8 ms·

> But Apple has a reason not to like this recycling of web technology. It wants its Mac App Store to be filled with apps that you can’t find anywhere else, not

> But Apple has a reason not to like this recycling of web technology. It wants its Mac App Store to be filled with apps that you can’t find anywhere else, not apps that are available on every platform. And that's where I stopped reading. Apple doesn't give a toss if your app is cross platform. Frameworks that started back in the day like phonegap have matured into things like Electron, and the core problems are the same: They run like crap. Animations are jerky, oftentimes the app simply "refreshes" when things go too far off the rails. This is a poor UX. The apps are not able to adapt to newer devices without additional work. For MONTHS after the release of the X, looking at the Spotify app on it, the controls at the base of the screen were below the multitasking gesture indicator. If this app was built with AutoLayout as Apple encourages, this would've never been an issue. I know, instantly, when an app I've downloaded is using web based cruft, I can catch it at a glance with the first tap, and the first slow interaction begrudgingly kicks off. Yep, it's a web-based one, and no, I will not be keeping it unless I have no choice to. Unless it's critical in some way, it's gone. Apple outright banning Electron-powered crap is the best reason I've heard yet for buying my new iPhone.

izacus 7y ago
Funny how the same kind of reasoning isn't enough for technology like AMP, where there's endless screeching. Brand cheerleading at its finest :)
- zapzupnz 7y ago
  I don't understand this comment. Could you unroll it for me? After all, AMP is despised by the tech community — but ultimately still used by publishers because Google's more-or-less holding them to ransom. Apple's not holding App Store developers to ransom with regards to apps that use Electron; rather, the use of private APIs always has been and always will be forbidden. That people went all-in with a technology that depends on private APIs without properly vetting the underlying stack, or rather that the core developers of this technology knowingly make use of private APIs, isn't quite the same as Google's leverage over publishers via its monopolistic grip on the world's search and advertising businesses, surely. One is a matter of technology, possibly of security, and the other is a more political discussion. But if I'm missing an angle, I'm open to being let know!
bearcobra 7y ago
> Apple doesn't give a toss if your app is cross platform They seem to have some incentive to make it harder for you to switch platform. By restricting developers from using some of the common tools to build cross platform they are able to build an ecosystem that's harder to leave.
- FussyZeus 7y ago
  One of the biggest reasons Apple fans like myself remain Apple fans is precisely the ecosystem. I've no desire to leave it, and so your app allowing me to isn't a selling point.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
  - magduf 7y ago
    I guess you're a big fan of monopolies, huh?
    - FussyZeus 7y ago
      It amazes me that Google's managed to maintain this sense of being the underdog with almost 80% share worldwide. Apple is far from a monopoly. Hilariously far, in fact.
      - nabla9 7y ago
        Both Google and Apple have monopoly power. Pure monopoly means single supplier, but companies having monopoly power where they have the ability to increasingly behave independently of competitive pressures is more common. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lerner_index https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lerner_index Apple should be forced to stop these anticompetitive practices.
        svachalek 7y ago
        Just to clarify, you are saying Apple and Google are a co-monopoly because there is no third choice, or what? The link to Lerner index says it's pretty much impossible to actually calculate so I don't see where that's going.
RobertRoberts 7y ago
Who cares if an app has a lousy UX? Doesn't the market filter these out? How is it any of Apples concern if I want to make the ugliest most useless app ever? If people love it, and everyone wants it, isn't that enough reason to sell it?
- FussyZeus 7y ago
  Letting anyone sell anything they want is how you get the Play Store, a monument to bad experiences. Pages upon pages of cloneware apps, asset-flip games, on and on and on, all of which of course are drowned in advertisements. In my last year of owning an Android before I got my first iPhone, the 6 Plus, I didn't even open the Play Store anymore. It was awful. That's not to say everything on the App Store is great, of course, but it's a hell of a lot better. Edit: Upon further thought I should really go further with this: The quality of the App Store is part of the marketing of iDevices. This is why Apple's app review process also looks for things like apps that crash too much, apps that run slowly, apps that are burning through system resources, on and on. It's why you generally won't