11 ms·

A lot of the articles and comments I have read, focus on the 30% cut. Which is definitely high, though primarily for those who sell externally licensed and/or n

by tsycho 6y ago

A lot of the articles and comments I have read, focus on the 30% cut. Which is definitely high, though primarily for those who sell externally licensed and/or non-digital goods. But to me (with my almost decade long iOS developer experience), the bigger problems are: * You cannot install apps on an iPhone (even on a phone that you own) without paying Apple. Without a developer account, an app that you build and self sign works for only 7 days. * If you are an app that exists on other platforms, and/or accepts payments on other platforms, you can't describe that or even link to it, from your iOS app. Your users need to know that the alternative options exist on their own. See the Netflix sign in screen for a nice example, but realize that 99% of apps won't get away with that, only apps the size of Netflix can. * You can only ship apps that Apple's inconsistent review board agrees with. And of course, the rules and their inconsistent application keep changing in favor of Apple's competing apps, which of course have access to internal APIs and don't pay a 30% cut either. Spotify is a good example here, but it's worse for many smaller companies. * And now macOS is adopting the worst of iOS' draconian policies. You won't be able to run non-notarized apps on macOS on Apple Silicon based computers at all. Unfortunately there are many who drink the Apple koolaid about all of this being all about security. There are legitimately good things that Apple does which enhance user security, and I welcome changes like the new IDFA policy of iOS 14, but let's not pretend that Apple does those because they affect Apple's competitors' business and strengthen Apple's (you have to now use Apple's sdk for user tracking). But none of the things I wrote about above are about the user, and some of them are actively worse for Apple's users (eg: not being able to buy a book on the Kindle app easily).

