4 ms·

That makes no sense. Apple didn't create the market segment, but because those people choose to use iPhone, you can't sell them an email service that doesn't wo

That makes no sense. Apple didn't create the market segment, but because those people choose to use iPhone, you can't sell them an email service that doesn't work on iPhone. If 80% of people making more than $100k a year use iPhones and Apple disappeared, the market segment of people making more than $100k a year wouldn't disappear.

ntsplnkv2 6y ago
> That makes no sense. Apple didn't create the market segment, but because those people choose to use iPhone, you can't sell them an email service that doesn't work on iPhone. Make the email service work on iPhone. There are more than 2,000,000 apps in the App Store. There's no reason to think they're being unfair with that many in there. If you can't make an app and follow the rules there, tough luck. It's not fair to the developers that don't make shovelware otherwise. > If 80% of people making more than $100k a year use iPhones and Apple disappeared, the market segment of people making more than $100k a year wouldn't disappear. Someone would step in and provide another walled garden with the same effect - because the consumer will want a better experience. Apple offers that experience. And if that means Shovelware 2.0 doesn't make it, well, let's be honest. It wasn't all that revolutionary. In any case, crap apps would flood the market - consumers would get worse experiences, and be less likely to buy apps. Free apps will decimate quality applications. And you'll get the playstore or android, a malware infested UI nightmare. Apple is the "big bad" now, make a crappy app that doesn't follow easy rules, it's Apple's fault. Yea, not buying it. 2,000,000 made it. It's not that restrictive.
- learc83 6y ago
  >It's not fair to the developers that don't make shovelware otherwise >In any case, crap apps would flood the market - consumers would get worse experiences, and be less likely to buy apps. Free apps will decimate quality applications. And you'll get the playstore or android, a malware infested UI nightmare. How would apple lowering their feeds, allowing a competing app store, allowing sideloaded apps, or allowing apps to have subscriptions outside of apple pay make it easier for crappy apps to make it to the app store? If there's a competing app store and it's so permissive that it turns into low quality nightmare, then customers will keep using the apple app store. I don't understand how you're getting from A to B.
  - ntsplnkv2 6y ago
    > How would apple lowering their feeds, allowing a competing app store, allowing sideloaded apps, or allowing apps to have subscriptions outside of apple pay make it easier for crappy apps to make it to the app store? Apple is a company that is fully dedicated to product. Lower fees = lower barrier to entry = crapware, this impacts the product. Sideloaded apps are a dangerous vector for malware (https://cybersecuritymag.com/sideloading-malware/ https://cybersecuritymag.com/sideloading-malware/), this impacts the product. It's not right to offer an app that doesn't allow subscriptions through the app store, this impacts the product. The fact is we have a case study in what a non-walled garden looks like, the dumpster fire that is Android, with wildly differing levels of quality, confusing applications from different vendors, a terrible play store experience, etc. It's quite clear how we get to B. Allowing a competing app store is implicitly supporting that app store - meaning if it bricks your phone, or installs malware, it hurts the user experience of Apple, and the product. > If there's a competing app store and it's so permissive that it turns into low quality nightmare, then customers will keep using the apple app store. I don't understand how you're getting from A to B. So back at square one, you see the problem? People WANT curated app stores. They want ONE app store to buy their apps. They don't want to download 10 app stores for 10 different apps. This ruins the product. A, meet B. The App Store is as much a product as the iPhone. It's a product for developers to quickly, easily, and safely reach consumers to make more money. If you don't like the product as a developer, it's too expensive, or you don't like the agreement, create a web app. Safari can open it just fine. Or release only on Android, it has a huge market. The fact is, we should not be punishing business unless there is a malpractice by the business that can't be remedied by the market - this is clearly not the case here. It is developer sour grapes because his overpriced mail app tried to cheat the system.
    - learc83 6y ago
      >Lower fees = lower barrier to entry = crapware Up front fees sure. But how exactly does charging 10% instead of 30% of sales, encourage lower quality software? Where is the cutoff for this? Why 30%? Would 50% encourage even higher quality software? >It's not right to offer an app that doesn't allow subscriptions through the app store, this impacts the product. It's not right? As in it is morally wrong? >So back at square one, you see the problem? People WANT curated app stores. They want ONE app store to buy their apps. They don't want to download 10 app stores for 10 different apps. They can keep buying their apps on 1 curated app store. If the other app stores were so inferior and full of crap, no one would use them, so people such as your self could keep selling apps on the "good" app store. It's a self limiting problem.

