, the computers with no proper I/O or video output (only an outdated USB port, WTF), the idiotic crippling of phones to make them "thinner..." No self-respecting person should vote with his money for this sorry lineup of ever-more-useless junk from Apple. When the vast majority of users don't think your product can withstand being used for its primary purpose... that product's design is a failure. That's why everyone buries his "thin, elegant" iPhone in a bulky, tacky rubber diaper. And a lot of people carry a diaper with a full load, meaning a battery to replace the one Apple left out. I hate hypocrisy. So I can't support Apple's scams with applications.

chris_wot 10y ago

I really feel that at this point the biggest issue is Apple's lack of openness. My biggest issue with Android is the UI. For whatever reason it's fragmented between devices, and when I worked in an area that needed to support both iOS and Android devices, I preferred helping those with iOS because it was much, much easier to support them. However, in terms of troubleshooting beyond a certain point I discovered that Android devices were by far superior. On an Android I can get access to log files, low level network features and a host of other goodies (like the filesystem!) much more easily. Heck, some of the devices we eventually ended up using had great emulators and remote access tools - something iOS devices just don't have. The company I worked for had a custom mobile app-based solution. Like any solution it had bugs, but we fixed more bugs in the Android version in shorter timeframes than we did for iPhones - largely because we had more options for people in the field who experienced intermittent and hard to track down problems. The fact I can't view logs on an iPhone app on my iPhone seems ridiculous. And not being able to setup network filtering ion the device, well I know why Apple doesn't want that but it's not for any good technical reason - it's only to "protect" their ecosystem.

FreedomToCreate 10y ago

The App store has reached maturity and at this point, breaking through the noise is near to impossible if you don't have millions to begin with. There are those odd apps that like in the first couple of years, tear through to the top and are made over a month by an independent dev, but that is rare. The app store is no where close to as exciting as it was. Its basically become like the PC software market now, though with less liberty.

jsemrau 10y ago

Here is the beef that I have with Apple. Hands down the app store is rotten infrastructure to the core for app developers. In my experience, app discovery is so bad it shows everything but the app you were looking for unless the app you were looking for is in the top 10. Most indy-apps are brutally left out in the cold. As a result, app downloads are stagnating. [2014]http://qz.com/253618/most-smartphone-users-download-zero-apps-per-month/ http://qz.com/253618/most-smartphone-users-download-zero-app... [2015]http://www.businessinsider.sg/how-many-apps-people-download-per-month-2014-8/?r=US&IR=T http://www.businessinsider.sg/how-many-apps-people-download-... So it boggles the mind why going forward we should invest months into the development in an app where the only benefit the app store brings is payment (for a free app) and versioning. Apple is in dire need for an app store disruption.

kranner 10y ago
These are complaints about visibility. Can you market it yourself? Then the app store provides cryptographically-signed peace of mind to users that they can use your app without their contacts stolen or their phones hijacked.
- sjtgraham 10y ago
  Unfortunately this is far from true. It's trivial use private APIs and beat AppStore static analysis. There is also a MITM attack on FairPlay DRM that has enabled malware to be installed via AppStore apps.
  - kranner 10y ago
    Thanks, I wasn't aware of the latter, but looks like it requires a user to install a Windows client called 爱思助手 (Aisi Helper), purportedly for jailbreaking etc., then connect their iOS device to a Windows PC running this software. So it's hardly a typical case. Reference: http://researchcenter.paloaltonetworks.com/2016/03/acedeceiver-first-ios-trojan-exploiting-apple-drm-design-flaws-to-infect-any-ios-device/ http://researchcenter.paloaltonetworks.com/2016/03/acedeceiv... Regarding the former, yes it may be possible to hardcode addresses for private APIs and target specific devices running specific iOS versions, but Apple routinely weeds these out. Edit: I assume Apple weeds these out. I have no reference for this. I realize it's not bulletproof, but it's still good enough to trust for me as an iOS user compared to the Android phone I was using until last year.

knucklesandwich 10y ago

I used to work at a company whose flagship product is an iOS app. I have typically worked on web things and was working on the API used by the product. But it always struck me as strange how different of perceptions iOS devs had from most developers I've met about what constituted "reasonable requirements" from platform providers. I get that you play ball with these things and pay what you owe to get access to the market of Apple customers. I do get that. But I also think that relationship is mutualistic, and that app developers bring a tremendous amount of value to the platform that causes people to buy Apple products in the first place. And I would argue that their value has not been assessed fairly by Apple given the amount of cut they require and the amount of stipulations they create about permissible ideas. Yes, a certain amount of these rules do make sense, but some are unbelievably arcane and arbitrary. For instance: "Apps that unlock or enable additional features or functionality with mechanisms other than the App Store will be rejected" It's absurd that something like this would be in your platform's rules. That eliminates a huge number of possibilities in app development that would have absolutely no negative impact on Apple's reputation or the safety of the App Store. And it would be another thing if these rules weren't given much credence, but from what I've seen, developers are generally worried about being caught for these kinds of things during app review, and they take the policies very seriously. I don't know if the iOS developers I've known are representative or not, but in any case I'm happy that some of them are starting to push back.

IBM 10y ago
How doesn't that make sense? What if app developers started saying you could unlock 100 gold coins for free if you visit some website and click 3 ads or some other shitty experience? Maybe having that restriction is bad for developers but developers aren't Apple's only constituency, customers are too (Apple has definitely shown they care more about their customers than the needs of developers). From a pure business strategy of commoditize your complements, encouraging app developers to have subscription pricing works against the interests of their customers (who want to minimize their costs). Yet they're obviously doing it because the long-term interests of customers is in having sustainable businesses develop those apps/services.
- 10y ago

galistoca 10y ago

More like "Apple does a PR piece to convince developers that everyone else is being wooed so they should be wooed too". I miss the days when Apple used to generate hype simply based on great product, instead of artificial pieces like this.

waynecochran 10y ago

"At one point, Apple raised a fundamental objection, saying that Fanify’s method for tipping artists, which used the online payment services Venmo and PayPal, violated Apple’s requirement that all in-app payments be routed through iTunes so the company could take its 30 percent cut." Duh Fanify.. I am amazed at developers who complain about their apps not getting accepted when they clearly never read the App Store Review Guidelines. "11.2 Apps utilizing a system other than the In-App Purchase API (IAP) to purchase content, functionality, or services in an App will be rejected." https://developer.apple.com/app-store/review/guidelines/#purchasing-currencies https://developer.apple.com/app-store/review/guidelines/#pur...

tianlins 10y ago

I am very surprised that it takes Apple years before they finally decide to release Siri API (supposedly). The benefit of speech assistant for apps seems huge. And would it been released earlier, Apple can collect much more speech data as well, which may help build next-gen Siri.

datashovel 10y ago

"Developers Developers Developers Developers!" --Tim Cook WWDC 2016

nathanvanfleet 10y ago

I don't really get the whole wedge of the article. Giving developers a Siri Kit is them trying to make it easier for them? Apple has continually improved developers access to the different hardware and software on the iPhone. Same thing for the improvement of app review times. It's great they did it. I don't see the connection between that and "stagnating" iPhone sales.