20 ms·

but you pay for the distribution / tools / OS etc is a common sentiment I see here. No, the yearly fee should pay for that, and the user for the OS. And anyways

but you pay for the distribution / tools / OS etc is a common sentiment I see here. No, the yearly fee should pay for that, and the user for the OS. And anyways, what if I don't want to, why cant I distribute it myself?

jjtheblunt 6y ago
Is the cold rational Apple answer that you signed a contract when enrolling as an Apple Dev?
- damnyou 6y ago
  A contract can be declared unenforceable in court if it is against public policy: https://www.upcounsel.com/what-contracts-are-considered-to-be-contrary-to-public-policy https://www.upcounsel.com/what-contracts-are-considered-to-b... The goal should be to make Apple's app store model against public policy.
  - chrisseaton 6y ago
    > The goal should be to make Apple's app store model against public policy. Policy should not be written to attack an individual company that for some reason you've got a beef with.
    - zeusk 6y ago
      It's not just Apple, I think the fight shouldn't be about just fee but allowing 3rd party stores and applications that don't have an approval stamp from Apple. Imagine, if your Tesla refused to move if you didn't use Tesla approved tires which cost 30% more because Tesla charges the tire manufacturer 30% for approving them?
      - chrisseaton 6y ago
        > Imagine, if your Tesla refused to move if you didn't use Tesla approved tires which cost 30% more because Tesla charges the tire manufacturer 30% for approving them? Fine by me. Their business what they charge and how their product is designed, not mine. As long as there's a competitor. And there is.
        zeusk 6y ago
        Not for iOS realistically speaking. You have to switch to Android, your only other choice, and suddenly all your other Apple devices don't really work that well.
        tesmar2 6y ago
        Yes realistically speaking. Of course if you switch to a competitor things aren’t going to integrate as well. Perhaps you can immerse yourself in that ecosystem.
        jolux 6y ago
        Yeah except compatibility like that has never been a legal requirement and I’m not sure how it could become one either.
        valuearb 6y ago
        If you have to switch to Toyota it’s not going to do everything as well as your Tesla, otherwise Tesla wouldn’t exist. That’s a silly argument.
        zeusk 6y ago
        My argument is for interoperability and better 3rd party access to APIs within the OS. My argument is not that Android doesn't function as well, I quite liked it infact but all my other apple devices basically lost half their functionality without an iPhone and Apple won't give access to 3rd party developers or itself make those apps for Android. Apple won't even let 3rd party apps integrate with the system like their own do - which is why I wanted to shift away from an iPhone in the first place. Not because I hate or like Android, but because I can replace whatever parts of Google I don't like
    - damnyou 6y ago
      OK, fair. The goal should be to make models like Apple's app store, regardless of the corporation, against public policy.
      - tesmar2 6y ago
        Why? If someone wants to offer that it’s fine. But to force it is an unjustified intrusion into the market.
        damnyou 6y ago
        It's actually a completely justified intrusion into the market. To answer questions posed by others since I'm apparently posting too fast: The reasons governments should intervene are well-elaborated in the blog post under discussion. Governments worldwide already have plenty of control over what terms corporations can sell their wares to people on. For example, in Europe you must offer at least two years of warranty. Corporations are government-granted legal fictions, so a government is free to impose whatever constraints it wants on corporations. In return, corporations get plenty of benefits like the ability to declare bankruptcy and not have it hit the pocketbooks of its executives. I would be fine with a regime where if a corporation doesn't abide by the rules, its executives become personally liable for debts, for example.
        chrisseaton 6y ago
        But why?
        tesmar2 6y ago