ntsplnkv2 6y ago

> That makes no sense. Apple didn't create the market segment, but because those people choose to use iPhone, you can't sell them an email service that doesn't work on iPhone. Make the email service work on iPhone. There are more than 2,000,000 apps in the App Store. There's no reason to think they're being unfair with that many in there. If you can't make an app and follow the rules there, tough luck. It's not fair to the developers that don't make shovelware otherwise. > If 80% of people making more than $100k a year use iPhones and Apple disappeared, the market segment of people making more than $100k a year wouldn't disappear. Someone would step in and provide another walled garden with the same effect - because the consumer will want a better experience. Apple offers that experience. And if that means Shovelware 2.0 doesn't make it, well, let's be honest. It wasn't all that revolutionary. In any case, crap apps would flood the market - consumers would get worse experiences, and be less likely to buy apps. Free apps will decimate quality applications. And you'll get the playstore or android, a malware infested UI nightmare. Apple is the "big bad" now, make a crappy app that doesn't follow easy rules, it's Apple's fault. Yea, not buying it. 2,000,000 made it. It's not that restrictive.

learc83 6y ago
>It's not fair to the developers that don't make shovelware otherwise >In any case, crap apps would flood the market - consumers would get worse experiences, and be less likely to buy apps. Free apps will decimate quality applications. And you'll get the playstore or android, a malware infested UI nightmare. How would apple lowering their feeds, allowing a competing app store, allowing sideloaded apps, or allowing apps to have subscriptions outside of apple pay make it easier for crappy apps to make it to the app store? If there's a competing app store and it's so permissive that it turns into low quality nightmare, then customers will keep using the apple app store. I don't understand how you're getting from A to B.
- ntsplnkv2 6y ago
  > How would apple lowering their feeds, allowing a competing app store, allowing sideloaded apps, or allowing apps to have subscriptions outside of apple pay make it easier for crappy apps to make it to the app store? Apple is a company that is fully dedicated to product. Lower fees = lower barrier to entry = crapware, this impacts the product. Sideloaded apps are a dangerous vector for malware (https://cybersecuritymag.com/sideloading-malware/ https://cybersecuritymag.com/sideloading-malware/), this impacts the product. It's not right to offer an app that doesn't allow subscriptions through the app store, this impacts the product. The fact is we have a case study in what a non-walled garden looks like, the dumpster fire that is Android, with wildly differing levels of quality, confusing applications from different vendors, a terrible play store experience, etc. It's quite clear how we get to B. Allowing a competing app store is implicitly supporting that app store - meaning if it bricks your phone, or installs malware, it hurts the user experience of Apple, and the product. > If there's a competing app store and it's so permissive that it turns into low quality nightmare, then customers will keep using the apple app store. I don't understand how you're getting from A to B. So back at square one, you see the problem? People WANT curated app stores. They want ONE app store to buy their apps. They don't want to download 10 app stores for 10 different apps. This ruins the product. A, meet B. The App Store is as much a product as the iPhone. It's a product for developers to quickly, easily, and safely reach consumers to make more money. If you don't like the product as a developer, it's too expensive, or you don't like the agreement, create a web app. Safari can open it just fine. Or release only on Android, it has a huge market. The fact is, we should not be punishing business unless there is a malpractice by the business that can't be remedied by the market - this is clearly not the case here. It is developer sour grapes because his overpriced mail app tried to cheat the system.
  - learc83 6y ago
    >Lower fees = lower barrier to entry = crapware Up front fees sure. But how exactly does charging 10% instead of 30% of sales, encourage lower quality software? Where is the cutoff for this? Why 30%? Would 50% encourage even higher quality software? >It's not right to offer an app that doesn't allow subscriptions through the app store, this impacts the product. It's not right? As in it is morally wrong? >So back at square one, you see the problem? People WANT curated app stores. They want ONE app store to buy their apps. They don't want to download 10 app stores for 10 different apps. They can keep buying their apps on 1 curated app store. If the other app stores were so inferior and full of crap, no one would use them, so people such as your self could keep selling apps on the "good" app store. It's a self limiting problem.