7 ms·

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. Make

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
    which was my point
- saagarjha 6y ago
  People can complain about things and still prefer them. Just like you may dislike that your spouse cleans the dishes poorly, but you aren't going to switch to someone else for that reason.
teruakohatu 6y ago
> Maybe it's because the very rules you say developers hate are the ones users find appealing. Users may not know or care, but it is a stretch to say it is appealing to power users that they cannot run ish. It is not appealing to regular users that they can't buy books from within the Kindle app. Etc. Etc.
- threeseed 6y ago
  Amazon chose not to allow users to buy books from the app. Apple is not stopping them.
  - RHSeeger 6y ago
    That is disingenuous, at best. Apple takes a large percentage on purchases through the phone, so Amazon doesn't allow the purchase through it. It's not an arbitrary decision on their end.
    - jeremy_wiebe 6y ago
      My understanding is that Amazon also takes their chunk of flesh from book publishers/authors. Honest question then: how is that different? You can publish a book but if you aren’t on Amazon you drastically limit your exposure to potential readers.
      - II2II 6y ago
        You do run into a bit of a problem though: Amazon wants their cut, Apple wants their cut, the credit card company wants their cut, the publisher wants their cut, and there are likely others in the chain as well. That's not to say that each party doesn't deserve payment for their services, but there does have to be some limitations on how much they can take.
        philistine 6y ago
        And that limit should reflect how involved they are in the existence of the product. Is a credit card company intrinsically vital to the existence of a book? No. Then their cap should be reasonably low, like in Europe. Is Apple intrinsically vital to the existence of an ebook?
mortenjorck 6y ago
The question is this: Do you want to build within a certain set of categories Apple unambiguously supports? If you're building a to-do app supported by a monthly subscription, there's no shifting foundation there. If you're building a free-to-play game whose in-app purchases consist of "handful of gems," "bag of gems," and "trunk of gems," you have nothing to worry about from App Review. If you're building something without obvious precedent, however, trying to break new ground in the spirit of tech entrepreneurship – the answer is no longer so clear-cut. And so the App Store has in many ways self-selected developers for "safe" categories over the past decade, and yes, many of these have found great success (even if that half-trillion dollars tends to follow a power law with most of it going to the top earners in each category). What the App Store is definitively not, however, is conducive to innovation, experimentation, and risk-taking. There are outliers, of course, who have managed to do something novel within the constraints set down by Apple. But the biggest risk you take when building your business on the App Store is not that your product will fail in the market, but that Apple will prevent it from ever reaching the market.
- colechristensen 6y ago
  No, your biggest risk when building your business on iOS will be selling nothing, which is the most common result. So many people try and the expected outcome is nothing. People tend to like iOS better because the app ecosystem is better and it is that way because of restrictions. The restrictions aren't necessarily the exactly correct set to achieve the quality and profit apple seeks, but if they were all that terrible, the iOS experience would be terrible and it isn't. It'll essentially keep staying just bad enough that it doesn't get regulated to hell or abandoned by users... and no better. People are generally upset because the barrier for entry to create an app is low and the profit for winners can be very high, which means there are an enormous number of people trying and regulating that is hard.
  - xnyan 6y ago
    > People tend to like iOS better because the app ecosystem is better and it is that way I can’t speak for you but I know that I am prone (as most humans are I think) to project myself on others. I use iOS because it’s the only OS that runs on Apple-designed mobile silicon, which is extremely good in terms of performance. Also (and this is not a joke) my partner hates green bubbles. You may be surprised how many people feel that way, which I personally think is kind of a shallow opinion, but it’s a real reason more than one person has stuck with iOS. Some people buy it as a status symbol because it is a fairly expensive phone, beautiful (imo) and apple advertises well. Some people can’t buy it because Apple has a great and widespread repair network. I know for a fact that a great many people share your opinion and buy iOS phones because of the App Store, that said I don’t think it’s safe to assume it’s the only or even the primary reason people do it.
papaf 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. I don't know why you think that this comment is relevant given that iSH is free.
- csydas 6y ago
  You're focusing on the wrong part. The contention from iSH and many other posters in the thread is about AppStore rules being inconsistent which in turn makes it unsustainable as per the GP. The comment is that it's clearly sustainable and stable enough to allow persons to make a significant profit from it even which shouldn't be possible without some stability and predictability to the platform.
  - papaf 6y ago
    I believe that you are missing the central point. The AppStore rules are unsustainable for people that volunteer their time and expertise for free like the developers of iSH.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
cbsmith 6y ago
Some developers have made half a trillion. Others have lost probably a lot more. The problem with a closed ecosystem that capriciously removed apps isn't that you can't make money. It's effectively protectionism, with those allowed inside the walled garden having less competition and therefore an easier time taking profits. The problem is the risk.
- zepto 6y ago
  Except it isn’t actually capricious. It’s really pretty obvious what kinds of thing Apple shuts down.
  - cbsmith 6y ago
    The enforcement is capricious. I can't tell you how many conversations I've been involved in where there was discussion of, "yeah, but what are the chances this makes it through the AppStore?" and the answer is almost never 0% or 100%.
    - zepto 6y ago
      Almost all apps are not in his category.
      - cbsmith 6y ago
