6 ms·

Author here. I'm not making any money on their platform. I'm a non-profit, building a free app; this isn't about money. I mentioned money in the post as a list

by judah 9y ago

Author here. I'm not making any money on their platform. I'm a non-profit, building a free app; this isn't about money. I mentioned money in the post as a list of all barriers to moving a PWA to app store. $99/year + 33% in-app purchases (plus a $1000+ Mac to build, and probably one or more Mac minis for CI) is a barrier. The bigger concern is Apple is lagging behind on web standards. I suspect the reason for that is because web apps undermine their app business; this is a replay of the 1990s when Microsoft lagged their browser behind web standards, knowing it undermined their business. So, keep your violin, brother. :-) My post wasn't a complaint, but a documenting of the hurdles involved in moving a PWA to the app stores.

saagarjha 9y ago
> I'm a non-profit So the only thing that applies to you is the price to have access to a Mac. Since you're a nonprofit, Apple will waive your developer fee, and you wouldn't need in-app purchases anyways. Also, IIRC the cut Apple takes is 30%, not 33%, in line with the rest of their App Store policies.
- oarsinsync 9y ago
  "non-profit" doesn't mean "not selling things"
  - codazoda 9y ago
    And it certainly doesn't mean it's not about money. Depends on the business, of course, but I've seen non-profits that pay million dollar salaries to employees and put millions in the bank as reserves. Fine with me but business is often about money; non-profit or otherwise.
- JumpCrisscross 9y ago
  > Since you're a nonprofit, Apple will waive your developer fee I thought you meant charities, not non-profits, but TechCrunch reports the latter: "Apple in early 2018 will waive the $99 developer fee for all government and nonprofits starting in the U.S. to make this transition easier." https://techcrunch.com/2017/12/20/apple-revises-its-controversial-guidelines-on-template-based-apps/ https://techcrunch.com/2017/12/20/apple-revises-its-controve...
- platinumrad 9y ago
  >So the only thing that applies to you is the price to have access to a Mac. "So the only thing that applies to you is not wanting to pay upwards of a thousand US dollars for yet another development machine."
  - saagarjha 9y ago
    As the article mentioned, they went with a $25 online Mac solution instead.
    - platinumrad 9y ago
      That's what I get for reading the comments before reading the piece, sorry. I'm still uncomfortable with the extent to which Apple's walled garden is walled though. 25 USD/month does add up, even if you unsubscribe during months where you aren't using the service.
      - imron 9y ago
        Macincloud also have pay by the hour solutions. I have an account with them to do testing on different versions of macOS than the one installed on my development machine, and it only costs a few dollars a year.
- judah 9y ago
  Author here. That's correct - Apple waived my $99/year fee. I documented that in the post. But my post wasn't about me, it was about the hurdles involved in getting a PWA into the app store. For many people, $99/year + 30% in-app purchases + $1000+ Mac for build and testing + a few Mac Minis for CI servers ...that is a barrier.
  - ascorbic 9y ago
    If you're of the scale where you need several CI servers for a platform, buying a computer for that platform should be a requirement anyway. The IAP cut is only an issue if you're making money on the app. BTW, the best solution for your case is VS App Center (https://appcenter.ms https://appcenter.ms), which has a free tier and does CI/CD (on Macs) across platforms.
mr_toad 9y ago
> Apple is lagging behind on web standards. Google’s bright ideas aren’t necessarily standards. Service workers are only a working draft, and only implemented in 2 of the major browsers. Obviously Google and Apple have different priorities, and clearly service workers benefit Google more than the other vendors.
- tuchsen 9y ago
  My understanding is that service workers have buy in from all four major browser vendors now, with implementations in all of them. I haven’t played with it yet but it seems like service workers are here to stay https://caniuse.com/#feat=serviceworkers https://caniuse.com/#feat=serviceworkers
  - EGreg 9y ago
    And when will Push Notifications be implemented? Maybe ask jon at apple
Zanni 9y ago
Just a note on style--your post reads as a complaint, whether you intended it that way or not. The strong editorial slant actually undermines the meat of the article for me, which is, as you mentioned, documenting the hurdles in publishing a PWA. You could make this a better resource by stripping out the overt anti-Apple editorializing. Let the facts speak for themselves--for those who agree with you. Which I don't. Apple is choosing a deliberate strategy here that privileges users over developers. You prefer that they privilege developers over users, but that's hardly a universal position.
- emj 9y ago
  There are two different arguments here, one very common and long lived that Apple is good at protecting users, and the other that Apple is not prioritizing the process for web developers. Maybe you are conflating them?
  - Zanni 9y ago
    I don't think I am. I'm suggesting that much of what the OP takes as not prioritizing web apps is part of a deliberate strategy to protect users. I certainly could be wrong about Apple's motives, though.
- imiric 9y ago
  > Apple is choosing a deliberate strategy here that privileges users over developers. What is stopping them from doing both? There's no reason developers should jump through arbitrary hoops to make their applications available to users. Yes, quality control, security, etc. is very important, but the publishing process should and can be as user friendly as their platform claims to be for end users, and that is what the article is showcasing. FWIW I didn't notice any bias against Apple in the article. Just a lot of understandable frustration with their processes and platform.
  - schrodinger 9y ago
    Lines like this feel like bias to me: > Web app restrictions by ~Apple~ hostile mobile platforms
rimliu 9y ago
The only thing web apps undermine is user experience. And if it is PWA, why would you want app store anyway?
- jakobegger 9y ago
  He doesn't want app store. The whole article is about how the author is forced to submit an app to the store just to allow playing audio in the background. The author would prefer to just have a web app / website that plays audio, but it is not possible. On iOS, apparently you need to use Cordova and submit an app to the store if you want to play the next song while the app is in the background. And it is not possible to use lock screen controls to control playback (apart from stopping it).
  - Angostura 9y ago
    as an iPhone user, I'm extraordinarily glad that the author cannot play audio at me from a website in the background.
    - judah 9y ago
      Author here. I'm with you for random websites. But what about apps that are media players, ala Pandora? My app is a music playlist/radio station hybrid. It's expected to play music; it's the whole point of the app. iOS Safari doesn't let me play audio until user interaction. OK, that's fair. But it also blocks me from playing the next song when the current one ends. That's not cool. It breaks my app. It forced me to bundle my PWA as an app in the store, just to get around this restriction. FYI, I reported this problem to Apple's iOS Safari team. They acknowledged the issue and said they can probably fix it in the future. (That was 2 years ago.)
    - jakobegger 9y ago
      I think you misunderstood something. Websites can play audio in the background on iOS. It works great for podcasts — but only as long as you don’t want to control playback. The API is there, Apple didn’t omit it on purpose. But it is broken.
dannyw 9y ago
Nit : it’s 30% :)
greenhatman 9y ago
The fact that they won't let you build apps for the app store on Linux makes me want to boycott them. I hope they lose their dominant market position soon so everyone doesn't have to play by their rules.

