7 ms·

> 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 develop

> 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.
      - mrkstu 7y ago
        When your differentiation is in your ecosystem how is this action independent of competitive pressure? Their customers are end users and the App Store is one (and how they've run it) of their best selling points. Your line of thought only works if the developers are the customer- they are not in Apple's case.
        nabla9 7y ago
        It's not just my personal line of thought. Your line of thought is the narrow "Chicago School" thinking Robert Bork in the US in the 90s where the sole focus is on the benefits to consumers and overall efficiency.
    - marvindanig 7y ago
      An instance, but in no way covering the entire picture. One of the reasons why Google Chrome enjoys its monopoly is because Apple does a terrible job with its browser Safari. Terrible. I mean it's a train-wreck! Since iOS 10 or probably little later they have done nothing but destroy how the web apis are supposed to function, abusing every single accessibility guideline into something that is at best a line of defense to promote their app store. I hesitantly moved away from iPhone X to Android Pixel last month.
      - scarface74 7y ago
        Or could it be that the reason Chrome “enjoys” a monopoly is because Apple doesn’t care about “winning” the browser war? Why should it? That was last decades battle. Not even MS cares about the browser enough anymore to invest in its own engine.
        FussyZeus 7y ago
        This is the difference between companies trying to sell products and companies trying to sell attention. Apple doesn't benefit at all from people using Safari, because Safari is not a surveillance tool. Therefore, "marketing" Safari is at best, an afterthought. Chrome on the other hand... well, it's Google, one of the largest purveyors of advertising. If you don't think Chrome is watching you, I've got a bridge to sell you.
        hesarenu 7y ago
        If they didn't care then we would have alternative rendering engine along with safari. They know that allowing competition is a threat to their business model.
        scarface74 7y ago
        Since the submission is about MacOS and Electron....
        hesarenu 7y ago
  - zachwood 7y ago
    That's not what a monopoly is.
  - mikestew 7y ago
    That is about the worst faith interpretation of parent's comment I would come up with, even if I paid a consultant.
  - baddox 7y ago
    Having a favorite competitor in an industry is not that same thing as being a big fan of monopolies. That doesn't make sense. Having a healthy competitive industry does not mean that every person uses products from multiple competitors.
    - magduf 7y ago
      Having a favorite competitor is fine. Having so much loyalty to that competitor, however, is cultish. What happens when you get tired of that competitor, and some other competitor is offering something better? Or your favorite becomes abusive and you want to move? By supporting that competitor so strongly, you've encouraged monopolistic behavior, and now you're going to suffer for it, because there won't be good competitors any more, or you'll have a very hard time freeing yourself and migrating to the competition.
  - apeacox 7y ago
    Not a monopoly, but a walled garden.
  - tomp 7y ago
    The Apple "monopoly" is the biggest driver of progress in consumer computing. Microsoft only sells adware. Google is spyware (and crapware). Linux tablets don't even exist. Apple focuses on compatibility, user experience, performance, hardware, ease of use (yet still useful for power users). Sure it's been dropping the ball a bit in the past few years, but it's still lightyears ahead of any competitor.
  - scarface74 7y ago
    Once again HN posters fail to understand the definition of a monopoly.
- deogeo 7y ago
  Doesn't this confirm the parent's point? You like the ecosystem, so Apple makes sure it's the only one with such an ecosystem - part of which is making cross-platform apps more difficult.
  - zchrykng 7y ago
    Nothing Apple is doing prevents people from writing good native apps for any of the other platforms. They are just forcing developers to meet a miniscule quality cut off to be in the App Store.
    - deogeo 7y ago
      > prevents This word is not present in the post you replied to. I said more difficult - and forbidding some cross-platform libraries certainly has that effect.
rubyn00bie 7y ago
They are restricting one very particular tool, not a set of tools or category of tools. I can write an iOS application using a veritable shit-ton of different toolchains. It sounds more like you're locked into a particular toolchain more than Apple has locked all the other toolchains out.
- bearcobra 7y ago
  I don't personally develop anything using Electron. But given it's popularity as a way to build desktop apps, it seems reasonable that people are concerned even though they haven't also blocked QT or React
  - nomel 7y ago
    I think the concern should be on why the electron devs found it appropriate to use a private API, which is against App Store guidelines, risking/preparing rejection for any app using their framework. The rejection of private keys used, by frameworks, is in no way new (2009 [1]) or misunderstood. I find it very difficult to understand why Apple is getting any blame/concern for enforcing the violation of a very very old requirement. [1] 2009, https://stackoverflow.com/questions/1773615/apple-and-private-apis https://stackoverflow.com/questions/1773615/apple-and-privat... > The reason this has become news recently is the creator of a framework used by several apps used a private API, so when developers who included his framework updated their apps, they were rejected What’s old is new.
