4 ms·

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 a

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.
- knucklesandwich 10y ago
  Note I didn't say that there weren't examples of applications that could be abusive if such a rule didn't exist. I'm saying that the rule is far too general and covers far too many benign ideas that could end up becoming incredible products. Many iOS apps have an admin console that can only be unlocked by special designators in their account on the server side, yet by this rule that would be disallowed. In fact the company I worked for disabled their admin panel for this very reason, despite the fact that it was very useful for debugging and field testing a released build. EDIT: Also is there any evidence that companies in the App Store are more sustainable than elsewhere? I can see how this is possible, but it's also unintuitive that companies paying higher costs would end up keeping their apps maintained for longer.
  - IBM 10y ago
    I don't think it's a surprise that Apple's rules chafe developers, I also don't think it's a surprise that Apple has a bias towards their customers which is why they're willing to have restrictive rules. Ultimately it comes down to leverage, and they have plenty of it because they've aggregated a very nice demographic of users that are willing to spend money.
    - knucklesandwich 10y ago
      This is exactly the kind of "Apple is infallable" logic I'm talking about. How exactly does it benefit customers to limit access to safe, cool apps that violate some arcane rule they have? If they actually wanted to do right by their customers it stands to reason that they should work with developers to come up with a more precise set of rules that still keeps their reputation intact and their customers happy so that customers have access to more varied kinds of apps. I'm an iOS customer (and not an app developer) who is irked by this, so there's at least an existence proof of people that feel the opposite.
      - IBM 10y ago
        What apps are being made elsewhere that aren't being made for iOS? And how successful/popular are they? Saying there are plenty, without evidence, is a counterfactual that can't be proven. There may be some apps that aren't made on the margins, but on the whole the rules make the App Store a better experience, and it's their prerogative to choose that over the marginal app.

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.

knucklesandwich 10y ago
Note I didn't say that there weren't examples of applications that could be abusive if such a rule didn't exist. I'm saying that the rule is far too general and covers far too many benign ideas that could end up becoming incredible products. Many iOS apps have an admin console that can only be unlocked by special designators in their account on the server side, yet by this rule that would be disallowed. In fact the company I worked for disabled their admin panel for this very reason, despite the fact that it was very useful for debugging and field testing a released build. EDIT: Also is there any evidence that companies in the App Store are more sustainable than elsewhere? I can see how this is possible, but it's also unintuitive that companies paying higher costs would end up keeping their apps maintained for longer.
- IBM 10y ago
  I don't think it's a surprise that Apple's rules chafe developers, I also don't think it's a surprise that Apple has a bias towards their customers which is why they're willing to have restrictive rules. Ultimately it comes down to leverage, and they have plenty of it because they've aggregated a very nice demographic of users that are willing to spend money.
  - knucklesandwich 10y ago
    This is exactly the kind of "Apple is infallable" logic I'm talking about. How exactly does it benefit customers to limit access to safe, cool apps that violate some arcane rule they have? If they actually wanted to do right by their customers it stands to reason that they should work with developers to come up with a more precise set of rules that still keeps their reputation intact and their customers happy so that customers have access to more varied kinds of apps. I'm an iOS customer (and not an app developer) who is irked by this, so there's at least an existence proof of people that feel the opposite.
    - IBM 10y ago
      What apps are being made elsewhere that aren't being made for iOS? And how successful/popular are they? Saying there are plenty, without evidence, is a counterfactual that can't be proven. There may be some apps that aren't made on the margins, but on the whole the rules make the App Store a better experience, and it's their prerogative to choose that over the marginal app.