by judah 9y ago

saagarjha 9y ago

> I'm a non-profit So the only thing that applies to you is the price to have access to a Mac. Since you're a nonprofit, Apple will waive your developer fee, and you wouldn't need in-app purchases anyways. Also, IIRC the cut Apple takes is 30%, not 33%, in line with the rest of their App Store policies.

oarsinsync 9y ago
"non-profit" doesn't mean "not selling things"
- codazoda 9y ago
  And it certainly doesn't mean it's not about money. Depends on the business, of course, but I've seen non-profits that pay million dollar salaries to employees and put millions in the bank as reserves. Fine with me but business is often about money; non-profit or otherwise.
JumpCrisscross 9y ago
> Since you're a nonprofit, Apple will waive your developer fee I thought you meant charities, not non-profits, but TechCrunch reports the latter: "Apple in early 2018 will waive the $99 developer fee for all government and nonprofits starting in the U.S. to make this transition easier." https://techcrunch.com/2017/12/20/apple-revises-its-controversial-guidelines-on-template-based-apps/ https://techcrunch.com/2017/12/20/apple-revises-its-controve...
platinumrad 9y ago
>So the only thing that applies to you is the price to have access to a Mac. "So the only thing that applies to you is not wanting to pay upwards of a thousand US dollars for yet another development machine."
- saagarjha 9y ago
  As the article mentioned, they went with a $25 online Mac solution instead.
  - platinumrad 9y ago
    That's what I get for reading the comments before reading the piece, sorry. I'm still uncomfortable with the extent to which Apple's walled garden is walled though. 25 USD/month does add up, even if you unsubscribe during months where you aren't using the service.
    - imron 9y ago
      Macincloud also have pay by the hour solutions. I have an account with them to do testing on different versions of macOS than the one installed on my development machine, and it only costs a few dollars a year.
judah 9y ago
Author here. That's correct - Apple waived my $99/year fee. I documented that in the post. But my post wasn't about me, it was about the hurdles involved in getting a PWA into the app store. For many people, $99/year + 30% in-app purchases + $1000+ Mac for build and testing + a few Mac Minis for CI servers ...that is a barrier.
- ascorbic 9y ago
  If you're of the scale where you need several CI servers for a platform, buying a computer for that platform should be a requirement anyway. The IAP cut is only an issue if you're making money on the app. BTW, the best solution for your case is VS App Center (https://appcenter.ms https://appcenter.ms), which has a free tier and does CI/CD (on Macs) across platforms.