anupamchugh 6y ago
> Without a developer account, an app that you build and self sign works for only 7 days. Can you elaborate on this? I have seen apps working for more than 7 days once installed.
- MarioMan 6y ago
  Self-signing outside of the developer program lasts for 7 days. Historically, it used to last for a month. If you are part of the developer program, self-signing lasts for one year.
stassats 6y ago
> * And now macOS is adopting the worst of iOS' draconian policies. You won't be able to run non-notarized apps on macOS on Apple Silicon based computers at all. Where did you get that information and what makes Apple Silicon different here?
- dmoy 6y ago
  Some sort of security hypervisor on the chip?
  - stassats 6y ago
    I don't think you need any hardware support for that. And notarization already exists on intel macs, just that it doesn't prevent you from launching non-notarized binaries.
- Rebelgecko 6y ago
  It was discussed in this article and a bit in the comments yesterday: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24217116 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24217116
- supermatt 6y ago
  https://developer.apple.com/documentation/macos-release-notes/macos-big-sur-11-universal-apps-beta-release-notes https://developer.apple.com/documentation/macos-release-note... "any executable must be signed with a valid signature before it’s allowed to run"
  - stassats 6y ago
    > There isn’t a specific identity requirement for this signature: a simple ad-hoc signature issued locally is sufficient, which includes signatures which are now generated automatically by the linker. This new behavior doesn’t change the long-established policy that our users and developers can run arbitrary code on their Macs Ok, not really true.
    - 6y ago
LolWolf 6y ago
> And now macOS is adopting the worst of iOS' draconian policies. You won't be able to run non-notarized apps on macOS on Apple Silicon based computers at all. Do you have a source for this? I certainly haven't read this anywhere, but I also haven't been keeping a super close eye lately! This would both be really sad and would also essentially destroy the entire OSS community in macOS. (So I'd be very surprised if Apple actually made this change. It would also mean every numerical scientist would have to migrate off the Apple ecosystem, which would be a shame.)
- supermatt 6y ago
  https://developer.apple.com/documentation/macos-release-notes/macos-big-sur-11-universal-apps-beta-release-notes https://developer.apple.com/documentation/macos-release-note... "any executable must be signed with a valid signature before it’s allowed to run"
  - scarface74 6y ago
    “This page is specific to the Developer Transition Kit”
    - danShumway 6y ago
      Do you genuinely, honestly believe that this policy isn't going to be expanded? The same way that we believed the original signing requirements would only be used to block specific malware, and not to enforce general policies? There are already system-level APIs that are restricted to the Mac app store[0]. If you want to use Wireguard on Mac without going through the store, your best option is probably using the command line. That's crazy; in order to get a free VPN client with a GUI running, I'm being forced to give Apple a credit card number and an email address, and there's nothing the devs can do to get around that requirement. [0]: https://lists.zx2c4.com/pipermail/wireguard/2019-February/003853.html https://lists.zx2c4.com/pipermail/wireguard/2019-February/00...
      - scarface74 6y ago
draw_down 6y ago
The submission isn’t about these things, though.
huhtenberg 6y ago
> You cannot install apps on... a phone that you own without paying Apple THIS is the principal issue. I cannot indeed install what I want on a device that I own. This is absolutely ridiculous.
- zepto 6y ago
  Then don’t buy an iPhone? It’s sold as a closed ecosystem, and we all know that’s what it is. I’ve been seriously looking at this: https://www.pine64.org/pinephone/ https://www.pine64.org/pinephone/ If we want an open ecosystem, we need to support it.
  - Apocryphon 6y ago
    Alternatively, jailbreak an iPhone.
  - wayneftw 6y ago
    My customers have iPhones. They want to install some private, custom business software that I built for them. Most of the time, I can build a web app to satisfy their needs. Sometimes I can't and that's when things get really annoying. iPhones have 50% of the market in the US where I do business. Either I have to go through their review process or register for the Enterprise app development program. All for phones that they already made money on when they sold it to us. Maybe another option for iPhone users is to form a giant co-op corporation, get a D&B number, "hire" everybody who wants custom apps as "employees" and start our own internal app store... it'll cost us $299 per year. Anyone interested?
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
    - zepto 6y ago
      You can do ad-hoc distribution, depending on how many users you are supporting.
  - fomine3 6y ago
distantsounds 6y ago
imagine touting "security" while every single iphone gets jailbroken, over, and over, and over again. i don't understand the fanboyism. they are just as prone to flaws as microsoft, google, amazon, et al. they are not more or less secure than competing devices.
- Nasrudith 6y ago
  Not an Apple fan but I can recognize the "security" in a different sense we might find useful. It is more a delegation of the user mindset aspects of security than absolute "Cannot be exploited by state actor level funding and lacks zero days." Not a thing for me but I can see how those who don't aspire towards experrdom or even "well-educated amateur" would find it useful and call it such.
  - romanoderoma 6y ago
    > and lacks zero days AFAIK mobile Safari is the primary source of vulnerabilities on iOS, zero days regarding it cost less than on other platforms on the black market (supposedly because they are easier to find/exploit) but Apple doesn't allow to replace it. That's a serious security flaw in my opinion.
cwhiz 6y ago
You cannot install Fortnite skins/characters/emotes/etc without paying Epic. Epic has a monopoly on the Fortnite Store. It sounds pretty ridiculous to type that... but it's the same basic argument. Apple is a minority player in the smartphone market. Every single person on this (HN) site has a competitive alternative if they don't like Apple policies. If it should be illegal for Apple to have a monopoly on their own product then it stands to reason that it should be illegal for Epic to have a monopoly on their own product.
