5 ms·

Because "great for developers" just shouldn't matter. It should be about what the consumers want.

by clansimus 6y ago

tombert 6y ago
A worse time for developers means worse apps, worse apps means less-happy consumers. They aren't mutually exclusive.
- dodobirdlord 6y ago
  It doesn’t follow at all that a worse time for developers means worse apps or less-happy consumers. Any time Apple enforces any kind of standard it’s “worse for developers”. I’m sure lots of developers are annoyed with Apple’s approach to fine-grained and highly visible app permissions, and wish they could just have full access to the user’s device. Screwing those people over is obviously good.
  - stephc_int13 6y ago
    As a developer I am happy that the end-user can trust the platform, this is always better for business. I think it should be rephrased in this way: what is good for the ecosystem is good for the end-users.
    - judge2020 6y ago
      And the execs at $adtech23 are absolutely furious about that; maybe the developers too, since it makes their job harder.
  - tombert 6y ago
    > It doesn’t follow at all that a worse time for developers means worse apps or less-happy consumers Sure, it's not guaranteed to be a net positive for consumers but it's correlated. Admittedly not exactly the same, but the Sega Saturn had trouble attracting developers because it was really difficult to develop on, despite the hardware being pretty good. As a result, people who bought a Saturn ended up getting fewer and worse versions of games. I agree that they shouldn't necessarily always always do everything to appeal to developers, there's a balance, and I'm not suggesting that we get rid of community guidelines and the like, I'm just saying that the more difficult it is for a developer (or anyone) to do something, the less likely they are to do a good job at it, if they do it at at all. Worse apps means a worse experience.
- tshaddox 6y ago
  That's absolutely not true. Developers can and often do have a hostile relationship with consumers who use their software. The most obvious example of this is malware developers. Operating systems and software distribution platforms often have rules to prevent malware. That's clearly a restriction on developers but (if done well) it means better apps for consumers. I think the same can be said for less obvious cases, like adware, tracking, shady free trial or subscription plans, bait and switch pricing in e-commerce, and many other antipatterns or dark patterns.
- therouwboat 6y ago
  Im pretty unhappy with epic store exlusives since they have no linux client.
- larme 6y ago
  "Developers" nowadays (except some indie shop) are just the enemy of user. They try to squeeze money out of users as much as possible. On the other hand Apple try to squeeze money by asking consumer to pay the apple tax, but at least they try to be reasonable on the privacy issue. Choose which side you like, or just use open source software.
nicetryguy 6y ago
That's an easy opinion to have when it's not your livelihood. Does consumer centric focus necessitate draconian developer policies?
- cafed00d 6y ago
  > That's an easy opinion to have when it's not your livelihood. Isn't this sensationalist? Developers, just like Apple or any other software maker, can be incentivized to work _against_ the consumer. PC on '00s had many developers whose livelihood compelled them to bundle their apps as "free trials" in PCs. As a user, I had to deal with pop-up after pop-up asking me to buy the full thing; each of those apps took up disk space, power and, most importantly, my brain cells. ugh. Developer livelihoods are not as important as a frustration-free user experience. >Does consumer centric focus necessitate draconian developer policies? >Who do you think makes all of those wonderful apps "consumers want" anyway? Agreed. Apps from 3rd party devs makes the user experience wonderful. But not _solely_ because of the developer.
  - nicetryguy 6y ago
    >>> Because "great for developers" just shouldn't matter. It should be about what the consumers want. >> That's an easy opinion to have when it's not your livelihood. > Isn't this sensationalist? No.
- yazaddaruvala 6y ago
  I appreciate that Apple's high bar makes it harder for all iOS developers to make a living. However, with all respect, there might just be too many iOS developers. Apple setting an increasingly high quality bar that weeds out the bottom 90% of all iOS developers might seem draconian for anyone weeded out but this is competition at its finest. It is how markets in general ensure the best quality product. Obviously, there is also the matter of "How much should Apple get paid to enforce these policies? Is 30% too high for in-app-purchases?" those are good numbers to negotiate. But frankly all non-FOSS software products I've encountered before and after iOS continually proved they need developer policies to ensure they are built to be long-term customer centric.
- 6y ago
strictnein 6y ago
The developers are the ones being abused by Apple, so yeah, it should matter. Companies shouldn't be allowed to abuse their market dominance, regardless of whether the abused are other companies or consumers.