        By what standard are you claiming justification besides “it has been done before”? > so a government is free to impose whatever constraints it wants on corporations Sorry this is just stated, not justified. I happen to think that the government should not have unilateral control.
        damnyou 6y ago
        It's the truth. Unilateral control is the reality, and I'm interested in exploring how to harness it to improve the lot of humanity. For example, I think Stripe should be able to compete with Apple to be a payment provider on Apple's platform. As I said, I would be a fine with a world where if Tim Cook doesn't want to play by the government's rules, he is jointly and severally liable for Apple's debts. There are real benefits that come with being a corporation. There need to be responbilities to society as well.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
judge2020 6y ago
Because Apple decided that only software they approve of can be used on machines they sell unless the user explicitly allows software Apple hasn't accepted (via ctrl-click). On iOS, Apple decided that users can't allow untrusted software at all. Users still end up paying $400-$1400 for phones that run this software, so the 'free market' has decided that users want a software model like this (otherwise Android would be an even bigger player in the US than it is now).
- zeusk 6y ago
  People still paid $1400 for PCs in 1999, nothing stopped US govt from suing Microsoft for bundling IE - let alone not allowing users to run "unapproved" software.
  - zaroth 6y ago
    Microsoft had 90% market share. And in the end they settled.
    - zeusk 6y ago
      By offering the user a choice for the browser, which is exactly what I want from Apple - a choice for app store, or the default maps app.
      - tesmar2 6y ago
        Petition them or switch to Android. No one’s forcing you to buy it.
        deleted 6y ago
        [deleted]
        slivanes 6y ago
        And yet Apple is forcing the lack of choice in an app store.
st3fan 6y ago
I have mixed feelings about this ... the yearly fee is $100 - i feel that is very much out of balance with what you get back in terms of cloud services, distribution, marketing, reach, etc. The danger of saying 'the developer membership should account for that' is that they will actually run the numbers and come back with MUCH higher yearly fees that simply push many small devs out.
- chrisseaton 6y ago
  $100 seems like basically zero for an app developer. Half an hour's billable work. Seems completely insignificant?
  - sitzkrieg 6y ago
    who's making $200/h on apps? not indie app devs
    - chrisseaton 6y ago
      Anyone working on apps at a big company in the US. I guess lots of indie developers work in their spare time while doing that kind of job full time?
      - deleted 6y ago
        [deleted]
- mikepurvis 6y ago
  I feel like the $100 is just supposed to be a token amount to provide a speed bump for tire-kickers, spammers, etc. If they were serious about it as a revenue stream, it would make sense to go with something more like the UE4 model, where it's free up until the point where you're a big fish, and then a more aggressive fixed fee kicks in.
  - vbezhenar 6y ago
    $100 probably is also a speed bump for open source developers who do not want to charge users.
Retric 6y ago
You can use the App Store effectively for free, just do what Amazon Kindle or Netflix does and have a separate website, without linking to it from the app. This is completely about the kind of splurge in app purchases that are terrible for consumers.
- paxys 6y ago
  What Amazon and Netflix do would absolutely not be allowed for a regular no-name developer.
  - Retric 6y ago
    First, Epic is hardly a no name developer. But secondly a great deal of apps work like this both big and small. The limitation is you can’t make purchases though an app by say asking for credit card numbers or put purchase links to your website from the app. There are well known and detailed App Store rules about this stuff, if you want details just look it up. For example all those 2 factor authentication app fits this model where it’s meaningless to download the app without a subscription.
  - imtringued 6y ago