- whatshisface 6y ago
  >You cannot install Fortnite skins/characters/emotes/etc without paying Epic. Epic has a monopoly on the Fortnite Store. Honestly, it would not be all that bad if the community could mod Fortnite to add their own skins, like you can in many other games.
- kinlan 6y ago
  Epic's not a marketplace because it's all first party outside of licensed deals, its not the same thing.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - danielscrubs 6y ago
    Sounds like horrible monopolistic practices, they should open it up
    - pests 6y ago
      Next time you have a garage sale, can I drop off my junk too for you to sell?
      - scarface74 6y ago
        Well, looking at the App Store, that’s exactly what Apple does....
somethoughts 6y ago
Epic's long term plan should be to enable cloud gaming support via an Epic mobile browser. Basically the Google Stadia approach (cloud based graphics rendering and only basic input controls and video decompression of the rendered graphics on the mobile device). - Use codecs the underlying mobile safari browser can support. - The browser stores your Epic login and launches to the default Epic homepage. - Enable the Epic browser to generically surf the web to provide multipurpose functionality to follow existing precedent set by Firefox and Chrome on iOS Appstore. At worst Epic can default to Mobile Safari itself if Apple still blocks a specific Epic browser (i.e. duplicate functionality) and show how people can make iOS safari shortcuts. Long live mobile web apps!
- kinlan 6y ago
  I'd love a version of this just on epic.com, but for now it seems you can use Geforce now on the web https://www.androidpolice.com/2020/08/20/how-to-play-geforce-now-in-your-chrome-browser-without-installing-anything-on-your-pc-or-linux-machine/ https://www.androidpolice.com/2020/08/20/how-to-play-geforce...
  - somethoughts 6y ago
    Cool - just so happened to be looking at Geforce last night!
- astlouis44 6y ago
  Rather than cloud streaming, I'd much prefer to see them target WebGL/WebGPU + WebAssembly. At near native speeds, distributed through the browser with the option of adding a PWA to the home screen to really get that native app feeling!
phantom784 6y ago
If I may add to this: * Apple's payments API is very difficult to work with, especially compared to something like Stripe. * Developers cannot disable their customers' subscriptions, or offer refunds. This has to be done through Apple. The leads to a poor customer service experience. * If the customer uses their subscription through your website or moves to Android, they're still locked into the iOS subscription - making it impossible for them to upgrade/downgrade their plan. * Customer's subscription is tied to their iTunes account. This leads to confusion if they sign into your app while signed into a different iTunes account. I could go on. But having implemented Apple's subscription API, the frustration goes way beyond just the 30% fee (which is really my company's problem, not mine).
- m463 6y ago
  I tried to cancel a subscription on the phone with apple and it was a convoluted mess. I was literally thinking this was like getting credit for a returned cable modem with comcast/etc
  - scarface74 6y ago
    Have you tried cancelling an NYT subscription? On the iPhone settings -> click on your profile -> subscriptions.
    - fomine3 6y ago
      Maybe Apple was trying to make it easier to cancel the subscription by make it cancelable on settings, but it's actually confusing.
      - kohtatsu 6y ago
        It really does feel half-baked.
      - kgc 6y ago
        I like that I can cancel all my subscriptions from one spot. Imagine if you had to dig through each app to figure out how to cancel.
m463 6y ago
many things are worse for apple users. You cannot know what your apps are doing. You cannot know when they are running. You cannot know what communications are taking place in the background. "content blockers" are opt-out. When combined with the above, how can you possibly opt-out? Apple promotes "privacy" as a marketing term, yet actively creates systems to degrade your privacy (ibeacon bluetooth beacons, deep links, preview links, advertising identifiers) and prevents systems from helping your privacy (little snitch for ios? adblockers?)
bubblethink 6y ago
You get almost no ownership rights when you purchase something electronic/digital. All the ownership/freedom arguments run counter to DMCA, and I see no possibility of such an argument working in the US. The economic argument is the only one that may work in courts.
scarface74 6y ago
And now macOS is adopting the worst of iOS' draconian policies. You won't be able to run non-notarized apps on macOS on Apple Silicon based computers at all. This is not true. You can still run non notarized apps by control (?) clicking the first time.
jobu 6y ago
> If you are an app that exists on other platforms, and/or accepts payments on other platforms, you can't describe that or even link to it, from your iOS app. Your users need to know that the alternative options exist on their own. See the Netflix sign in screen for a nice example, but realize that 99% of apps won't get away with that, only apps the size of Netflix can. I'm really not sure what you're trying to say here. Apple changed the rules about account creation and outside payments/subscriptions in 2016(?) and they apply to every app now.
redwall_hp 6y ago
Yeah, while there are obvious issues with the old "30% cut from Spotify and Amazon ebook sales, and we just so happen to compete in those areas" situation...I'm more disturbed by the undue influence over what is the primary computing device of most people. We've seen, time and time again, Apple ban apps for their "corporate moralism" reasons. Most notably, they throw a fit about nudity and reject apps over it. (Including social media apps where such content is accessible.) They also started banning "vaping related" apps, some of which are for controlling hardware, apparently. Philosophically, I have an issue with a company gatekeeping the software you run on your computing device, for any reason. It's not anyone's place to do that. This could all be avoided with a legal mandate blocking such gatekeeping. The 30% issue is mitigated if you can install apps over the web, as well.
arvinsim 6y ago
> * You cannot install apps on an iPhone (even on a phone that you own) without paying Apple. Without a developer account, an app that you build and self sign works for only 7 days. I was excited to learn Swift last year but this killed my enthusiasm for making iOS apps.