have an app on their store that will, for example, destroy your battery, or games that show you ads every 15 seconds. I know the attitude on HN generally prefers freedom over curation, and in many ways I'd agree, but when it comes to the walled garden Apple provides, sorry friends, I just like being here. Edit's edit: In fact, I can even take this one step further: this is, I believe, part of the reason iOS users are far more likely to be willing to PAY for their apps: because Apple checks them at the door. And sure, quality isn't guaranteed per say, but at least you know someone is trying at it. You can be assured that this app isn't going to damage your device somehow, and you can be reasonably sure that it's going to do what it says on the tin, at least competently. And if not, Apple has your back with refunds, too.
  - RobertRoberts 7y ago
    Apple can do what they want with their store, everyone agrees. But does everyone agree with Apple's decisions on what is bad UX?
    - FussyZeus 7y ago
fingerlocks 7y ago
Electron doesn’t target iPhone, and Spotify mobile does not use electron. This article is about the Mac App Store.
allworknoplay 7y ago
Edit: I'm removing this, I'm embarrassed that I conflated mac OS electron and phonegap. Please stop upvoting :/
- millstone 7y ago
  What are you talking about? Electron apps don't run on iOS.
  - allworknoplay 7y ago
    Hey, you're totally right, I misread the article, conflated electron with phonegap (have never worked with electron and haven't touched iOS in years), thought apple was pushing out some cross platform mobile apps. Totally off-base comment I'm embarassed about and would love to remove. I do maintain that the parent's poster takes joy in deliberately ignoring that apple obviously has incentives around building their ecosystem, but yeah, that was dumb.
- scarface74 7y ago
  I can’t think of a single non game iOS only app that makes enough revenue for Apple to care about. Most of the top grossing apps are games that wouldn’t be using a Javascript framework and are probably using a cross platform technology anyway. If Apple wants to have exclusive content on their platform, their not going to worry about small time developers who can only write iOS apps, they are going to fund the development themselves - see Apple Arcade. They care much more about the big name developers like Adobe and Microsoft bringing their apps to iPads - even if they don’t see one dime of revenue from the subscriptions to encourage people to buy top of the line high margin iPad Pros with all of the accessories.
- FussyZeus 7y ago
  To be fair, all the performance issues of Electron apps on Mac are the same issues leading to the same problems that PhoneGap apps face on iOS.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
crispinb 7y ago
> Apple doesn't give a toss if your app is cross platform. This is an outstandingly silly statement. If I followed your example, that's where I would have stopped reading your comment. Apple's entire business is built on trying to capture users, keeping them using all and only their computing products. Some aspects of this overall strategy (making beautiful devices that people want) are positive for customers. One of the less positive parts, discouraging cross platform software, is an essential part of the overall strategy.
- darklion 7y ago
  > discouraging cross platform software That is a patently ridiculous statement. Apple would obviously prefer you write apps for its platform only, but as long as you don’t _defect_ to another platform, why would Apple care whether an app you use on its platforms is written in one language or another? If an app you want to use is available for its OS, it makes you that much more likely to start/continue using Apple products. If it’s written in JavaScript, Swift, Python, or COBOL is irrelevant; what’s important is (a) that the software runs on macOS or iOS, and (b) that you don’t get a better experience elsewhere using the same app—because that _will_ likely lead to a user switching away from Apple’s products.
  - crispinb 7y ago
    > why would Apple care whether an app you use on its platforms is written in one language or another? Because they want to hold people exclusively on their platform for upgrade & services revenue. They obviously have no scruples about the means. The more difficult it is either to use devices on various platforms, or to migrate away from Apple entirely, the better for Apple.
    - darklion 7y ago
