4 ms·

I just think its weird when someone blames Apple for being so much in control of their app store

djsumdog 7y ago
Developers pay money to access. In the ticket, the developer mentions paying the $99 a year. That's not trivial. Apple is literally in the top 10 largest companies in the world for several different measures. If they're achieving those numbers by giving the ole F'you to developers, that is a problem. Getting locked out of a distribution platform for 1~3 months, in today's world can cost thousands or even tens of thousands in sales even for small developers. There are no other options for Apple. You can't install untrusted apps like you can on Android (which is still a huge pain and which no one does). I almost feel like someone like the EU or California needs to mandate that both Apple and Google allow individual users to add 3rd party repositories in the same way you can on most Linux package managers. They can throw up a big warning about device security if they want, but unless there's regulations around it, there's no way for the average use to actually have control over his or her device.
- filleduchaos 7y ago
  > there's no way for the average use to actually have control over his or her device I feel like comments like this always assume that it's a given that the average user having full control over their devices is a goal that the majority of people agree with and are interested in pursuing. Unless it can be demonstrated that the lack of control over their smartphones is seriously, tangibly affecting their lives in ways that aren't just ideological, the public at large (and lawmakers by extension) are going to keep right on not really giving a shit if they have Linux-like package management or not.
- toasterlovin 7y ago
  > the developer mentions paying the $99 a year. That's not trivial. If you're running a business, that is very much trivial. I just paid my bank $40 to send a wire transfer to a vendor. It costs $39.99 per month to be able to make apps for Amazon sellers. Out here in the real world stuff and services cost money.
  - chryton 7y ago
    > Out here in the real world stuff and services cost money. ... which means the amount of money spent is _not_ trivial. If you are not policing your costs, regardless of how "trivial," then how are you optimizing your profit? A "cost of doing business" is still a cost on your books. $100 is trivial for a larger business but if you're talking someone small or a side hustle, $100 is something that is not trivial.
    - toasterlovin 7y ago
      In the developed world, $100 per year is just not that much money. You can earn that much from strangers by holding a sign at a freeway on-ramp for a couple of hours. It’s ten hours of work for someone working a low skilled job.
    - filleduchaos 7y ago
      I say this as someone who lives in a developing country: if you cannot afford $100 _a year_ in costs, then Apple and app development in general are very much the least of your worries.
    - scarface74 7y ago
      I pay more than a $100 a year to JetBrains. $100 a year is trivial for a side hustle. If you’re developing for iOS, you’re already spending money on Macs, at least one iPhone, probably an iPad and maybe a watch.
spiderfarmer 7y ago
Our local village has a market, every thursday. The municipality (don't know if I say this correctly) controls who can have stalls there. It's hard to get permits, so sellers are depending on that one permit for at least 20% of their revenue, even more if they deal with the same municipality in different villages. In theory they could go to other markets, but in practice it can take years to get a good position elsewhere. Too long to survive. If the local municipality decided to ban a seller, for reasons unknown, the seller can get a judge involved who will quickly say if the seller was legitimately banned. Justice prevails. With the App store? Not so much. The arrogance of the tech giants knows no bounds, their legal budgets are endless and judges will never fully grasp the similiarities between the online and offline world. App developers are no different from market sellers, they are just dealing with the worst marketplace model ever. I am not even an App developer, but I really think this should change. It's just not healthy for an economy to have a gatekeeper that has the power to just bankrupt a developer, be it accidentally or on purpose. Banning accounts without detailed reasoning while "investigating" for a long period of time should be seen as criminal behavior.
- toasterlovin 7y ago
  > If the local municipality decided to ban a seller, for reasons unknown, the seller can get a judge involved who will quickly say if the seller was legitimately banned. C'mon. A local municipality is a government, which is supposed to (and usually legally obligated to) act for the betterment of its constituents. Apple is a private company and, thus, not bound by any such obligation.
  - spiderfarmer 7y ago
    I know that this is the American way, but in my view private companies should not be able to do "whatever the hell they want". You said it yourself: "A government is supposed to (and usually legally obligated to) act for the betterment of its constituents" So, government: Make new rules for the unicorn tech giants. Setting new rules for these behemoths helps small businesses and therefore your constituents. You make the rules. We need them.
  - 7y ago