    Yeah because regular no-name developers like Epic can't read the damn rules. It's quite simple. If you don't want to get booted off the app store then follow the rules. The rules are very easy to follow. If you offer a multi platform "content" app on iOS then users should always have the option to create a subscription account directly on their iOS device. It's perfectly fine to create an account on a different platform and use it in the iOS app but this should neither be required, nor be directly advertised in the app. Seriously, don't make random stuff up. Amazon and Netflix don't receive preferential treatment. If you want to make your own streaming app on iOS you can do that today as long as you follow the rules.
- sturgill 6y ago
  Unless Apple decides they won’t let you. This only works for “Reader” apps. For reference, see Basecamp’s Hey! offering.
- 6y ago
m3kw9 6y ago
Should? If you do the math, It doesn’t amount to much. Maybe it will cover the iTunes connect, but certainly not the OS
- m463 6y ago
  The OS should be the cost of doing business because frankly apple should COMPETE for developers.
zepto 6y ago
You can just distribute it yourself. Just pick a different platform.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
heavyset_go 6y ago
> but you pay for the distribution / tools / OS etc is a common sentiment I see here. No, the yearly fee should pay for that, and the user for the OS. And anyways, what if I don't want to, why cant I distribute it myself? And if you choose to distribute your apps yourself? Apple still requires you to pay the $100 a year Apple tax, otherwise macOS will treat your app as if it is radioactive[1], leaving users to think that your app is either broken or malicious. Apple has gone one step further, and now macOS on ARM Macs requires signed binaries, and it will not run unsigned ones[1][2]. [1] https://lapcatsoftware.com/articles/unsigned.html https://lapcatsoftware.com/articles/unsigned.html [2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25134352 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25134352
- Wowfunhappy 6y ago
  > Apple has gone one step further, and now macOS on ARM Macs requires signed binaries, and it will not run unsigned ones. Apple Silicon Macs will not run unsigned binaries, but the binaries can have any signature, so you can just generate one yourself and add it. There's no need for a developer account, or any other external party. And there are no issues with legacy support either, because ARM Mac binaries didn't exist until now (and the requirement does not apply to Intel apps being run via Rosetta). This really isn't a big deal. I was initially worried that mandatory code signing would prevent me from hex editing binaries (which is a thing I do sometimes), but I recently learned that codesign can replace a binary's existing signature. So even that shouldn't be a problem.
  - StavrosK 6y ago
    Right but you understand that this is just raising the temperature of the pot the frog is in.
    - simonh 6y ago
      Your just assuming it’s a pot and want to persuade me to jump into the freezing river instead. But Apple may have no intention to completely lock down the Mac. It may well be just a hot tub, and right now it’s quite comfortable. If it gets too hot, I’ll just get out.
doggydogs94 6y ago
You can distribute an iOS app yourself. Give the user the source code. Then then give them instructions on how to build the app with xCode and deploy it to their iOS device.
- Siira 6y ago
  Except we can’t deploy apps without a dev account. Corporate fanboys are the grossest.
Despegar 6y ago
The "yearly fee" could pay for it, it'd just be several billion per year. Their existing business model is the one that's best for Apple, users, and small developers.
Twisell 6y ago
However please note that they publish the whole development toolsuite needed for free without obligation. This was not the standard behavior of commercials OS in the 1990's. (not sure who pulled this first) So the 100$ annual fee is more like a contribution to be recognized as a professional developer with extended support and services. Heck if you work in a team you don't even need one account per developer. This somehow guarantees that each account is linked to an identifiable real world entity and that bad actors won't massively create fake account for free to muddy the water around illicit activities. So by imposing a relatively modest fee they improve both traceability and avoid spamming behavior. This sound like a sensible design. PS: I'm amazed by how on the same thread people can complain that the 1 million $ threshold for rebate is cruelly low AND that a 100$ entry fee is an unbearable tax. Internet trolling at it's finest!
