6 ms·

It would be pretty fitting if the end result of Apple's new pricing rules were that everyone refocused on mobile webapps, thereby reducing the value of iOS dras

It would be pretty fitting if the end result of Apple's new pricing rules were that everyone refocused on mobile webapps, thereby reducing the value of iOS drastically and allowing it to much more easily be supplanted by commodity Android devices. If everything you're consuming is through webkit, who cares if you're on Android or iOS? Might as well use the one with better Javascript performance anyway. Apple will still be winning on games but Google is clearly trying to address that with the recent pushes in NDK development and given Apple's track record with game developers it seems like only a matter of time until they do something to ruin that as well.

nika 16y ago
I find it kinda amazing how rumor becomes mythology which eventually morphs into accepted fact. Apple has good relationships with game developers. They may not kowtow to egomaniacs, and it always seems a roll of the dice whether a given iteration of hardware compromises results in a pan or a plug from carmack. I develop apps. This is how I make my living. It would take a complete reversal of apple's attitudes and directions to get me to develop for android. Apple treats me well, pays me on time, and has a viable market where the rules are consistent and reasonable. Apple treats game developers well. Apple embraced OpenGL way back in the day so that developers could write to one API and deploy on multiple platforms (even Linux, presumably) This isn't Java, of course, but then, Apple also supported Java completely until it became obvious Java had lost in the marketplace (or market segment.) Apple provides great APIs and functionality to support games on iOS. Maybe Google will catch up, but they're still working on allowing native development. But this subscription thing is a perfect example of the disconnect between android lovers and reality. Apple has offered a new mechanism to make payments to developers. Do you think developers are angry about this? You think we're switching to android because Apple allows us to sell our software by subscriptions? Why would we be angry? This gives us more flexibility, and saves us the hassle of setting up paypal or whatever.... I've got thousands of customers, and I can assure you, less than a fraction of a percent of them visit my website. As a developer for and a user of iOS this just furthers Apple's value to me. I've considered porting apps to Android. I'm not inclined to because I'd rather spend the time making new apps in a market I know is viable for my type of apps. To win me over, Android would need to: 1) Provide native development (in progress) 2) provide a level of APIs and frameworks of comperable quality to Cocoa touch 3) provide a hardware reference platform and require android licensees to build to it (apparently impossible) 4) develop enough of a market of that common reference platform such that I can develop no more than 2 variations and address >%90 of the market (I develop two versions for iOS an iPad and an iPhone version.) 5) Provide a market where I can sell internationally, where people can easily buy my product, and where people are in the habit of doing so. Right now that's three things the android market doesn't offer.
- chc 16y ago
  The "subscription thing" is not what you describe. Apple haven't offered a mechanism to make payments — if that were all they'd done, I think people would be fine with it. What they've done is mandated a mechanism that takes money out of your pocket. Yes, developers are angry about it: see http://blog.tinygrab.com/2011/02/21/tinygrab-apples-app-stores/ http://blog.tinygrab.com/2011/02/21/tinygrab-apples-app-stor... . From the way you talk about it, it sounds like you didn't depend on subscription revenue in the first place, so you just happened not to be affected by this particular policy. When you say Apple treats you well, you mean Apple hasn't yet changed the rules against you. Apple treated Pandora well until recently.
- NetMonkey 16y ago
  And if all Apple wants is to have shiny games for their platform it is the perfect strategy. We have an online platform that resells content which is how we make our living. Low margins means that we would take a loss on everything we sold through the App store since we cannot charge more in the Apple garden. Combine that with having to learn a new platform or hire new developers, it's making a HTML(5) solution for mobile devices look much more interesting for us. It won't look and feel as nice, but at least it will be cheaper to develop, we will get presence on Android/WinPhone7 and we won't take a loss on every item sold. I agree that for a game developer the Apple solution is pretty good - I wouldn't mind it myself. But when reselling content it's simply a much different proposition - and I'm pretty there are many other companies having the same considerations that we are.
- zohebv 16y ago
  > As a developer for and a user of iOS this just furthers Apple's value to me So, the disappearance of Pandora, Kindle & Netflix is great for the iOS user, because you can now subscribe without pulling out your credit card. > They may not kowtow to egomaniacs It is great that you make a good living off iOS, but labeling everyone who will be put out of business because of Apple's price fixing arrangement and prohibition of external purchase links as egomania is amazingly blinkered. All the discussion that has followed Apple's announcement is clear and simple, how egomania enters here is beyond me. If anything, what is amazing is your inability to appreciate the significance of events if they do not impact you negatively.
stcredzero 16y ago
If everything you're consuming is through webkit, who cares if you're on Android or iOS? Might as well use the one with better Javascript performance anyway. Yes, but what about reading offline? Is the convenience of using the iPad going to suffer?
mconnors 16y ago
The problem I am having- 1 can't sell the app itself, 2 the app doesn't live on the phone screen (unless they make a bookmark-button) 3 even though its 30% users are already tied into the store which lowers the mental barrier to purchase, meaning you don't have to get their credit card info. 4 no push notification