        That's kind of my point. There's a lot of apps that never get built because no one can justify taking the risk.
lern_too_spel 6y ago
Eventually users will figure out, and they'll figure out faster if the tech literate tell them. As an example of one of many things that are much worse on iOS, I share pictures of friends' and relatives' kids with them automatically via Google Photos. All but one of my relatives also use Android, and this works perfectly. One uses iOS, which doesn't allow background uploads, so I get pictures from them months after the event when they happen to have Google Photos open to reminisce, which is annoying for the rest of us, but a potential privacy invasion for them because we all know when they're looking at their old photos. For people who use the phone features a lot, the inability of iOS devices to conveniently use Google Voice and similar proxies is a nonstarter. For gamers, the inability of iOS to support Steam Link and Geforce Now is a nonstarter. For people who value privacy, the inability to install apps or get your location without telling Apple is a nonstarter. These are all due to Apple's policies. The hardware itself is nice, but because of all the restrictions, it isn't very useful.
young_unixer 6y ago
Most software developers in HN are not in it only for the money. Software is an essential part of our modern life: transport, communication, manufacture, finance, etc. depend on software. At least in those areas, we need reliable software and we need device owners to have control over their devices. We need to have a good software infrastructure if we want to progress as a species. The current software landscape is bad, and Apple is actively trying to make it worse. If Apple made game consoles, it would be OK, because game consoles are not essential to our society, but smartphones have become essential to our personal lives.
- gverrilla 6y ago
  why do you think game consoles are not essential to our society?
  - smolder 6y ago
    They don't do anything essential. You could replace them with jigsaw puzzles and we'd be fine and likely better off in many ways, because that's less addictive and less resource intensive, too. We just wouldn't have as much fun.
  - young_unixer 6y ago
    If tomorrow we wake up unable to play video games, we would be kinda disappointed, but our life would keep going normally (unless you're a game developer). If we wake up unable to access banking, communication or transport, our life would be more or less ruined, for everyone.
    - gverrilla 6y ago
      I think a lot would actually change if we had no videogames. I'm pretty sure suicides and crimes related to mental health would increase. But it's only my opinion - I'm not a researcher.
- smolder 6y ago
  That last point is a big problem. When we require people to have smart phones then there is no more privacy from government surveillance. Their authority becomes more absolute, and any fear of populist upheaval is gone.
jariel 6y ago
"Maybe it's because the very rules you say developers hate are the ones users find appealing." This is fairly easily disprovable by the mere existence of Android - which has a healthy app market place, tons of great apps and is for all intents and purposes, just as secure. Google Play does a fine job of promoting good apps, keeping bad ones out, and I can still go 'off network' and download my IT app or whatever that doesn't conform to Google Play rules. There are no material negative side effects. If Apple adjusted their policy to match that of Google, users would have more choice, and be better off.
- catlifeonmars 6y ago
  I think it’s more likely that Apple users are self selected to prefer the Apple App Store model, similar to the way Android users are self selected. The mere existence of those two markets doesn’t really tell us conclusively what users prefer. You would need to control for other factors, such as user income, demographics, etc etc.
  - jariel 6y ago
    It's borderline 'conclusive' because there is literally no material difference between 'security' on either system, ergo, it cannot be a material choice for 'selection'. Only the 'appearance' thereof. Moreover, I really don't think Apple users in any conscious way are into this - I have never in my life heard a single user hint at this. If you were to ask Apple users 'If you could have a bunch more apps right now, that you do not have because of Apple's closed model, and that having those apps would in no way affect the security or integrity of your device' - would they say yes? Of course they would. This is getting absurd - the 'restrictions' on Apple, while based on some degree of legitimacy, are also, unambiguously a vector for them to pursue leveraging the control they have on their platform to make money. This isn't conspiratorial, my gosh, this is exactly the kind of position every business wants to be in, it's like the 'whole point'. They can milk their dominance and suck profits out of adjacent sectors and cover it with some other related policy? It's 'business gold'.
- josephcsible 6y ago
  Be careful: the Play Store has a bunch of problems too and is in some ways almost as bad as Apple's App Store. The real reason that Android is better than iOS is that you can sideload apps from third-party sources.
fxtentacle 6y ago
No, only 0.15 trillion [1] spread out over roughly 1 mio games and 3.4 mio non-gaming apps [2]. So that's a mere $35k in average lifetime value. But as anyone used to lying with statistics knows, the average revenue is much higher than the median revenue. In Apple's case, the factor appears to be 56x [3]. So the typical App Store app makes $630 in total over its entire lifetime. That's surely not enough to finance its development. Accordingly, I am convinced that pretty much all iOS developers lose money on their apps. A very few lucky winners get rich, and everyone else is treated as disposable. [1] https://www.cnbc.com/2020/01/07/apple-app-store-had-estimated-gross-sales-of-50-billion-in-2019.html https://www.cnbc.com/2020/01/07/apple-app-store-had-estimate... [2] https://www.statista.com/statistics/268251/number-of-apps-in-the-itunes-app-store-since-2008/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/268251/number-of-apps-in... [3] https://medium.com/@sm_app_intel/a-bunch-of-average-app-revenue-data-and-why-you-should-ignore-it-2bea283d37fc https://medium.com/@sm_app_intel/a-bunch-of-average-app-reve...
- ratww 6y ago
  You need to take into account that lots of apps rely on advertisement (especially these days), and another big chunk is made to interact with something else that makes the money (like Netflix or Amazon).