by tsycho 6y ago

anupamchugh 6y ago

> Without a developer account, an app that you build and self sign works for only 7 days. Can you elaborate on this? I have seen apps working for more than 7 days once installed.

MarioMan 6y ago
Self-signing outside of the developer program lasts for 7 days. Historically, it used to last for a month. If you are part of the developer program, self-signing lasts for one year.

stassats 6y ago

> * And now macOS is adopting the worst of iOS' draconian policies. You won't be able to run non-notarized apps on macOS on Apple Silicon based computers at all. Where did you get that information and what makes Apple Silicon different here?

dmoy 6y ago
Some sort of security hypervisor on the chip?
- stassats 6y ago
  I don't think you need any hardware support for that. And notarization already exists on intel macs, just that it doesn't prevent you from launching non-notarized binaries.
Rebelgecko 6y ago
It was discussed in this article and a bit in the comments yesterday: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24217116 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24217116
supermatt 6y ago
https://developer.apple.com/documentation/macos-release-notes/macos-big-sur-11-universal-apps-beta-release-notes https://developer.apple.com/documentation/macos-release-note... "any executable must be signed with a valid signature before it’s allowed to run"
- stassats 6y ago
  > There isn’t a specific identity requirement for this signature: a simple ad-hoc signature issued locally is sufficient, which includes signatures which are now generated automatically by the linker. This new behavior doesn’t change the long-established policy that our users and developers can run arbitrary code on their Macs Ok, not really true.
  - 6y ago

LolWolf 6y ago

> And now macOS is adopting the worst of iOS' draconian policies. You won't be able to run non-notarized apps on macOS on Apple Silicon based computers at all. Do you have a source for this? I certainly haven't read this anywhere, but I also haven't been keeping a super close eye lately! This would both be really sad and would also essentially destroy the entire OSS community in macOS. (So I'd be very surprised if Apple actually made this change. It would also mean every numerical scientist would have to migrate off the Apple ecosystem, which would be a shame.)

supermatt 6y ago
https://developer.apple.com/documentation/macos-release-notes/macos-big-sur-11-universal-apps-beta-release-notes https://developer.apple.com/documentation/macos-release-note... "any executable must be signed with a valid signature before it’s allowed to run"
- scarface74 6y ago
  “This page is specific to the Developer Transition Kit”
  - danShumway 6y ago
    Do you genuinely, honestly believe that this policy isn't going to be expanded? The same way that we believed the original signing requirements would only be used to block specific malware, and not to enforce general policies? There are already system-level APIs that are restricted to the Mac app store[0]. If you want to use Wireguard on Mac without going through the store, your best option is probably using the command line. That's crazy; in order to get a free VPN client with a GUI running, I'm being forced to give Apple a credit card number and an email address, and there's nothing the devs can do to get around that requirement. [0]: https://lists.zx2c4.com/pipermail/wireguard/2019-February/003853.html https://lists.zx2c4.com/pipermail/wireguard/2019-February/00...
    - scarface74 6y ago

draw_down 6y ago

The submission isn’t about these things, though.

huhtenberg 6y ago

> You cannot install apps on... a phone that you own without paying Apple THIS is the principal issue. I cannot indeed install what I want on a device that I own. This is absolutely ridiculous.