Developers pay money to access. In the ticket, the developer mentions paying the $99 a year. That's not trivial. Apple is literally in the top 10 largest companies in the world for several different measures. If they're achieving those numbers by giving the ole F'you to developers, that is a problem. Getting locked out of a distribution platform for 1~3 months, in today's world can cost thousands or even tens of thousands in sales even for small developers. There are no other options for Apple. You can't install untrusted apps like you can on Android (which is still a huge pain and which no one does). I almost feel like someone like the EU or California needs to mandate that both Apple and Google allow individual users to add 3rd party repositories in the same way you can on most Linux package managers. They can throw up a big warning about device security if they want, but unless there's regulations around it, there's no way for the average use to actually have control over his or her device.

filleduchaos 7y ago
> there's no way for the average use to actually have control over his or her device I feel like comments like this always assume that it's a given that the average user having full control over their devices is a goal that the majority of people agree with and are interested in pursuing. Unless it can be demonstrated that the lack of control over their smartphones is seriously, tangibly affecting their lives in ways that aren't just ideological, the public at large (and lawmakers by extension) are going to keep right on not really giving a shit if they have Linux-like package management or not.
toasterlovin 7y ago
> the developer mentions paying the $99 a year. That's not trivial. If you're running a business, that is very much trivial. I just paid my bank $40 to send a wire transfer to a vendor. It costs $39.99 per month to be able to make apps for Amazon sellers. Out here in the real world stuff and services cost money.
- chryton 7y ago
  > Out here in the real world stuff and services cost money. ... which means the amount of money spent is _not_ trivial. If you are not policing your costs, regardless of how "trivial," then how are you optimizing your profit? A "cost of doing business" is still a cost on your books. $100 is trivial for a larger business but if you're talking someone small or a side hustle, $100 is something that is not trivial.
  - toasterlovin 7y ago
    In the developed world, $100 per year is just not that much money. You can earn that much from strangers by holding a sign at a freeway on-ramp for a couple of hours. It’s ten hours of work for someone working a low skilled job.
  - filleduchaos 7y ago
    I say this as someone who lives in a developing country: if you cannot afford $100 _a year_ in costs, then Apple and app development in general are very much the least of your worries.
  - scarface74 7y ago
    I pay more than a $100 a year to JetBrains. $100 a year is trivial for a side hustle. If you’re developing for iOS, you’re already spending money on Macs, at least one iPhone, probably an iPad and maybe a watch.

spiderfarmer 7y ago

Our local village has a market, every thursday. The municipality (don't know if I say this correctly) controls who can have stalls there. It's hard to get permits, so sellers are depending on that one permit for at least 20% of their revenue, even more if they deal with the same municipality in different villages. In theory they could go to other markets, but in practice it can take years to get a good position elsewhere. Too long to survive. If the local municipality decided to ban a seller, for reasons unknown, the seller can get a judge involved who will quickly say if the seller was legitimately banned. Justice prevails. With the App store? Not so much. The arrogance of the tech giants knows no bounds, their legal budgets are endless and judges will never fully grasp the similiarities between the online and offline world. App developers are no different from market sellers, they are just dealing with the worst marketplace model ever. I am not even an App developer, but I really think this should change. It's just not healthy for an economy to have a gatekeeper that has the power to just bankrupt a developer, be it accidentally or on purpose. Banning accounts without detailed reasoning while "investigating" for a long period of time should be seen as criminal behavior.

toasterlovin 7y ago
> If the local municipality decided to ban a seller, for reasons unknown, the seller can get a judge involved who will quickly say if the seller was legitimately banned. C'mon. A local municipality is a government, which is supposed to (and usually legally obligated to) act for the betterment of its constituents. Apple is a private company and, thus, not bound by any such obligation.
- spiderfarmer 7y ago
  I know that this is the American way, but in my view private companies should not be able to do "whatever the hell they want". You said it yourself: "A government is supposed to (and usually legally obligated to) act for the betterment of its constituents" So, government: Make new rules for the unicorn tech giants. Setting new rules for these behemoths helps small businesses and therefore your constituents. You make the rules. We need them.
- 7y ago