- majewsky 6y ago
  > they publish the whole development toolsuite needed for free without obligation The hardware is not published for free. The minimum entry fee into, say, iOS development is 100$ plus the cost of a Mac Mini.
  - Twisell 6y ago
    Blimey apple is so hard onto us poor honest developers. Why don't they give a Mac to every human being so we all got equal opportunities to code? (That would actually be a great thing to do, but 2020 reminded me hardly that we don't live in a fairytale)
    - majewsky 6y ago
      That's not my point. The point is there is no technical reason for requiring a Mac for, say, iOS development. I get that they don't want to straight-up port XCode to Windows or Linux, but nowadays you could run it as a cloud service. The price of admission for something like that would certainly be less than keeping up with Mac hardware. They don't do it because it runs counter to their business model.
simonh 6y ago
So the developer of a free app used by 100 people should pay the same fee for app store distribution as the developer of a $10 app used by 50m people all over the world?
Cthulhu_ 6y ago
The yearly fee is NOT to pay for any costs; the fee is a tactic to keep low-effort spammy app developers out, and therefore to reduce the load on the review team. The $99 fee does not cover the costs and expenses that Apple does and has done for you as an app developer. Dropping it would not affect their revenue directly, but it would open up the floodgates of random app submissions. One could argue that the Mac hardware itself that you need to develop iOS apps is a similar barrier to entry though.
- jzl 6y ago
  It doesn't matter what the theoretical intent of the fee is. (Which would be impossible to prove either way.) They make a billion dollars from those fees. Source: https://www.zdnet.com/article/should-apple-raise-its-99-developer-program-fee-or-scrap-it-entirely/ https://www.zdnet.com/article/should-apple-raise-its-99-deve...
- zapdrive 6y ago
  99$ could be a fees to show "true effort" for some developers in the world, while for others it could a monthly salary. Also how can an app that has 500M downloads cost more to review than an app that has 500 downloads (considering both are paid apps and Apple charges 30% per download)?
  - Zenbit_UX 6y ago
    > 99$ could be a fees to show "true effort" for some developers in the world, while for others it could a monthly salary. Yup, that's why they do it...
cafed00d 6y ago
Sigh. It doesn’t matter if you don’t want to. You should go write an app for something else. You can’t distribute it yourself for precisely the same reason you can’t distribute a game to PS5 yourself, or for reasons you could never distribute apps to blackberry or some other device. As for the yearly fee covering costs, sure, you have a point. But remember, Apple could arbitrarily increase prices on that fee instead. Apple could charge directly for the tools. They could just tack on the 15% or 30% for the annual developer license for apps that some money-making m, non-free angel to them. We’d end up in the same argument. An app is not just a bunch of bits strung together. An app needs to have a commitment of support behind it. Part of “supporting” an app is using only the languages, compilers, apis, payment processors and distribution systems authorized by the manufacturer. And please don’t bring up PC software. PC app marketplace is a shitshow. Platforms like steam have made it more reliable recently. But they’re still not tightly integrated into the OS as they ought to be. If you really want users to control the entirety of the digital device then Linux & it’s partners are truly a worthwhile competitor. The fact that Apple’s device marketshare is larger just implies that the a significant chunk of human society (not skewed towards engineers or people in tech) agrees with Apple’s policy.

