17 ms·

This isn’t sustainable. Software developers can’t build on a foundation that is constantly, capriciously shifting. This on top of the App Store's already-onero

This isn’t sustainable. Software developers can’t build on a foundation that is constantly, capriciously shifting. This on top of the App Store's already-onerous restrictions and the fact that it’s the only practical way to get your software on one of the world's largest computing platforms has already engendered a deep antipathy [1] among Apple developers, and there are no signs it’s getting better. Something has to give. 1. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23580762 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23580762

burrows 6y ago
Nah. If the current crop of developers leaves the platform then another crop will take their place.
- smnrchrds 6y ago
  You are being downvoted, but the entire video game industry is the living proof that you can mistreat your developers and use a high churn rate to make sure you never run out of them.
  - cblconfederate 6y ago
    Those are not third party devs, no?
    - ratww 6y ago
      Not in the given example, but one can make a case that console makers behave the same way Apple does regarding their closed platforms.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- intricatedetail 6y ago
  It's about your company values. If you put greed above anything else then you won't get business from me. I try to avoid companies who support Apple.
  - burrows 6y ago
    Ah yes, I too have seen that companies are punished for their greed!
threeseed 6y ago
iOS developers have made over a half a trillion dollars over the last decade on this unsustainable, constantly shifting foundation that they hate so much. Makes you wonder why they bother ? Maybe it's because the very rules you say developers hate are the ones users find appealing.
- nathias 6y ago
  Curious, people complain about the monopoly, yet they still purchase from monopoly.
  - ratww 6y ago
    The people complaining are developers, while the ones purchasing and defending it are users or are doing so from the point of view of users.
    - zepto 6y ago
      Developers don’t have to purchase Apple products or develop for Apple products either.
      - arvinsim 6y ago
        What? You need an Apple machine to use Xcode.
        zepto 6y ago
        Why would you buy one if you don’t like Apple?
  - int_19h 6y ago
    That's kinda how monopolies work, and why trust-busting laws were first devised.
    - nathias 6y ago
tyingq 6y ago
"Today we celebrate the first glorious anniversary of the Information Purification Directives..."
yakz 6y ago
They can build on it... developers have been building on it for years and making money doing it. Don't make an app that allows users to run unapproved software. I think that's a pretty clear rule. If your app makes money (directly or indirectly), pay Apple whatever portion of your revenue that Apple demands. I also think that's a pretty clear rule. If there's something that should obviously be regulated out of existence, it's allowing them to use terms like "buy", "own", etc. for platforms that you clearly do not control. You are renting the software and the device just comes with it.
- emteycz 6y ago
  Agreed. Nothing wrong with such business model, other than the deception.
- l3s2d 6y ago
  Absolutely. As much as I dislike Apple, their ecosystem works for them and their users. Unfortunately the general public isn't aware of the restrictions imposed on them until it matters, like when their screen is broken and they can't pay $$$ for a first party repair. We need regulation coining and enforcing accurate terminology for the relationship between vendors like Apple and Tesla, and their users. It's not ownership. If I can't run whatever software I want on hardware that I paid for, I don't own the hardware. Can you imagine if your mattress didn't work with third party bed frames? Or pillows?
  - alexvoda 6y ago
    This is something that should definitely be discussed a lot more. And in defining this new relationship we should also define the responsibilities of the parties. Like for example who is responsible for recycling. I believe such a relationship is fine as long as it is not confused with traditional ownership.
  - gameswithgo 6y ago
    Of course their ecosystem works for their users, those of us it doesn't work for have left. We are just encouraging the rest of you who actually enjoy computers to leave too, and warning app developers to avoid that platform if your app is actually interesting or if a lot of people's careers ride on it, since who knows what apple may decide is not acceptable in the future.
heavyset_go 6y ago
> Software developers can’t build on a foundation that is constantly, capriciously shifting. This is the conclusion that I came to, as well, as a developer of several open source utilities for Macs. Apple has fostered an ecosystem that is hostile to developers, but infinitely beneficial and profitable for Apple. It isn't worth the time investment when the rug can be pulled out from under me if Apple figures that they might benefit even slightly from doing so.
xwdv 6y ago
Do you want to make money building software, or do you want to see how far you can push Apple’s patience by building software that breaks clearly defined AppStore rules? This is not hard.
fxtentacle 6y ago
I believe it is sustainable if you're willing to burn through disposable 3rd party developers. From my experience, it always follow the same path. Some promising developer gets infatuated with Apple's supposed ease of use and looks at the shiny aggregate numbers like $155 billion paid out to developers. Said developer jumps through all the hoops and builds a great app. Users love it, but since competition in the app store is insane, the developer barely makes back his/her initial investment. Then Apple changes the APIs and rules, the app becomes unusable and/or expensive to maintain and over time the developer burns out and gives up. Thus, there's now an opening for the next promising developer to start building an app. As long as Apple doesn't run out of new developers happy to join the App Store, they can treat their 3rd party "partners" as badly as they want. It's kind of the same power dynamic that makes sure that hair saloons all over the world treat their employees badly.
- ZeikJT 6y ago
  I wish my city had a western-themed "hair saloon"! Curlers at dawn.
  - coded 6y ago
    Hah. No hanged nails at high noon.
BuzzwordBingo 6y ago
Seems more like they built an application which violated the App Store rules from the beginning and now want an exception carved out for them “because Linux” or something. Emulating a whole system that itself follows none of the apple walled garden restrictions is a recipe for failure.
- saagarjha 6y ago
  The argument is that enforcing App Store Review Guidelines inside a scripting engine is technically very difficult and usually not an issue provided the characteristics we mentioned exist regarding user intent. The other argument is that our scripting environment is substantially identical to all other environments inasmuch as review decisions made against us would apply to them, which leads to semi-absurd rejections.
enriquto 6y ago
> Software developers can’t build on a foundation that is constantly, capriciously shifting I have few empathy for these developers. They voluntarily accepted (and thus, promoted) Apple's obviously callous store conditions. They essentially agreed to play lottery with their work. Whatever bad happens to them, they had it coming.