mr_toad 9y ago

> Apple is lagging behind on web standards. Google’s bright ideas aren’t necessarily standards. Service workers are only a working draft, and only implemented in 2 of the major browsers. Obviously Google and Apple have different priorities, and clearly service workers benefit Google more than the other vendors.

tuchsen 9y ago
My understanding is that service workers have buy in from all four major browser vendors now, with implementations in all of them. I haven’t played with it yet but it seems like service workers are here to stay https://caniuse.com/#feat=serviceworkers https://caniuse.com/#feat=serviceworkers
- EGreg 9y ago
  And when will Push Notifications be implemented? Maybe ask jon at apple

Zanni 9y ago

Just a note on style--your post reads as a complaint, whether you intended it that way or not. The strong editorial slant actually undermines the meat of the article for me, which is, as you mentioned, documenting the hurdles in publishing a PWA. You could make this a better resource by stripping out the overt anti-Apple editorializing. Let the facts speak for themselves--for those who agree with you. Which I don't. Apple is choosing a deliberate strategy here that privileges users over developers. You prefer that they privilege developers over users, but that's hardly a universal position.

emj 9y ago
There are two different arguments here, one very common and long lived that Apple is good at protecting users, and the other that Apple is not prioritizing the process for web developers. Maybe you are conflating them?
- Zanni 9y ago
  I don't think I am. I'm suggesting that much of what the OP takes as not prioritizing web apps is part of a deliberate strategy to protect users. I certainly could be wrong about Apple's motives, though.
imiric 9y ago
> Apple is choosing a deliberate strategy here that privileges users over developers. What is stopping them from doing both? There's no reason developers should jump through arbitrary hoops to make their applications available to users. Yes, quality control, security, etc. is very important, but the publishing process should and can be as user friendly as their platform claims to be for end users, and that is what the article is showcasing. FWIW I didn't notice any bias against Apple in the article. Just a lot of understandable frustration with their processes and platform.
- schrodinger 9y ago
  Lines like this feel like bias to me: > Web app restrictions by ~Apple~ hostile mobile platforms

rimliu 9y ago

The only thing web apps undermine is user experience. And if it is PWA, why would you want app store anyway?

jakobegger 9y ago
He doesn't want app store. The whole article is about how the author is forced to submit an app to the store just to allow playing audio in the background. The author would prefer to just have a web app / website that plays audio, but it is not possible. On iOS, apparently you need to use Cordova and submit an app to the store if you want to play the next song while the app is in the background. And it is not possible to use lock screen controls to control playback (apart from stopping it).
- Angostura 9y ago
  as an iPhone user, I'm extraordinarily glad that the author cannot play audio at me from a website in the background.
  - judah 9y ago
    Author here. I'm with you for random websites. But what about apps that are media players, ala Pandora? My app is a music playlist/radio station hybrid. It's expected to play music; it's the whole point of the app. iOS Safari doesn't let me play audio until user interaction. OK, that's fair. But it also blocks me from playing the next song when the current one ends. That's not cool. It breaks my app. It forced me to bundle my PWA as an app in the store, just to get around this restriction. FYI, I reported this problem to Apple's iOS Safari team. They acknowledged the issue and said they can probably fix it in the future. (That was 2 years ago.)
  - jakobegger 9y ago
    I think you misunderstood something. Websites can play audio in the background on iOS. It works great for podcasts — but only as long as you don’t want to control playback. The API is there, Apple didn’t omit it on purpose. But it is broken.

dannyw 9y ago

Nit : it’s 30% :)

greenhatman 9y ago

The fact that they won't let you build apps for the app store on Linux makes me want to boycott them. I hope they lose their dominant market position soon so everyone doesn't have to play by their rules.