jjtheblunt 6y ago

Is the cold rational Apple answer that you signed a contract when enrolling as an Apple Dev?

damnyou 6y ago
A contract can be declared unenforceable in court if it is against public policy: https://www.upcounsel.com/what-contracts-are-considered-to-be-contrary-to-public-policy https://www.upcounsel.com/what-contracts-are-considered-to-b... The goal should be to make Apple's app store model against public policy.
- chrisseaton 6y ago
  > The goal should be to make Apple's app store model against public policy. Policy should not be written to attack an individual company that for some reason you've got a beef with.
  - zeusk 6y ago
    It's not just Apple, I think the fight shouldn't be about just fee but allowing 3rd party stores and applications that don't have an approval stamp from Apple. Imagine, if your Tesla refused to move if you didn't use Tesla approved tires which cost 30% more because Tesla charges the tire manufacturer 30% for approving them?
    - chrisseaton 6y ago
      > Imagine, if your Tesla refused to move if you didn't use Tesla approved tires which cost 30% more because Tesla charges the tire manufacturer 30% for approving them? Fine by me. Their business what they charge and how their product is designed, not mine. As long as there's a competitor. And there is.
      - zeusk 6y ago
        Not for iOS realistically speaking. You have to switch to Android, your only other choice, and suddenly all your other Apple devices don't really work that well.
        tesmar2 6y ago
        Yes realistically speaking. Of course if you switch to a competitor things aren’t going to integrate as well. Perhaps you can immerse yourself in that ecosystem.
        jolux 6y ago
        Yeah except compatibility like that has never been a legal requirement and I’m not sure how it could become one either.
        valuearb 6y ago
        If you have to switch to Toyota it’s not going to do everything as well as your Tesla, otherwise Tesla wouldn’t exist. That’s a silly argument.
        zeusk 6y ago
        My argument is for interoperability and better 3rd party access to APIs within the OS. My argument is not that Android doesn't function as well, I quite liked it infact but all my other apple devices basically lost half their functionality without an iPhone and Apple won't give access to 3rd party developers or itself make those apps for Android. Apple won't even let 3rd party apps integrate with the system like their own do - which is why I wanted to shift away from an iPhone in the first place. Not because I hate or like Android, but because I can replace whatever parts of Google I don't like
  - damnyou 6y ago
    OK, fair. The goal should be to make models like Apple's app store, regardless of the corporation, against public policy.
    - tesmar2 6y ago
      Why? If someone wants to offer that it’s fine. But to force it is an unjustified intrusion into the market.
      - damnyou 6y ago
        It's actually a completely justified intrusion into the market. To answer questions posed by others since I'm apparently posting too fast: The reasons governments should intervene are well-elaborated in the blog post under discussion. Governments worldwide already have plenty of control over what terms corporations can sell their wares to people on. For example, in Europe you must offer at least two years of warranty. Corporations are government-granted legal fictions, so a government is free to impose whatever constraints it wants on corporations. In return, corporations get plenty of benefits like the ability to declare bankruptcy and not have it hit the pocketbooks of its executives. I would be fine with a regime where if a corporation doesn't abide by the rules, its executives become personally liable for debts, for example.
        chrisseaton 6y ago
        But why?
        tesmar2 6y ago
        By what standard are you claiming justification besides “it has been done before”? > so a government is free to impose whatever constraints it wants on corporations Sorry this is just stated, not justified. I happen to think that the government should not have unilateral control.
        damnyou 6y ago
        It's the truth. Unilateral control is the reality, and I'm interested in exploring how to harness it to improve the lot of humanity. For example, I think Stripe should be able to compete with Apple to be a payment provider on Apple's platform. As I said, I would be a fine with a world where if Tim Cook doesn't want to play by the government's rules, he is jointly and severally liable for Apple's debts. There are real benefits that come with being a corporation. There need to be responbilities to society as well.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]

judge2020 6y ago

Because Apple decided that only software they approve of can be used on machines they sell unless the user explicitly allows software Apple hasn't accepted (via ctrl-click). On iOS, Apple decided that users can't allow untrusted software at all. Users still end up paying $400-$1400 for phones that run this software, so the 'free market' has decided that users want a software model like this (otherwise Android would be an even bigger player in the US than it is now).

zeusk 6y ago
People still paid $1400 for PCs in 1999, nothing stopped US govt from suing Microsoft for bundling IE - let alone not allowing users to run "unapproved" software.
- zaroth 6y ago
  Microsoft had 90% market share. And in the end they settled.
  - zeusk 6y ago
    By offering the user a choice for the browser, which is exactly what I want from Apple - a choice for app store, or the default maps app.
    - tesmar2 6y ago
      Petition them or switch to Android. No one’s forcing you to buy it.
      - deleted 6y ago
        [deleted]
      - slivanes 6y ago
        And yet Apple is forcing the lack of choice in an app store.

st3fan 6y ago

I have mixed feelings about this ... the yearly fee is $100 - i feel that is very much out of balance with what you get back in terms of cloud services, distribution, marketing, reach, etc. The danger of saying 'the developer membership should account for that' is that they will actually run the numbers and come back with MUCH higher yearly fees that simply push many small devs out.

chrisseaton 6y ago
$100 seems like basically zero for an app developer. Half an hour's billable work. Seems completely insignificant?
- sitzkrieg 6y ago
  who's making $200/h on apps? not indie app devs
  - chrisseaton 6y ago
    Anyone working on apps at a big company in the US. I guess lots of indie developers work in their spare time while doing that kind of job full time?
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
mikepurvis 6y ago
I feel like the $100 is just supposed to be a token amount to provide a speed bump for tire-kickers, spammers, etc. If they were serious about it as a revenue stream, it would make sense to go with something more like the UE4 model, where it's free up until the point where you're a big fish, and then a more aggressive fixed fee kicks in.
- vbezhenar 6y ago
  $100 probably is also a speed bump for open source developers who do not want to charge users.