      > Because they want to hold people exclusively on their platform for > upgrade & services revenue. Yes, so would any vendor, if there's more money to be made by keeping people in your sphere. I mean, there's a reason that movie theaters and restaurants don't let you bring food from the outside. They want to be the exclusive provider of food and beverages in order to increase their revenue, so they can charge you $5 for a Diet Coke that might cost you $2 at the corner store. But for Apple, it's a calculus: does Apple make more money at Thing X by keeping it open, or by keeping it closed and potentially reducing their customer pool? Where there's more money to be made in openness, in a way that aligns with Apple's other priorities, they'll be open. If there's more money to be made in keeping it closed, they'll keep it closed. For example, I'm so glad you mentioned services revenue. Apple TV, at least the software portion, is now shipped _from_the_factory_ on smart TVs made by Samsung, LG, Sony, Vizio, and a handful of other vendors, as well as Roku and Amazon Fire TV. Apple Music has an Android app on the Google Play store that is kept up to date and integrates nicely into the Android OS, and actually holds a 3.7/5 rating (surprising considering how many Android fans review-bombed it in the early days simply for being an Apple app). If Apple really wanted to "hold people exclusively" to their platform, none of those things would be available outside Apple products. There's more money to be made on services outside Apple hardware than there is in keeping those things exclusive to it. > The more difficult it is either to use devices on various platforms, or > to migrate away from Apple entirely, the better for Apple. The better for any vendor if it's harder to migrate from that vendor to a competitor. That's what smart competitors DO, is make it difficult to leave. Your argument is that Apple should make it painless to switch away from Apple--so let me ask you, what _benefit_ does it incur to Apple to make it easier to switch away from Apple products or services? If your entire argument is that Apple should do whatever it takes to make customers lives easier, then my response is, that's not a bad perspective to have, but it's unrealistic unless all aspects of the industry adopt the same attitude. If Apple makes it easy to leave, and the Googles, Amazons, and Microsofts of the world continue to make it easy to capture customers and difficult for them to leave, then there's zero benefit to Apple for being the pioneer in this new world order.
ProAm 7y ago
> Apple outright banning Electron-powered crap is the best reason I've heard yet for buying my new iPhone. Why not let the consumer decide of they want the app on the phone they bought vs letting Apple decide?
- jpttsn 7y ago
  Personally: Part of what I buy from Apple — the “job” I “hire” them to do — is curation.
supernintendo 7y ago
> Apple doesn't give a toss if your app is cross platform. Maybe but they sure as hell don't make it easy for cross-platform software to target their platforms. As far as I'm concerned, the only feasible way to target Apple platforms at this point is to: 1. Buy a Mac so you can officially run macOS and Xcode. 2. Spend $99 every year for an Apple developer license. 3. Spend the time to learn Swift, a language which despite being touted by Apple fanboys as being cross-platform is basically useless unless you're targeting the official Apple APIs. 4. Learn and stay up-to-date with Apple's ever-changing APIs (just wait until Cocoa and Cocoa Touch are completely deprecated in favor of some other API that is only accessible via SwiftUI... calling it now) 5. Keep up with Apple's ever-changing policies around what and what is not acceptable within their walled garden. 6. Give 30% of your profits to Apple. Fuck that shit. Look, I don't use Electron applications as a general rule and I do agree with your gripes about "web based cruft". But at least it's possible for developers to learn that cruft and use their knowledge to write software without spending a ton of money and having everything they know be limited to Apple's walled garden. As much as Hacker News loves to hate on JavaScript, guess what? It's free and accessible. Anyone in the world can learn to use web based technologies to build software and enrich themselves (and maybe even others). If you're writing software for Apple platforms, you're only working to enrich Apple's ecosystem and investing your own time and money to do so. Maybe it's just my Linux / FOSS fanaticism but this perspective toward software development just doesn't resonate with me. I want anyone who wants to use the software I write to be able to use it, not just Apple's customers.
- matt4077 7y ago
  Apple really doesn't care about those $100/year or even all the hardware all developers in the world together buy. So you have to wonder why they require people to jump through these hoops, and a wish to focus on native, high-quality software does seem to be the best explanation I can come up with.
- threeseed 7y ago
  That is all just nonsense. You don't have to use Swift as there are plenty of alternatives many of which run on Windows or Linux. So in theory you could do all your development on a non-OSX platform and then just use one of the Mac hosting providers for CI/CD. And you don't have to give Apple 30%. Just notarise your app and add a link from your website.
teh_klev 7y ago
> Apple outright banning Electron-powered crap is the best reason I've heard yet for buying my new iPhone. The article is about the Mac App Store, not the iPhone App Store. Not suggesting Apple's motives is "a good thing" but lets be accurate before going off on one.