scarface74 7y ago
Not only doesn’t Apple stop people from using cross platform tools, Microsoft has said that they work closely with Apple on Xamarin and we know that Apple works with the game engine makers to make sure they support Metal.
- danShumway 7y ago
  I want to very lightly push back here, not to say you're wrong, but just to say that this particular argument is not persuasive to me. Of course Apple is working with game engine makers to support Metal, because otherwise those engines wouldn't export to the Mac. Gaming is still a Windows-centric activity, and it's mostly because of cross-platform game engines that indie designers have started to say, "yeah, I'll support Mac/Linux as well." As an OS maker, when your choice is between having an app not come to your platform, and having it come because you contributed to a cross-platform framework, you opt for the cross-platform framework. But I'm not sure that proves anything. Literally any intelligently run company would push for compatibility with a more dominant platform. Even a company like Oracle will push for compatibility with dominant competing product offerings; at least until Oracle's offering gets big enough that the compatibility is no longer in their best interest.
  - scarface74 7y ago
    Well, isn’t the Javascript and web ecosystem a greater platform than the Mac of all things? Even with games for mobile platforms iOS is dominant once you consider where all of the paying customers and high end hardware is. What hand developer if mobile games is going to target the relatively small number of high end Android phones? The ASP of S droid phones is something like $250. Most Android phones out there are low end.
    - danShumway 7y ago
      No, the web isn't greater for the class of apps that Apple is targeting with the App Store. Or at least, it's not so much of a better platform that devs in this specific category are going to decide to ship a webapp instead of charging for a native app. A lot of this comes down to monetization. There are more Android devices out there than iOS devices, and more apps on Android. So is Android a better platform? No, the distinction is that iOS users buy apps, and Android users don't. So if you're not trying to build an ad-supported, microtransaction-fueled experience, iOS is just a better platform to release on. Similarly, the web is a very powerful distribution network for online apps, but there aren't many good ways to make money except via advertising, Patreon, and SaaS. The apps being sold on the Mac App Store mostly don't fit into those categories. That means as a developer, if you want to build something that just works, that you just charge money for, that you don't need to host on some kind of remote server, or manage accounts for -- the web becomes a much less attractive platform. The question is, once you decide to look at native, do you first look at Windows or Mac? I think that depends on what kind of app you're trying to build and who your target market is. For desktop games, 9/10 times you target Windows (which is why Apple cares about cross-platform game engines). For an app like Robomongo, I dunno. Maybe the economics become more interesting -- I'd be curious to see the revenue breakdowns for an app like that. Interestingly enough, the lack of (well-designed) PWA features are one of the big reasons why the web is still not particularly attractive for certain classes of apps. (You can't store information offline in an accessible format, your webapp breaks whenever the browser cache is cleared, you can't make arbitrary cross-domain requests). I'm not a conspiracy theorist, and I don't see strong evidence that Apple is trying to kill the web. But it's not necessarily a crazy idea in the abstract, because I don't see the web as a dominant player in that space, and I don't see any economic incentive for Apple to care about making the web into a dominant player.
jkrie9 7y ago
Walmart has an incentive to keep people from shopping at Target. Do they have to have to stock everything people are selling on their shelves? To be locked into Apple’s software means buying Apple hardware. Do they control all the PC sales? An Electron app is a web site shipped with a browser. Last I checked both browsers and websites still work on Mac. All the real invention of value is still open and useable. One customized way of packaging it all is not. This is whining about a business model being upended by a technical decision. Apple has not locked their platform to open technologies. Just their privately owned & operated market place.
ken 7y ago
They also have incentive to make it easier for you to switch platform. People are more likely to adopt a platform in the first place if it lets them escape, e.g., Joel Spolsky said Excel 4 was the tipping point because it allowed users to transparently write Lotus files: > The trouble is that most managers only think about strategy one step at a time, like chess players who refuse to think one move ahead. Most of them will say, “it’s important to let people convert into your product, but why should I waste my limited engineering budget letting people convert out?“ I see this every day. People are much less likely to adopt Apple-only services than, say, Facebook and Google services that they can use on all of their devices and with all of their friends. [1]: https://www.joelonsoftware.com/2000/06/03/strategy-letter-iii-let-me-go-back/ https://www.joelonsoftware.com/2000/06/03/strategy-letter-ii...