burrows 6y ago

Nah. If the current crop of developers leaves the platform then another crop will take their place.

smnrchrds 6y ago
You are being downvoted, but the entire video game industry is the living proof that you can mistreat your developers and use a high churn rate to make sure you never run out of them.
- cblconfederate 6y ago
  Those are not third party devs, no?
  - ratww 6y ago
    Not in the given example, but one can make a case that console makers behave the same way Apple does regarding their closed platforms.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
intricatedetail 6y ago
It's about your company values. If you put greed above anything else then you won't get business from me. I try to avoid companies who support Apple.
- burrows 6y ago
  Ah yes, I too have seen that companies are punished for their greed!

threeseed 6y ago

iOS developers have made over a half a trillion dollars over the last decade on this unsustainable, constantly shifting foundation that they hate so much. Makes you wonder why they bother ? Maybe it's because the very rules you say developers hate are the ones users find appealing.

nathias 6y ago
Curious, people complain about the monopoly, yet they still purchase from monopoly.
- ratww 6y ago
  The people complaining are developers, while the ones purchasing and defending it are users or are doing so from the point of view of users.
  - zepto 6y ago
    Developers don’t have to purchase Apple products or develop for Apple products either.
    - arvinsim 6y ago
      What? You need an Apple machine to use Xcode.
      - zepto 6y ago
        Why would you buy one if you don’t like Apple?
- int_19h 6y ago
  That's kinda how monopolies work, and why trust-busting laws were first devised.
  - nathias 6y ago

tyingq 6y ago

"Today we celebrate the first glorious anniversary of the Information Purification Directives..."