izacus 7y ago

Funny how the same kind of reasoning isn't enough for technology like AMP, where there's endless screeching. Brand cheerleading at its finest :)

zapzupnz 7y ago
I don't understand this comment. Could you unroll it for me? After all, AMP is despised by the tech community — but ultimately still used by publishers because Google's more-or-less holding them to ransom. Apple's not holding App Store developers to ransom with regards to apps that use Electron; rather, the use of private APIs always has been and always will be forbidden. That people went all-in with a technology that depends on private APIs without properly vetting the underlying stack, or rather that the core developers of this technology knowingly make use of private APIs, isn't quite the same as Google's leverage over publishers via its monopolistic grip on the world's search and advertising businesses, surely. One is a matter of technology, possibly of security, and the other is a more political discussion. But if I'm missing an angle, I'm open to being let know!

bearcobra 7y ago

> Apple doesn't give a toss if your app is cross platform They seem to have some incentive to make it harder for you to switch platform. By restricting developers from using some of the common tools to build cross platform they are able to build an ecosystem that's harder to leave.

FussyZeus 7y ago
One of the biggest reasons Apple fans like myself remain Apple fans is precisely the ecosystem. I've no desire to leave it, and so your app allowing me to isn't a selling point.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- magduf 7y ago
  I guess you're a big fan of monopolies, huh?
  - FussyZeus 7y ago
    It amazes me that Google's managed to maintain this sense of being the underdog with almost 80% share worldwide. Apple is far from a monopoly. Hilariously far, in fact.
    - nabla9 7y ago
      Both Google and Apple have monopoly power. Pure monopoly means single supplier, but companies having monopoly power where they have the ability to increasingly behave independently of competitive pressures is more common. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lerner_index https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lerner_index Apple should be forced to stop these anticompetitive practices.
      - svachalek 7y ago
        Just to clarify, you are saying Apple and Google are a co-monopoly because there is no third choice, or what? The link to Lerner index says it's pretty much impossible to actually calculate so I don't see where that's going.

RobertRoberts 7y ago

Who cares if an app has a lousy UX? Doesn't the market filter these out? How is it any of Apples concern if I want to make the ugliest most useless app ever? If people love it, and everyone wants it, isn't that enough reason to sell it?

FussyZeus 7y ago
Letting anyone sell anything they want is how you get the Play Store, a monument to bad experiences. Pages upon pages of cloneware apps, asset-flip games, on and on and on, all of which of course are drowned in advertisements. In my last year of owning an Android before I got my first iPhone, the 6 Plus, I didn't even open the Play Store anymore. It was awful. That's not to say everything on the App Store is great, of course, but it's a hell of a lot better. Edit: Upon further thought I should really go further with this: The quality of the App Store is part of the marketing of iDevices. This is why Apple's app review process also looks for things like apps that crash too much, apps that run slowly, apps that are burning through system resources, on and on. It's why you generally won't have an app on their store that will, for example, destroy your battery, or games that show you ads every 15 seconds. I know the attitude on HN generally prefers freedom over curation, and in many ways I'd agree, but when it comes to the walled garden Apple provides, sorry friends, I just like being here. Edit's edit: In fact, I can even take this one step further: this is, I believe, part of the reason iOS users are far more likely to be willing to PAY for their apps: because Apple checks them at the door. And sure, quality isn't guaranteed per say, but at least you know someone is trying at it. You can be assured that this app isn't going to damage your device somehow, and you can be reasonably sure that it's going to do what it says on the tin, at least competently. And if not, Apple has your back with refunds, too.
- RobertRoberts 7y ago
  Apple can do what they want with their store, everyone agrees. But does everyone agree with Apple's decisions on what is bad UX?
  - FussyZeus 7y ago

fingerlocks 7y ago

Electron doesn’t target iPhone, and Spotify mobile does not use electron. This article is about the Mac App Store.