Because "great for developers" just shouldn't matter. It should be about what the consumers want.

tombert 6y ago

A worse time for developers means worse apps, worse apps means less-happy consumers. They aren't mutually exclusive.

dodobirdlord 6y ago
It doesn’t follow at all that a worse time for developers means worse apps or less-happy consumers. Any time Apple enforces any kind of standard it’s “worse for developers”. I’m sure lots of developers are annoyed with Apple’s approach to fine-grained and highly visible app permissions, and wish they could just have full access to the user’s device. Screwing those people over is obviously good.
- stephc_int13 6y ago
  As a developer I am happy that the end-user can trust the platform, this is always better for business. I think it should be rephrased in this way: what is good for the ecosystem is good for the end-users.
  - judge2020 6y ago
    And the execs at $adtech23 are absolutely furious about that; maybe the developers too, since it makes their job harder.
- tombert 6y ago
  > It doesn’t follow at all that a worse time for developers means worse apps or less-happy consumers Sure, it's not guaranteed to be a net positive for consumers but it's correlated. Admittedly not exactly the same, but the Sega Saturn had trouble attracting developers because it was really difficult to develop on, despite the hardware being pretty good. As a result, people who bought a Saturn ended up getting fewer and worse versions of games. I agree that they shouldn't necessarily always always do everything to appeal to developers, there's a balance, and I'm not suggesting that we get rid of community guidelines and the like, I'm just saying that the more difficult it is for a developer (or anyone) to do something, the less likely they are to do a good job at it, if they do it at at all. Worse apps means a worse experience.
tshaddox 6y ago
That's absolutely not true. Developers can and often do have a hostile relationship with consumers who use their software. The most obvious example of this is malware developers. Operating systems and software distribution platforms often have rules to prevent malware. That's clearly a restriction on developers but (if done well) it means better apps for consumers. I think the same can be said for less obvious cases, like adware, tracking, shady free trial or subscription plans, bait and switch pricing in e-commerce, and many other antipatterns or dark patterns.
therouwboat 6y ago
Im pretty unhappy with epic store exlusives since they have no linux client.
larme 6y ago
"Developers" nowadays (except some indie shop) are just the enemy of user. They try to squeeze money out of users as much as possible. On the other hand Apple try to squeeze money by asking consumer to pay the apple tax, but at least they try to be reasonable on the privacy issue. Choose which side you like, or just use open source software.

nicetryguy 6y ago

That's an easy opinion to have when it's not your livelihood. Does consumer centric focus necessitate draconian developer policies?

cafed00d 6y ago
> That's an easy opinion to have when it's not your livelihood. Isn't this sensationalist? Developers, just like Apple or any other software maker, can be incentivized to work _against_ the consumer. PC on '00s had many developers whose livelihood compelled them to bundle their apps as "free trials" in PCs. As a user, I had to deal with pop-up after pop-up asking me to buy the full thing; each of those apps took up disk space, power and, most importantly, my brain cells. ugh. Developer livelihoods are not as important as a frustration-free user experience. >Does consumer centric focus necessitate draconian developer policies? >Who do you think makes all of those wonderful apps "consumers want" anyway? Agreed. Apps from 3rd party devs makes the user experience wonderful. But not _solely_ because of the developer.
- nicetryguy 6y ago
  >>> Because "great for developers" just shouldn't matter. It should be about what the consumers want. >> That's an easy opinion to have when it's not your livelihood. > Isn't this sensationalist? No.
yazaddaruvala 6y ago
I appreciate that Apple's high bar makes it harder for all iOS developers to make a living. However, with all respect, there might just be too many iOS developers. Apple setting an increasingly high quality bar that weeds out the bottom 90% of all iOS developers might seem draconian for anyone weeded out but this is competition at its finest. It is how markets in general ensure the best quality product. Obviously, there is also the matter of "How much should Apple get paid to enforce these policies? Is 30% too high for in-app-purchases?" those are good numbers to negotiate. But frankly all non-FOSS software products I've encountered before and after iOS continually proved they need developer policies to ensure they are built to be long-term customer centric.
6y ago

strictnein 6y ago

The developers are the ones being abused by Apple, so yeah, it should matter. Companies shouldn't be allowed to abuse their market dominance, regardless of whether the abused are other companies or consumers.