nika 16y ago

I find it kinda amazing how rumor becomes mythology which eventually morphs into accepted fact. Apple has good relationships with game developers. They may not kowtow to egomaniacs, and it always seems a roll of the dice whether a given iteration of hardware compromises results in a pan or a plug from carmack. I develop apps. This is how I make my living. It would take a complete reversal of apple's attitudes and directions to get me to develop for android. Apple treats me well, pays me on time, and has a viable market where the rules are consistent and reasonable. Apple treats game developers well. Apple embraced OpenGL way back in the day so that developers could write to one API and deploy on multiple platforms (even Linux, presumably) This isn't Java, of course, but then, Apple also supported Java completely until it became obvious Java had lost in the marketplace (or market segment.) Apple provides great APIs and functionality to support games on iOS. Maybe Google will catch up, but they're still working on allowing native development. But this subscription thing is a perfect example of the disconnect between android lovers and reality. Apple has offered a new mechanism to make payments to developers. Do you think developers are angry about this? You think we're switching to android because Apple allows us to sell our software by subscriptions? Why would we be angry? This gives us more flexibility, and saves us the hassle of setting up paypal or whatever.... I've got thousands of customers, and I can assure you, less than a fraction of a percent of them visit my website. As a developer for and a user of iOS this just furthers Apple's value to me. I've considered porting apps to Android. I'm not inclined to because I'd rather spend the time making new apps in a market I know is viable for my type of apps. To win me over, Android would need to: 1) Provide native development (in progress) 2) provide a level of APIs and frameworks of comperable quality to Cocoa touch 3) provide a hardware reference platform and require android licensees to build to it (apparently impossible) 4) develop enough of a market of that common reference platform such that I can develop no more than 2 variations and address >%90 of the market (I develop two versions for iOS an iPad and an iPhone version.) 5) Provide a market where I can sell internationally, where people can easily buy my product, and where people are in the habit of doing so. Right now that's three things the android market doesn't offer.

chc 16y ago
The "subscription thing" is not what you describe. Apple haven't offered a mechanism to make payments — if that were all they'd done, I think people would be fine with it. What they've done is mandated a mechanism that takes money out of your pocket. Yes, developers are angry about it: see http://blog.tinygrab.com/2011/02/21/tinygrab-apples-app-stores/ http://blog.tinygrab.com/2011/02/21/tinygrab-apples-app-stor... . From the way you talk about it, it sounds like you didn't depend on subscription revenue in the first place, so you just happened not to be affected by this particular policy. When you say Apple treats you well, you mean Apple hasn't yet changed the rules against you. Apple treated Pandora well until recently.
NetMonkey 16y ago
And if all Apple wants is to have shiny games for their platform it is the perfect strategy. We have an online platform that resells content which is how we make our living. Low margins means that we would take a loss on everything we sold through the App store since we cannot charge more in the Apple garden. Combine that with having to learn a new platform or hire new developers, it's making a HTML(5) solution for mobile devices look much more interesting for us. It won't look and feel as nice, but at least it will be cheaper to develop, we will get presence on Android/WinPhone7 and we won't take a loss on every item sold. I agree that for a game developer the Apple solution is pretty good - I wouldn't mind it myself. But when reselling content it's simply a much different proposition - and I'm pretty there are many other companies having the same considerations that we are.
zohebv 16y ago
> As a developer for and a user of iOS this just furthers Apple's value to me So, the disappearance of Pandora, Kindle & Netflix is great for the iOS user, because you can now subscribe without pulling out your credit card. > They may not kowtow to egomaniacs It is great that you make a good living off iOS, but labeling everyone who will be put out of business because of Apple's price fixing arrangement and prohibition of external purchase links as egomania is amazingly blinkered. All the discussion that has followed Apple's announcement is clear and simple, how egomania enters here is beyond me. If anything, what is amazing is your inability to appreciate the significance of events if they do not impact you negatively.

stcredzero 16y ago

If everything you're consuming is through webkit, who cares if you're on Android or iOS? Might as well use the one with better Javascript performance anyway. Yes, but what about reading offline? Is the convenience of using the iPad going to suffer?

mconnors 16y ago

The problem I am having- 1 can't sell the app itself, 2 the app doesn't live on the phone screen (unless they make a bookmark-button) 3 even though its 30% users are already tied into the store which lowers the mental barrier to purchase, meaning you don't have to get their credit card info. 4 no push notification