allworknoplay 7y ago

Edit: I'm removing this, I'm embarrassed that I conflated mac OS electron and phonegap. Please stop upvoting :/

millstone 7y ago
What are you talking about? Electron apps don't run on iOS.
- allworknoplay 7y ago
  Hey, you're totally right, I misread the article, conflated electron with phonegap (have never worked with electron and haven't touched iOS in years), thought apple was pushing out some cross platform mobile apps. Totally off-base comment I'm embarassed about and would love to remove. I do maintain that the parent's poster takes joy in deliberately ignoring that apple obviously has incentives around building their ecosystem, but yeah, that was dumb.
scarface74 7y ago
I can’t think of a single non game iOS only app that makes enough revenue for Apple to care about. Most of the top grossing apps are games that wouldn’t be using a Javascript framework and are probably using a cross platform technology anyway. If Apple wants to have exclusive content on their platform, their not going to worry about small time developers who can only write iOS apps, they are going to fund the development themselves - see Apple Arcade. They care much more about the big name developers like Adobe and Microsoft bringing their apps to iPads - even if they don’t see one dime of revenue from the subscriptions to encourage people to buy top of the line high margin iPad Pros with all of the accessories.
FussyZeus 7y ago
To be fair, all the performance issues of Electron apps on Mac are the same issues leading to the same problems that PhoneGap apps face on iOS.

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

crispinb 7y ago

> Apple doesn't give a toss if your app is cross platform. This is an outstandingly silly statement. If I followed your example, that's where I would have stopped reading your comment. Apple's entire business is built on trying to capture users, keeping them using all and only their computing products. Some aspects of this overall strategy (making beautiful devices that people want) are positive for customers. One of the less positive parts, discouraging cross platform software, is an essential part of the overall strategy.

darklion 7y ago
> discouraging cross platform software That is a patently ridiculous statement. Apple would obviously prefer you write apps for its platform only, but as long as you don’t _defect_ to another platform, why would Apple care whether an app you use on its platforms is written in one language or another? If an app you want to use is available for its OS, it makes you that much more likely to start/continue using Apple products. If it’s written in JavaScript, Swift, Python, or COBOL is irrelevant; what’s important is (a) that the software runs on macOS or iOS, and (b) that you don’t get a better experience elsewhere using the same app—because that _will_ likely lead to a user switching away from Apple’s products.
- crispinb 7y ago
  > why would Apple care whether an app you use on its platforms is written in one language or another? Because they want to hold people exclusively on their platform for upgrade & services revenue. They obviously have no scruples about the means. The more difficult it is either to use devices on various platforms, or to migrate away from Apple entirely, the better for Apple.
  - darklion 7y ago
    > Because they want to hold people exclusively on their platform for > upgrade & services revenue. Yes, so would any vendor, if there's more money to be made by keeping people in your sphere. I mean, there's a reason that movie theaters and restaurants don't let you bring food from the outside. They want to be the exclusive provider of food and beverages in order to increase their revenue, so they can charge you $5 for a Diet Coke that might cost you $2 at the corner store. But for Apple, it's a calculus: does Apple make more money at Thing X by keeping it open, or by keeping it closed and potentially reducing their customer pool? Where there's more money to be made in openness, in a way that aligns with Apple's other priorities, they'll be open. If there's more money to be made in keeping it closed, they'll keep it closed. For example, I'm so glad you mentioned services revenue. Apple TV, at least the software portion, is now shipped _from_the_factory_ on smart TVs made by Samsung, LG, Sony, Vizio, and a handful of other vendors, as well as Roku and Amazon Fire TV. Apple Music has an Android app on the Google Play store that is kept up to date and integrates nicely into the Android OS, and actually holds a 3.7/5 rating (surprising considering how many Android fans review-bombed it in the early days simply for being an Apple app). If Apple really wanted to "hold people exclusively" to their platform, none of those things would be available outside Apple products. There's more money to be made on services outside Apple hardware than there is in keeping those things exclusive to it. > The more difficult it is either to use devices on various platforms, or > to migrate away from Apple entirely, the better for Apple. The better for any vendor if it's harder to migrate from that vendor to a competitor. That's what smart competitors DO, is make it difficult to leave. Your argument is that Apple should make it painless to switch away from Apple--so let me ask you, what _benefit_ does it incur to Apple to make it easier to switch away from Apple products or services? If your entire argument is that Apple should do whatever it takes to make customers lives easier, then my response is, that's not a bad perspective to have, but it's unrealistic unless all aspects of the industry adopt the same attitude. If Apple makes it easy to leave, and the Googles, Amazons, and Microsofts of the world continue to make it easy to capture customers and difficult for them to leave, then there's zero benefit to Apple for being the pioneer in this new world order.