Retric 6y ago

You can use the App Store effectively for free, just do what Amazon Kindle or Netflix does and have a separate website, without linking to it from the app. This is completely about the kind of splurge in app purchases that are terrible for consumers.

paxys 6y ago
What Amazon and Netflix do would absolutely not be allowed for a regular no-name developer.
- Retric 6y ago
  First, Epic is hardly a no name developer. But secondly a great deal of apps work like this both big and small. The limitation is you can’t make purchases though an app by say asking for credit card numbers or put purchase links to your website from the app. There are well known and detailed App Store rules about this stuff, if you want details just look it up. For example all those 2 factor authentication app fits this model where it’s meaningless to download the app without a subscription.
- imtringued 6y ago
  Yeah because regular no-name developers like Epic can't read the damn rules. It's quite simple. If you don't want to get booted off the app store then follow the rules. The rules are very easy to follow. If you offer a multi platform "content" app on iOS then users should always have the option to create a subscription account directly on their iOS device. It's perfectly fine to create an account on a different platform and use it in the iOS app but this should neither be required, nor be directly advertised in the app. Seriously, don't make random stuff up. Amazon and Netflix don't receive preferential treatment. If you want to make your own streaming app on iOS you can do that today as long as you follow the rules.
sturgill 6y ago
Unless Apple decides they won’t let you. This only works for “Reader” apps. For reference, see Basecamp’s Hey! offering.
6y ago

m3kw9 6y ago

Should? If you do the math, It doesn’t amount to much. Maybe it will cover the iTunes connect, but certainly not the OS

m463 6y ago
The OS should be the cost of doing business because frankly apple should COMPETE for developers.

zepto 6y ago

You can just distribute it yourself. Just pick a different platform.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

heavyset_go 6y ago

> but you pay for the distribution / tools / OS etc is a common sentiment I see here. No, the yearly fee should pay for that, and the user for the OS. And anyways, what if I don't want to, why cant I distribute it myself? And if you choose to distribute your apps yourself? Apple still requires you to pay the $100 a year Apple tax, otherwise macOS will treat your app as if it is radioactive[1], leaving users to think that your app is either broken or malicious. Apple has gone one step further, and now macOS on ARM Macs requires signed binaries, and it will not run unsigned ones[1][2]. [1] https://lapcatsoftware.com/articles/unsigned.html https://lapcatsoftware.com/articles/unsigned.html [2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25134352 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25134352

Wowfunhappy 6y ago
> Apple has gone one step further, and now macOS on ARM Macs requires signed binaries, and it will not run unsigned ones. Apple Silicon Macs will not run unsigned binaries, but the binaries can have any signature, so you can just generate one yourself and add it. There's no need for a developer account, or any other external party. And there are no issues with legacy support either, because ARM Mac binaries didn't exist until now (and the requirement does not apply to Intel apps being run via Rosetta). This really isn't a big deal. I was initially worried that mandatory code signing would prevent me from hex editing binaries (which is a thing I do sometimes), but I recently learned that codesign can replace a binary's existing signature. So even that shouldn't be a problem.
- StavrosK 6y ago
  Right but you understand that this is just raising the temperature of the pot the frog is in.
  - simonh 6y ago
    Your just assuming it’s a pot and want to persuade me to jump into the freezing river instead. But Apple may have no intention to completely lock down the Mac. It may well be just a hot tub, and right now it’s quite comfortable. If it gets too hot, I’ll just get out.

doggydogs94 6y ago

You can distribute an iOS app yourself. Give the user the source code. Then then give them instructions on how to build the app with xCode and deploy it to their iOS device.

Siira 6y ago
Except we can’t deploy apps without a dev account. Corporate fanboys are the grossest.

Despegar 6y ago

The "yearly fee" could pay for it, it'd just be several billion per year. Their existing business model is the one that's best for Apple, users, and small developers.