yakz 6y ago

They can build on it... developers have been building on it for years and making money doing it. Don't make an app that allows users to run unapproved software. I think that's a pretty clear rule. If your app makes money (directly or indirectly), pay Apple whatever portion of your revenue that Apple demands. I also think that's a pretty clear rule. If there's something that should obviously be regulated out of existence, it's allowing them to use terms like "buy", "own", etc. for platforms that you clearly do not control. You are renting the software and the device just comes with it.

emteycz 6y ago
Agreed. Nothing wrong with such business model, other than the deception.
l3s2d 6y ago
Absolutely. As much as I dislike Apple, their ecosystem works for them and their users. Unfortunately the general public isn't aware of the restrictions imposed on them until it matters, like when their screen is broken and they can't pay $$$ for a first party repair. We need regulation coining and enforcing accurate terminology for the relationship between vendors like Apple and Tesla, and their users. It's not ownership. If I can't run whatever software I want on hardware that I paid for, I don't own the hardware. Can you imagine if your mattress didn't work with third party bed frames? Or pillows?
- alexvoda 6y ago
  This is something that should definitely be discussed a lot more. And in defining this new relationship we should also define the responsibilities of the parties. Like for example who is responsible for recycling. I believe such a relationship is fine as long as it is not confused with traditional ownership.
- gameswithgo 6y ago
  Of course their ecosystem works for their users, those of us it doesn't work for have left. We are just encouraging the rest of you who actually enjoy computers to leave too, and warning app developers to avoid that platform if your app is actually interesting or if a lot of people's careers ride on it, since who knows what apple may decide is not acceptable in the future.

heavyset_go 6y ago

> Software developers can’t build on a foundation that is constantly, capriciously shifting. This is the conclusion that I came to, as well, as a developer of several open source utilities for Macs. Apple has fostered an ecosystem that is hostile to developers, but infinitely beneficial and profitable for Apple. It isn't worth the time investment when the rug can be pulled out from under me if Apple figures that they might benefit even slightly from doing so.

xwdv 6y ago

Do you want to make money building software, or do you want to see how far you can push Apple’s patience by building software that breaks clearly defined AppStore rules? This is not hard.

fxtentacle 6y ago

I believe it is sustainable if you're willing to burn through disposable 3rd party developers. From my experience, it always follow the same path. Some promising developer gets infatuated with Apple's supposed ease of use and looks at the shiny aggregate numbers like $155 billion paid out to developers. Said developer jumps through all the hoops and builds a great app. Users love it, but since competition in the app store is insane, the developer barely makes back his/her initial investment. Then Apple changes the APIs and rules, the app becomes unusable and/or expensive to maintain and over time the developer burns out and gives up. Thus, there's now an opening for the next promising developer to start building an app. As long as Apple doesn't run out of new developers happy to join the App Store, they can treat their 3rd party "partners" as badly as they want. It's kind of the same power dynamic that makes sure that hair saloons all over the world treat their employees badly.

ZeikJT 6y ago
I wish my city had a western-themed "hair saloon"! Curlers at dawn.
- coded 6y ago
  Hah. No hanged nails at high noon.

BuzzwordBingo 6y ago

Seems more like they built an application which violated the App Store rules from the beginning and now want an exception carved out for them “because Linux” or something. Emulating a whole system that itself follows none of the apple walled garden restrictions is a recipe for failure.

saagarjha 6y ago
The argument is that enforcing App Store Review Guidelines inside a scripting engine is technically very difficult and usually not an issue provided the characteristics we mentioned exist regarding user intent. The other argument is that our scripting environment is substantially identical to all other environments inasmuch as review decisions made against us would apply to them, which leads to semi-absurd rejections.

enriquto 6y ago

> Software developers can’t build on a foundation that is constantly, capriciously shifting I have few empathy for these developers. They voluntarily accepted (and thus, promoted) Apple's obviously callous store conditions. They essentially agreed to play lottery with their work. Whatever bad happens to them, they had it coming.