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
  which was my point
saagarjha 6y ago
People can complain about things and still prefer them. Just like you may dislike that your spouse cleans the dishes poorly, but you aren't going to switch to someone else for that reason.

teruakohatu 6y ago

> Maybe it's because the very rules you say developers hate are the ones users find appealing. Users may not know or care, but it is a stretch to say it is appealing to power users that they cannot run ish. It is not appealing to regular users that they can't buy books from within the Kindle app. Etc. Etc.

threeseed 6y ago
Amazon chose not to allow users to buy books from the app. Apple is not stopping them.
- RHSeeger 6y ago
  That is disingenuous, at best. Apple takes a large percentage on purchases through the phone, so Amazon doesn't allow the purchase through it. It's not an arbitrary decision on their end.
  - jeremy_wiebe 6y ago
    My understanding is that Amazon also takes their chunk of flesh from book publishers/authors. Honest question then: how is that different? You can publish a book but if you aren’t on Amazon you drastically limit your exposure to potential readers.
    - II2II 6y ago
      You do run into a bit of a problem though: Amazon wants their cut, Apple wants their cut, the credit card company wants their cut, the publisher wants their cut, and there are likely others in the chain as well. That's not to say that each party doesn't deserve payment for their services, but there does have to be some limitations on how much they can take.
      - philistine 6y ago
        And that limit should reflect how involved they are in the existence of the product. Is a credit card company intrinsically vital to the existence of a book? No. Then their cap should be reasonably low, like in Europe. Is Apple intrinsically vital to the existence of an ebook?

mortenjorck 6y ago

The question is this: Do you want to build within a certain set of categories Apple unambiguously supports? If you're building a to-do app supported by a monthly subscription, there's no shifting foundation there. If you're building a free-to-play game whose in-app purchases consist of "handful of gems," "bag of gems," and "trunk of gems," you have nothing to worry about from App Review. If you're building something without obvious precedent, however, trying to break new ground in the spirit of tech entrepreneurship – the answer is no longer so clear-cut. And so the App Store has in many ways self-selected developers for "safe" categories over the past decade, and yes, many of these have found great success (even if that half-trillion dollars tends to follow a power law with most of it going to the top earners in each category). What the App Store is definitively not, however, is conducive to innovation, experimentation, and risk-taking. There are outliers, of course, who have managed to do something novel within the constraints set down by Apple. But the biggest risk you take when building your business on the App Store is not that your product will fail in the market, but that Apple will prevent it from ever reaching the market.

