4 ms·

Your reply sort of proves the point of the article ... > Put it this way: if it were somehow possible to make more money as a developer in the App store, how w

Your reply sort of proves the point of the article ... > Put it this way: if it were somehow possible to make more money as a developer in the App store, how would removing Apple's 30% cut make it more feasible? 30% is a pretty hefty percentage. It's the weakest point in the article but imagine if I just cut your salary by 30%, is your job still worthwhile? > My iPad and my iPhone run the same operating system. Why should I pay twice for the same functionality across both of them? Except it's not the same functionality. Try Evernote for instance ... does it LOOK like the same functionality? That's a lot of developer effort you can't recoup. You've just diminished all that extra work to support both modalities with a wave of your hand. > That seems fair to me as a consumer. If I bought something a year ago and want to re-install it, why shouldn't I? Wouldn't it seem unfair to not be able to use something I paid for? That thing you paid for 5 years ago no longer exists, the software you bought 5 years ago can't even RUN on your new iPhone, what you are getting, for free, is the thing the developer made this year, with actual work, which looks like the thing you bought 5 years ago. > "Ideally" = Apple does not enforce [family sharing]. But they do encourage it. It's part of the diminishing effect. That you can opt out as a developer doesn't change that.

georgespencer 10y ago
> 30% is a pretty hefty percentage. It's the weakest point in the article but imagine if I just cut your salary by 30%, is your job still worthwhile? I'm unclear how this is a response to my response to OP. OP is saying that Apple forces developers to target the biggest possible audience by taking 30%. I'm arguing that Apple is agnostic and that if there's a way for developers to make more money in a niche then Apple is happy with that. And you can always price your software at +30%. > Except it's not the same functionality. Try Evernote for instance ... does it LOOK like the same functionality? That's a lot of developer effort you can't recoup. You've just diminished all that extra work to support both modalities with a wave of your hand. That's a distinction which isn't made in the article. Autolayout makes it trivial to support the same functionality across both devices. If you want to introduce new functionality with the iPad then have a separate app. I believe you're still entitled to do precisely that. > That thing you paid for 5 years ago no longer exists, the software you bought 5 years ago can't even RUN on your new iPhone, what you are getting, for free, is the thing the developer made this year, with actual work, which looks like the thing you bought 5 years ago. I don't understand this I'm afraid. If you're discussing the fact that apps sometimes need to be updated to keep running on the new versions of iOS then that's just part of the cost of business, but plenty of developers choose to not do this. Again, nobody is forcing developers to do this. Nobody is not buying your app because they think it might not be supported in five years time. > But they do encourage it. It's part of the diminishing effect. That you can opt out as a developer doesn't change that. It's only a diminishing effect on consumers if Apple encourages developers to do it and they do it. There's nothing forcing developers to do it. They're choosing to. They only have themselves to blame.

georgespencer 10y ago

> 30% is a pretty hefty percentage. It's the weakest point in the article but imagine if I just cut your salary by 30%, is your job still worthwhile? I'm unclear how this is a response to my response to OP. OP is saying that Apple forces developers to target the biggest possible audience by taking 30%. I'm arguing that Apple is agnostic and that if there's a way for developers to make more money in a niche then Apple is happy with that. And you can always price your software at +30%. > Except it's not the same functionality. Try Evernote for instance ... does it LOOK like the same functionality? That's a lot of developer effort you can't recoup. You've just diminished all that extra work to support both modalities with a wave of your hand. That's a distinction which isn't made in the article. Autolayout makes it trivial to support the same functionality across both devices. If you want to introduce new functionality with the iPad then have a separate app. I believe you're still entitled to do precisely that. > That thing you paid for 5 years ago no longer exists, the software you bought 5 years ago can't even RUN on your new iPhone, what you are getting, for free, is the thing the developer made this year, with actual work, which looks like the thing you bought 5 years ago. I don't understand this I'm afraid. If you're discussing the fact that apps sometimes need to be updated to keep running on the new versions of iOS then that's just part of the cost of business, but plenty of developers choose to not do this. Again, nobody is forcing developers to do this. Nobody is not buying your app because they think it might not be supported in five years time. > But they do encourage it. It's part of the diminishing effect. That you can opt out as a developer doesn't change that. It's only a diminishing effect on consumers if Apple encourages developers to do it and they do it. There's nothing forcing developers to do it. They're choosing to. They only have themselves to blame.