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.
    - mrkstu 7y ago
      When your differentiation is in your ecosystem how is this action independent of competitive pressure? Their customers are end users and the App Store is one (and how they've run it) of their best selling points. Your line of thought only works if the developers are the customer- they are not in Apple's case.
      - nabla9 7y ago
        It's not just my personal line of thought. Your line of thought is the narrow "Chicago School" thinking Robert Bork in the US in the 90s where the sole focus is on the benefits to consumers and overall efficiency.
  - marvindanig 7y ago
    An instance, but in no way covering the entire picture. One of the reasons why Google Chrome enjoys its monopoly is because Apple does a terrible job with its browser Safari. Terrible. I mean it's a train-wreck! Since iOS 10 or probably little later they have done nothing but destroy how the web apis are supposed to function, abusing every single accessibility guideline into something that is at best a line of defense to promote their app store. I hesitantly moved away from iPhone X to Android Pixel last month.
    - scarface74 7y ago
      Or could it be that the reason Chrome “enjoys” a monopoly is because Apple doesn’t care about “winning” the browser war? Why should it? That was last decades battle. Not even MS cares about the browser enough anymore to invest in its own engine.
      - FussyZeus 7y ago
        This is the difference between companies trying to sell products and companies trying to sell attention. Apple doesn't benefit at all from people using Safari, because Safari is not a surveillance tool. Therefore, "marketing" Safari is at best, an afterthought. Chrome on the other hand... well, it's Google, one of the largest purveyors of advertising. If you don't think Chrome is watching you, I've got a bridge to sell you.
      - hesarenu 7y ago
        If they didn't care then we would have alternative rendering engine along with safari. They know that allowing competition is a threat to their business model.
        scarface74 7y ago
        Since the submission is about MacOS and Electron....
        hesarenu 7y ago
- zachwood 7y ago
  That's not what a monopoly is.
- mikestew 7y ago
  That is about the worst faith interpretation of parent's comment I would come up with, even if I paid a consultant.
- baddox 7y ago
  Having a favorite competitor in an industry is not that same thing as being a big fan of monopolies. That doesn't make sense. Having a healthy competitive industry does not mean that every person uses products from multiple competitors.
  - magduf 7y ago
    Having a favorite competitor is fine. Having so much loyalty to that competitor, however, is cultish. What happens when you get tired of that competitor, and some other competitor is offering something better? Or your favorite becomes abusive and you want to move? By supporting that competitor so strongly, you've encouraged monopolistic behavior, and now you're going to suffer for it, because there won't be good competitors any more, or you'll have a very hard time freeing yourself and migrating to the competition.
- apeacox 7y ago
  Not a monopoly, but a walled garden.
- tomp 7y ago
  The Apple "monopoly" is the biggest driver of progress in consumer computing. Microsoft only sells adware. Google is spyware (and crapware). Linux tablets don't even exist. Apple focuses on compatibility, user experience, performance, hardware, ease of use (yet still useful for power users). Sure it's been dropping the ball a bit in the past few years, but it's still lightyears ahead of any competitor.
- scarface74 7y ago
  Once again HN posters fail to understand the definition of a monopoly.
deogeo 7y ago
Doesn't this confirm the parent's point? You like the ecosystem, so Apple makes sure it's the only one with such an ecosystem - part of which is making cross-platform apps more difficult.
- zchrykng 7y ago
  Nothing Apple is doing prevents people from writing good native apps for any of the other platforms. They are just forcing developers to meet a miniscule quality cut off to be in the App Store.
  - deogeo 7y ago
    > prevents This word is not present in the post you replied to. I said more difficult - and forbidding some cross-platform libraries certainly has that effect.

rubyn00bie 7y ago

They are restricting one very particular tool, not a set of tools or category of tools. I can write an iOS application using a veritable shit-ton of different toolchains. It sounds more like you're locked into a particular toolchain more than Apple has locked all the other toolchains out.

bearcobra 7y ago
I don't personally develop anything using Electron. But given it's popularity as a way to build desktop apps, it seems reasonable that people are concerned even though they haven't also blocked QT or React
- nomel 7y ago
  I think the concern should be on why the electron devs found it appropriate to use a private API, which is against App Store guidelines, risking/preparing rejection for any app using their framework. The rejection of private keys used, by frameworks, is in no way new (2009 [1]) or misunderstood. I find it very difficult to understand why Apple is getting any blame/concern for enforcing the violation of a very very old requirement. [1] 2009, https://stackoverflow.com/questions/1773615/apple-and-private-apis https://stackoverflow.com/questions/1773615/apple-and-privat... > The reason this has become news recently is the creator of a framework used by several apps used a private API, so when developers who included his framework updated their apps, they were rejected What’s old is new.