Twisell 6y ago

However please note that they publish the whole development toolsuite needed for free without obligation. This was not the standard behavior of commercials OS in the 1990's. (not sure who pulled this first) So the 100$ annual fee is more like a contribution to be recognized as a professional developer with extended support and services. Heck if you work in a team you don't even need one account per developer. This somehow guarantees that each account is linked to an identifiable real world entity and that bad actors won't massively create fake account for free to muddy the water around illicit activities. So by imposing a relatively modest fee they improve both traceability and avoid spamming behavior. This sound like a sensible design. PS: I'm amazed by how on the same thread people can complain that the 1 million $ threshold for rebate is cruelly low AND that a 100$ entry fee is an unbearable tax. Internet trolling at it's finest!

majewsky 6y ago
> they publish the whole development toolsuite needed for free without obligation The hardware is not published for free. The minimum entry fee into, say, iOS development is 100$ plus the cost of a Mac Mini.
- Twisell 6y ago
  Blimey apple is so hard onto us poor honest developers. Why don't they give a Mac to every human being so we all got equal opportunities to code? (That would actually be a great thing to do, but 2020 reminded me hardly that we don't live in a fairytale)
  - majewsky 6y ago
    That's not my point. The point is there is no technical reason for requiring a Mac for, say, iOS development. I get that they don't want to straight-up port XCode to Windows or Linux, but nowadays you could run it as a cloud service. The price of admission for something like that would certainly be less than keeping up with Mac hardware. They don't do it because it runs counter to their business model.

simonh 6y ago

So the developer of a free app used by 100 people should pay the same fee for app store distribution as the developer of a $10 app used by 50m people all over the world?

Cthulhu_ 6y ago

The yearly fee is NOT to pay for any costs; the fee is a tactic to keep low-effort spammy app developers out, and therefore to reduce the load on the review team. The $99 fee does not cover the costs and expenses that Apple does and has done for you as an app developer. Dropping it would not affect their revenue directly, but it would open up the floodgates of random app submissions. One could argue that the Mac hardware itself that you need to develop iOS apps is a similar barrier to entry though.

jzl 6y ago
It doesn't matter what the theoretical intent of the fee is. (Which would be impossible to prove either way.) They make a billion dollars from those fees. Source: https://www.zdnet.com/article/should-apple-raise-its-99-developer-program-fee-or-scrap-it-entirely/ https://www.zdnet.com/article/should-apple-raise-its-99-deve...
zapdrive 6y ago
99$ could be a fees to show "true effort" for some developers in the world, while for others it could a monthly salary. Also how can an app that has 500M downloads cost more to review than an app that has 500 downloads (considering both are paid apps and Apple charges 30% per download)?
- Zenbit_UX 6y ago
  > 99$ could be a fees to show "true effort" for some developers in the world, while for others it could a monthly salary. Yup, that's why they do it...

cafed00d 6y ago

Sigh. It doesn’t matter if you don’t want to. You should go write an app for something else. You can’t distribute it yourself for precisely the same reason you can’t distribute a game to PS5 yourself, or for reasons you could never distribute apps to blackberry or some other device. As for the yearly fee covering costs, sure, you have a point. But remember, Apple could arbitrarily increase prices on that fee instead. Apple could charge directly for the tools. They could just tack on the 15% or 30% for the annual developer license for apps that some money-making m, non-free angel to them. We’d end up in the same argument. An app is not just a bunch of bits strung together. An app needs to have a commitment of support behind it. Part of “supporting” an app is using only the languages, compilers, apis, payment processors and distribution systems authorized by the manufacturer. And please don’t bring up PC software. PC app marketplace is a shitshow. Platforms like steam have made it more reliable recently. But they’re still not tightly integrated into the OS as they ought to be. If you really want users to control the entirety of the digital device then Linux & it’s partners are truly a worthwhile competitor. The fact that Apple’s device marketshare is larger just implies that the a significant chunk of human society (not skewed towards engineers or people in tech) agrees with Apple’s policy.