zepto 6y ago
Then don’t buy an iPhone? It’s sold as a closed ecosystem, and we all know that’s what it is. I’ve been seriously looking at this: https://www.pine64.org/pinephone/ https://www.pine64.org/pinephone/ If we want an open ecosystem, we need to support it.
- Apocryphon 6y ago
  Alternatively, jailbreak an iPhone.
- wayneftw 6y ago
  My customers have iPhones. They want to install some private, custom business software that I built for them. Most of the time, I can build a web app to satisfy their needs. Sometimes I can't and that's when things get really annoying. iPhones have 50% of the market in the US where I do business. Either I have to go through their review process or register for the Enterprise app development program. All for phones that they already made money on when they sold it to us. Maybe another option for iPhone users is to form a giant co-op corporation, get a D&B number, "hire" everybody who wants custom apps as "employees" and start our own internal app store... it'll cost us $299 per year. Anyone interested?
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - zepto 6y ago
    You can do ad-hoc distribution, depending on how many users you are supporting.
- fomine3 6y ago

distantsounds 6y ago

imagine touting "security" while every single iphone gets jailbroken, over, and over, and over again. i don't understand the fanboyism. they are just as prone to flaws as microsoft, google, amazon, et al. they are not more or less secure than competing devices.

Nasrudith 6y ago
Not an Apple fan but I can recognize the "security" in a different sense we might find useful. It is more a delegation of the user mindset aspects of security than absolute "Cannot be exploited by state actor level funding and lacks zero days." Not a thing for me but I can see how those who don't aspire towards experrdom or even "well-educated amateur" would find it useful and call it such.
- romanoderoma 6y ago
  > and lacks zero days AFAIK mobile Safari is the primary source of vulnerabilities on iOS, zero days regarding it cost less than on other platforms on the black market (supposedly because they are easier to find/exploit) but Apple doesn't allow to replace it. That's a serious security flaw in my opinion.

cwhiz 6y ago

You cannot install Fortnite skins/characters/emotes/etc without paying Epic. Epic has a monopoly on the Fortnite Store. It sounds pretty ridiculous to type that... but it's the same basic argument. Apple is a minority player in the smartphone market. Every single person on this (HN) site has a competitive alternative if they don't like Apple policies. If it should be illegal for Apple to have a monopoly on their own product then it stands to reason that it should be illegal for Epic to have a monopoly on their own product.

whatshisface 6y ago
>You cannot install Fortnite skins/characters/emotes/etc without paying Epic. Epic has a monopoly on the Fortnite Store. Honestly, it would not be all that bad if the community could mod Fortnite to add their own skins, like you can in many other games.
kinlan 6y ago
Epic's not a marketplace because it's all first party outside of licensed deals, its not the same thing.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- danielscrubs 6y ago
  Sounds like horrible monopolistic practices, they should open it up
  - pests 6y ago
    Next time you have a garage sale, can I drop off my junk too for you to sell?
    - scarface74 6y ago
      Well, looking at the App Store, that’s exactly what Apple does....

somethoughts 6y ago

Epic's long term plan should be to enable cloud gaming support via an Epic mobile browser. Basically the Google Stadia approach (cloud based graphics rendering and only basic input controls and video decompression of the rendered graphics on the mobile device). - Use codecs the underlying mobile safari browser can support. - The browser stores your Epic login and launches to the default Epic homepage. - Enable the Epic browser to generically surf the web to provide multipurpose functionality to follow existing precedent set by Firefox and Chrome on iOS Appstore. At worst Epic can default to Mobile Safari itself if Apple still blocks a specific Epic browser (i.e. duplicate functionality) and show how people can make iOS safari shortcuts. Long live mobile web apps!

