2 ms·
The point is that developers would never have started to pay such a large share of revenue to Apple or Google if Web apps were a complete replacement for native
by fauigerzigerk 7y ago
The point is that developers would never have started to pay such a large share of revenue to Apple or Google if Web apps were a complete replacement for native apps.
Google doesn't make side-loading easy either. It comes with a ton of warnings, but some high profile apps and games have started using it anyway.
I didn't mean to start another debate about the obviously dysfunctional market that is mobile app stores though. My point was about the loss of freedom and privacy that results from the side-loading ban.
- scarface74 7y agoLike Fortnite? That didn’t work out too well for consumers. https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2018/08/fortnites-android-vulnerability-leads-to-googleepic-games-spat/ https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2018/08/fortnites-android-vu...
- fauigerzigerk 7y agoI'm not sure what we're talking about anymore to be honest. You are consistently avoiding the subject of this thread. Perhaps we can debate app store economics on some other occasion.
- scarface74 7y agoWell, as far as the iPad, people complaining about the “wall garden” and the 30% cut doesn’t affect people who are actually buying the product or developers making billions from the App Store. Also, if either were keeping developers from innovating, you should see a lot of successful, popular apps outside of Google Play. The fact is, that 80% of phones out there can escape a walled garden and the 30% cut, but still anyone interested in getting visibility or making money chooses to be on Google Play. How many people whining about the 30% cut on HN actually have a successful product that would be more successful if it weren’t for Apple’s fee?
- fauigerzigerk 7y agoI heard your opinion and I strongly disagree with it, but I'm not going to be drawn into that debate right now.