scarface74 7y ago

Not only doesn’t Apple stop people from using cross platform tools, Microsoft has said that they work closely with Apple on Xamarin and we know that Apple works with the game engine makers to make sure they support Metal.

danShumway 7y ago
I want to very lightly push back here, not to say you're wrong, but just to say that this particular argument is not persuasive to me. Of course Apple is working with game engine makers to support Metal, because otherwise those engines wouldn't export to the Mac. Gaming is still a Windows-centric activity, and it's mostly because of cross-platform game engines that indie designers have started to say, "yeah, I'll support Mac/Linux as well." As an OS maker, when your choice is between having an app not come to your platform, and having it come because you contributed to a cross-platform framework, you opt for the cross-platform framework. But I'm not sure that proves anything. Literally any intelligently run company would push for compatibility with a more dominant platform. Even a company like Oracle will push for compatibility with dominant competing product offerings; at least until Oracle's offering gets big enough that the compatibility is no longer in their best interest.
- scarface74 7y ago
  Well, isn’t the Javascript and web ecosystem a greater platform than the Mac of all things? Even with games for mobile platforms iOS is dominant once you consider where all of the paying customers and high end hardware is. What hand developer if mobile games is going to target the relatively small number of high end Android phones? The ASP of S droid phones is something like $250. Most Android phones out there are low end.
  - danShumway 7y ago
    No, the web isn't greater for the class of apps that Apple is targeting with the App Store. Or at least, it's not so much of a better platform that devs in this specific category are going to decide to ship a webapp instead of charging for a native app. A lot of this comes down to monetization. There are more Android devices out there than iOS devices, and more apps on Android. So is Android a better platform? No, the distinction is that iOS users buy apps, and Android users don't. So if you're not trying to build an ad-supported, microtransaction-fueled experience, iOS is just a better platform to release on. Similarly, the web is a very powerful distribution network for online apps, but there aren't many good ways to make money except via advertising, Patreon, and SaaS. The apps being sold on the Mac App Store mostly don't fit into those categories. That means as a developer, if you want to build something that just works, that you just charge money for, that you don't need to host on some kind of remote server, or manage accounts for -- the web becomes a much less attractive platform. The question is, once you decide to look at native, do you first look at Windows or Mac? I think that depends on what kind of app you're trying to build and who your target market is. For desktop games, 9/10 times you target Windows (which is why Apple cares about cross-platform game engines). For an app like Robomongo, I dunno. Maybe the economics become more interesting -- I'd be curious to see the revenue breakdowns for an app like that. Interestingly enough, the lack of (well-designed) PWA features are one of the big reasons why the web is still not particularly attractive for certain classes of apps. (You can't store information offline in an accessible format, your webapp breaks whenever the browser cache is cleared, you can't make arbitrary cross-domain requests). I'm not a conspiracy theorist, and I don't see strong evidence that Apple is trying to kill the web. But it's not necessarily a crazy idea in the abstract, because I don't see the web as a dominant player in that space, and I don't see any economic incentive for Apple to care about making the web into a dominant player.

jkrie9 7y ago

Walmart has an incentive to keep people from shopping at Target. Do they have to have to stock everything people are selling on their shelves? To be locked into Apple’s software means buying Apple hardware. Do they control all the PC sales? An Electron app is a web site shipped with a browser. Last I checked both browsers and websites still work on Mac. All the real invention of value is still open and useable. One customized way of packaging it all is not. This is whining about a business model being upended by a technical decision. Apple has not locked their platform to open technologies. Just their privately owned & operated market place.

ken 7y ago

They also have incentive to make it easier for you to switch platform. People are more likely to adopt a platform in the first place if it lets them escape, e.g., Joel Spolsky said Excel 4 was the tipping point because it allowed users to transparently write Lotus files: > The trouble is that most managers only think about strategy one step at a time, like chess players who refuse to think one move ahead. Most of them will say, “it’s important to let people convert into your product, but why should I waste my limited engineering budget letting people convert out?“ I see this every day. People are much less likely to adopt Apple-only services than, say, Facebook and Google services that they can use on all of their devices and with all of their friends. [1]: https://www.joelonsoftware.com/2000/06/03/strategy-letter-iii-let-me-go-back/ https://www.joelonsoftware.com/2000/06/03/strategy-letter-ii...