colechristensen 6y ago
No, your biggest risk when building your business on iOS will be selling nothing, which is the most common result. So many people try and the expected outcome is nothing. People tend to like iOS better because the app ecosystem is better and it is that way because of restrictions. The restrictions aren't necessarily the exactly correct set to achieve the quality and profit apple seeks, but if they were all that terrible, the iOS experience would be terrible and it isn't. It'll essentially keep staying just bad enough that it doesn't get regulated to hell or abandoned by users... and no better. People are generally upset because the barrier for entry to create an app is low and the profit for winners can be very high, which means there are an enormous number of people trying and regulating that is hard.
- xnyan 6y ago
  > People tend to like iOS better because the app ecosystem is better and it is that way I can’t speak for you but I know that I am prone (as most humans are I think) to project myself on others. I use iOS because it’s the only OS that runs on Apple-designed mobile silicon, which is extremely good in terms of performance. Also (and this is not a joke) my partner hates green bubbles. You may be surprised how many people feel that way, which I personally think is kind of a shallow opinion, but it’s a real reason more than one person has stuck with iOS. Some people buy it as a status symbol because it is a fairly expensive phone, beautiful (imo) and apple advertises well. Some people can’t buy it because Apple has a great and widespread repair network. I know for a fact that a great many people share your opinion and buy iOS phones because of the App Store, that said I don’t think it’s safe to assume it’s the only or even the primary reason people do it.

papaf 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. I don't know why you think that this comment is relevant given that iSH is free.

csydas 6y ago
You're focusing on the wrong part. The contention from iSH and many other posters in the thread is about AppStore rules being inconsistent which in turn makes it unsustainable as per the GP. The comment is that it's clearly sustainable and stable enough to allow persons to make a significant profit from it even which shouldn't be possible without some stability and predictability to the platform.
- papaf 6y ago
  I believe that you are missing the central point. The AppStore rules are unsustainable for people that volunteer their time and expertise for free like the developers of iSH.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

cbsmith 6y ago

Some developers have made half a trillion. Others have lost probably a lot more. The problem with a closed ecosystem that capriciously removed apps isn't that you can't make money. It's effectively protectionism, with those allowed inside the walled garden having less competition and therefore an easier time taking profits. The problem is the risk.

zepto 6y ago
Except it isn’t actually capricious. It’s really pretty obvious what kinds of thing Apple shuts down.
- cbsmith 6y ago
  The enforcement is capricious. I can't tell you how many conversations I've been involved in where there was discussion of, "yeah, but what are the chances this makes it through the AppStore?" and the answer is almost never 0% or 100%.
  - zepto 6y ago
    Almost all apps are not in his category.
    - cbsmith 6y ago
      That's kind of my point. There's a lot of apps that never get built because no one can justify taking the risk.

lern_too_spel 6y ago

Eventually users will figure out, and they'll figure out faster if the tech literate tell them. As an example of one of many things that are much worse on iOS, I share pictures of friends' and relatives' kids with them automatically via Google Photos. All but one of my relatives also use Android, and this works perfectly. One uses iOS, which doesn't allow background uploads, so I get pictures from them months after the event when they happen to have Google Photos open to reminisce, which is annoying for the rest of us, but a potential privacy invasion for them because we all know when they're looking at their old photos. For people who use the phone features a lot, the inability of iOS devices to conveniently use Google Voice and similar proxies is a nonstarter. For gamers, the inability of iOS to support Steam Link and Geforce Now is a nonstarter. For people who value privacy, the inability to install apps or get your location without telling Apple is a nonstarter. These are all due to Apple's policies. The hardware itself is nice, but because of all the restrictions, it isn't very useful.