ProAm 7y ago

> Apple outright banning Electron-powered crap is the best reason I've heard yet for buying my new iPhone. Why not let the consumer decide of they want the app on the phone they bought vs letting Apple decide?

jpttsn 7y ago
Personally: Part of what I buy from Apple — the “job” I “hire” them to do — is curation.

supernintendo 7y ago

> Apple doesn't give a toss if your app is cross platform. Maybe but they sure as hell don't make it easy for cross-platform software to target their platforms. As far as I'm concerned, the only feasible way to target Apple platforms at this point is to: 1. Buy a Mac so you can officially run macOS and Xcode. 2. Spend $99 every year for an Apple developer license. 3. Spend the time to learn Swift, a language which despite being touted by Apple fanboys as being cross-platform is basically useless unless you're targeting the official Apple APIs. 4. Learn and stay up-to-date with Apple's ever-changing APIs (just wait until Cocoa and Cocoa Touch are completely deprecated in favor of some other API that is only accessible via SwiftUI... calling it now) 5. Keep up with Apple's ever-changing policies around what and what is not acceptable within their walled garden. 6. Give 30% of your profits to Apple. Fuck that shit. Look, I don't use Electron applications as a general rule and I do agree with your gripes about "web based cruft". But at least it's possible for developers to learn that cruft and use their knowledge to write software without spending a ton of money and having everything they know be limited to Apple's walled garden. As much as Hacker News loves to hate on JavaScript, guess what? It's free and accessible. Anyone in the world can learn to use web based technologies to build software and enrich themselves (and maybe even others). If you're writing software for Apple platforms, you're only working to enrich Apple's ecosystem and investing your own time and money to do so. Maybe it's just my Linux / FOSS fanaticism but this perspective toward software development just doesn't resonate with me. I want anyone who wants to use the software I write to be able to use it, not just Apple's customers.

matt4077 7y ago
Apple really doesn't care about those $100/year or even all the hardware all developers in the world together buy. So you have to wonder why they require people to jump through these hoops, and a wish to focus on native, high-quality software does seem to be the best explanation I can come up with.
threeseed 7y ago
That is all just nonsense. You don't have to use Swift as there are plenty of alternatives many of which run on Windows or Linux. So in theory you could do all your development on a non-OSX platform and then just use one of the Mac hosting providers for CI/CD. And you don't have to give Apple 30%. Just notarise your app and add a link from your website.

teh_klev 7y ago

> Apple outright banning Electron-powered crap is the best reason I've heard yet for buying my new iPhone. The article is about the Mac App Store, not the iPhone App Store. Not suggesting Apple's motives is "a good thing" but lets be accurate before going off on one.