kinlan 6y ago
I'd love a version of this just on epic.com, but for now it seems you can use Geforce now on the web https://www.androidpolice.com/2020/08/20/how-to-play-geforce-now-in-your-chrome-browser-without-installing-anything-on-your-pc-or-linux-machine/ https://www.androidpolice.com/2020/08/20/how-to-play-geforce...
- somethoughts 6y ago
  Cool - just so happened to be looking at Geforce last night!
astlouis44 6y ago
Rather than cloud streaming, I'd much prefer to see them target WebGL/WebGPU + WebAssembly. At near native speeds, distributed through the browser with the option of adding a PWA to the home screen to really get that native app feeling!

phantom784 6y ago

If I may add to this: * Apple's payments API is very difficult to work with, especially compared to something like Stripe. * Developers cannot disable their customers' subscriptions, or offer refunds. This has to be done through Apple. The leads to a poor customer service experience. * If the customer uses their subscription through your website or moves to Android, they're still locked into the iOS subscription - making it impossible for them to upgrade/downgrade their plan. * Customer's subscription is tied to their iTunes account. This leads to confusion if they sign into your app while signed into a different iTunes account. I could go on. But having implemented Apple's subscription API, the frustration goes way beyond just the 30% fee (which is really my company's problem, not mine).

m463 6y ago
I tried to cancel a subscription on the phone with apple and it was a convoluted mess. I was literally thinking this was like getting credit for a returned cable modem with comcast/etc
- scarface74 6y ago
  Have you tried cancelling an NYT subscription? On the iPhone settings -> click on your profile -> subscriptions.
  - fomine3 6y ago
    Maybe Apple was trying to make it easier to cancel the subscription by make it cancelable on settings, but it's actually confusing.
    - kohtatsu 6y ago
      It really does feel half-baked.
    - kgc 6y ago
      I like that I can cancel all my subscriptions from one spot. Imagine if you had to dig through each app to figure out how to cancel.

m463 6y ago

many things are worse for apple users. You cannot know what your apps are doing. You cannot know when they are running. You cannot know what communications are taking place in the background. "content blockers" are opt-out. When combined with the above, how can you possibly opt-out? Apple promotes "privacy" as a marketing term, yet actively creates systems to degrade your privacy (ibeacon bluetooth beacons, deep links, preview links, advertising identifiers) and prevents systems from helping your privacy (little snitch for ios? adblockers?)

bubblethink 6y ago

You get almost no ownership rights when you purchase something electronic/digital. All the ownership/freedom arguments run counter to DMCA, and I see no possibility of such an argument working in the US. The economic argument is the only one that may work in courts.

scarface74 6y ago

And now macOS is adopting the worst of iOS' draconian policies. You won't be able to run non-notarized apps on macOS on Apple Silicon based computers at all. This is not true. You can still run non notarized apps by control (?) clicking the first time.

jobu 6y ago

> If you are an app that exists on other platforms, and/or accepts payments on other platforms, you can't describe that or even link to it, from your iOS app. Your users need to know that the alternative options exist on their own. See the Netflix sign in screen for a nice example, but realize that 99% of apps won't get away with that, only apps the size of Netflix can. I'm really not sure what you're trying to say here. Apple changed the rules about account creation and outside payments/subscriptions in 2016(?) and they apply to every app now.

redwall_hp 6y ago

Yeah, while there are obvious issues with the old "30% cut from Spotify and Amazon ebook sales, and we just so happen to compete in those areas" situation...I'm more disturbed by the undue influence over what is the primary computing device of most people. We've seen, time and time again, Apple ban apps for their "corporate moralism" reasons. Most notably, they throw a fit about nudity and reject apps over it. (Including social media apps where such content is accessible.) They also started banning "vaping related" apps, some of which are for controlling hardware, apparently. Philosophically, I have an issue with a company gatekeeping the software you run on your computing device, for any reason. It's not anyone's place to do that. This could all be avoided with a legal mandate blocking such gatekeeping. The 30% issue is mitigated if you can install apps over the web, as well.

arvinsim 6y ago

> * You cannot install apps on an iPhone (even on a phone that you own) without paying Apple. Without a developer account, an app that you build and self sign works for only 7 days. I was excited to learn Swift last year but this killed my enthusiasm for making iOS apps.