young_unixer 6y ago

Most software developers in HN are not in it only for the money. Software is an essential part of our modern life: transport, communication, manufacture, finance, etc. depend on software. At least in those areas, we need reliable software and we need device owners to have control over their devices. We need to have a good software infrastructure if we want to progress as a species. The current software landscape is bad, and Apple is actively trying to make it worse. If Apple made game consoles, it would be OK, because game consoles are not essential to our society, but smartphones have become essential to our personal lives.

gverrilla 6y ago
why do you think game consoles are not essential to our society?
- smolder 6y ago
  They don't do anything essential. You could replace them with jigsaw puzzles and we'd be fine and likely better off in many ways, because that's less addictive and less resource intensive, too. We just wouldn't have as much fun.
- young_unixer 6y ago
  If tomorrow we wake up unable to play video games, we would be kinda disappointed, but our life would keep going normally (unless you're a game developer). If we wake up unable to access banking, communication or transport, our life would be more or less ruined, for everyone.
  - gverrilla 6y ago
    I think a lot would actually change if we had no videogames. I'm pretty sure suicides and crimes related to mental health would increase. But it's only my opinion - I'm not a researcher.
smolder 6y ago
That last point is a big problem. When we require people to have smart phones then there is no more privacy from government surveillance. Their authority becomes more absolute, and any fear of populist upheaval is gone.

jariel 6y ago

"Maybe it's because the very rules you say developers hate are the ones users find appealing." This is fairly easily disprovable by the mere existence of Android - which has a healthy app market place, tons of great apps and is for all intents and purposes, just as secure. Google Play does a fine job of promoting good apps, keeping bad ones out, and I can still go 'off network' and download my IT app or whatever that doesn't conform to Google Play rules. There are no material negative side effects. If Apple adjusted their policy to match that of Google, users would have more choice, and be better off.

catlifeonmars 6y ago
I think it’s more likely that Apple users are self selected to prefer the Apple App Store model, similar to the way Android users are self selected. The mere existence of those two markets doesn’t really tell us conclusively what users prefer. You would need to control for other factors, such as user income, demographics, etc etc.
- jariel 6y ago
  It's borderline 'conclusive' because there is literally no material difference between 'security' on either system, ergo, it cannot be a material choice for 'selection'. Only the 'appearance' thereof. Moreover, I really don't think Apple users in any conscious way are into this - I have never in my life heard a single user hint at this. If you were to ask Apple users 'If you could have a bunch more apps right now, that you do not have because of Apple's closed model, and that having those apps would in no way affect the security or integrity of your device' - would they say yes? Of course they would. This is getting absurd - the 'restrictions' on Apple, while based on some degree of legitimacy, are also, unambiguously a vector for them to pursue leveraging the control they have on their platform to make money. This isn't conspiratorial, my gosh, this is exactly the kind of position every business wants to be in, it's like the 'whole point'. They can milk their dominance and suck profits out of adjacent sectors and cover it with some other related policy? It's 'business gold'.
josephcsible 6y ago
Be careful: the Play Store has a bunch of problems too and is in some ways almost as bad as Apple's App Store. The real reason that Android is better than iOS is that you can sideload apps from third-party sources.

fxtentacle 6y ago

No, only 0.15 trillion [1] spread out over roughly 1 mio games and 3.4 mio non-gaming apps [2]. So that's a mere $35k in average lifetime value. But as anyone used to lying with statistics knows, the average revenue is much higher than the median revenue. In Apple's case, the factor appears to be 56x [3]. So the typical App Store app makes $630 in total over its entire lifetime. That's surely not enough to finance its development. Accordingly, I am convinced that pretty much all iOS developers lose money on their apps. A very few lucky winners get rich, and everyone else is treated as disposable. [1] https://www.cnbc.com/2020/01/07/apple-app-store-had-estimated-gross-sales-of-50-billion-in-2019.html https://www.cnbc.com/2020/01/07/apple-app-store-had-estimate... [2] https://www.statista.com/statistics/268251/number-of-apps-in-the-itunes-app-store-since-2008/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/268251/number-of-apps-in... [3] https://medium.com/@sm_app_intel/a-bunch-of-average-app-revenue-data-and-why-you-should-ignore-it-2bea283d37fc https://medium.com/@sm_app_intel/a-bunch-of-average-app-reve...

ratww 6y ago
You need to take into account that lots of apps rely on advertisement (especially these days), and another big chunk is made to interact with something else that makes the money (like Netflix or Amazon).