7 ms·

I love how here on HN this is being painted as if it were some heinous underhanded move by Apple. Meanwhile in my Twitter thread, every single Indie developer

I love how here on HN this is being painted as if it were some heinous underhanded move by Apple. Meanwhile in my Twitter thread, every single Indie developer I follow is over the moon about it. Whatever the end goal here, Apple is helping the smallest developers the most here. And yes, there are a lot of places Apple can do better, but the cynicism around this is overblown.

swiley 6y ago
Right, the app store is an issue for users not developers already invested in Apple's platform. That's probably a PR goal for Apple, to turn users and developers for other platforms into one group and iOS developers into another group.
lux 6y ago
This absolutely improves the situation for a lot of indie developers, but praising Apple for it is short-term thinking. It's a strategic move, and it's not cynical to recognize that.
- ogre_codes 6y ago
  > praising Apple for it is short-term thinking. Praising Apple for doing the right thing for small developers is not "Short Term thinking". It's a good first step, It should be recognized as such. There is a lot of room for improvement, but whining about something that puts millions of dollars in the pockets of indie developers is just not cool.
  - zamadatix 6y ago
    Something can be better than it was before and still not be good enough. There is no need to cast things in a single light.
  - mchusma 6y ago
    The issue is they are trying to make 15% seem reasonable. 1.5% is unreasonable. They provide developers negative value, it's just a tax on all transactions.
    - imtringued 6y ago
      They only have to shut up whiny tech giants complaining about the cut. This thing started with greed and will end with greed. Small developers and users don't matter.
    - ogre_codes 6y ago
      Last I checked, 15% is closer to zero than 30% so it's objectively better. Nobody is saying it's perfect or that there isn't a lot of room for improvement.
      - bogwog 6y ago
        Yet the fact remains that what they’re doing is still not good. It’s a bad thing. Them taking a 15% cut for no reason other than they can is bad, and evil. The reason people shouldn’t be praising them for loosening their iron grip ever so slightly is because they are currently in the midst of the most antitrust scrutiny they’ve ever had to worry about. With that context, this 15% reduction is clearly nothing more than an underhanded deflection tactic. The legal system is the only thing that’s going to help “indie” developers. Apple themselves are not going to do it. They’ve shown nothing but more and more disdain towards competition over these past 10 years, and the only time that has started to change is when an actual legal threat appeared. I don’t even know why I bother writing this, since it’s all obvious. And even though it’s obvious, some people continue to ignore it and come up with excuses for this company for some reason. I don’t know what that reason is, but I doubt logical arguments are going to make a difference. Hopefully the courts aren't the same way.
        ogre_codes 6y ago
        Can we at least agree that this is 50% less bad. Or perhaps 25% less bad? 10%? Ultimately the impression I get from posts like yours is some people just think whatever Apple does is bad regardless of how it affects others.
        bogwog 6y ago
        > Can we at least agree that this is 50% less bad. Or perhaps 25% less bad? 10%? No, because as has been said many times already, it's a deflection tactic. Focusing on whether 15% is less bad than 30% is a bad thing to do because it accomplishes exactly what Apple's underhanded deflection tactic seeks to accomplish. But if you really need that addressed, here's a response to your very important question: no, 15% is not less bad than 30% because it means Apple makes less money, and if Apple makes less money they might have to abandon their fancy new M1 chips, and the pace of technological progress will once again fall into stagnation. Sure, small devs will make some more money, but those small devs aren't giving the world shiny toys with rounded corners. > Ultimately the impression I get from posts like yours is some people just think whatever Apple does is bad regardless of how it affects others. So if Apple releases a cure for cancer, you get the impression that I'll think that's bad? What is even the point of you writing this, is it an argument? Are you trying to passive-aggressively call me something negative? How does this even relate to the discussion?
  - hrktb 6y ago
    You have a point, but we can't ignore they are showing good will while being sued for abusive behaviour. Sure it's a step in the right direction, but it's much alike a kid giving his snack to one of his siblings when caught racketing their lunch money.
Siira 6y ago
Perhaps that’s because Twitter people are less well-versed in technology and its business models? This move is clearly moving towards a low local maximum.
- ogre_codes 6y ago
  If anything, it's the reverse since I'm talking about Twitter comments by independent developers who are directly affected by this. I'm pretty sure they are quite familiar with technology and their own businesses.
  - Dahoon 6y ago
    Not surprising that people that make money on this is more shortsighted than HNers that doesn't.
    - ogre_codes 6y ago
      It's good that people with 0 years of running a profitable business in the iOS store are more far sighted than people with 5-10+ years doing it. I guess? I mean... shrug
chii 6y ago
> cynicism around this is overblown. it isn't. By making a small concession here, apple prevented the law of society from opening up the walled garden (which is the bestest outcome for all, except for apple). A corporation only under take actions that it stands to benefit from - it has zero ounce of altruism, even if what it did seem altruistic.
- ogre_codes 6y ago
  > By making a small concession here, apple prevented the law of society from opening up the walled garden No they didn't. It's not clear if Apple would have ever been affected by government regulation here. It's even less clear if this would affect any potential regulation. This is purely speculation. > it has zero ounce of altruism Irrelevant and unknowable. While we can speculate about Apple's motivations, none of us have access to insider info on this so it is just speculation and ultimately doesn't matter. The simple fact is it helps Indies. Whether it's altruism or pure profit motivation, doesn't matter.
  - chii 6y ago
    > It's even less clear if this would affect any potential regulation. Regulation only happens when there's public pressure for such regulation. the argument by epic was that apple's 30% cut of revenue is too high. I don't agree because i don't see the %-take as the issue at all. Apple is framing the issue as far away from the real issue as possible - that of the device being locked down and you can only install via the app-store. By conceding to a 15% cut, they've steered the overton window of discussion to just the %-cut rate, rather than the actual issue of having a competing app-store (or at least side-loadable apps).
    - ogre_codes 6y ago
      This makes zero sense. All I'm getting out of your comment is it's bad because it makes fewer people hate Apple. Again... I still see plenty of room for improvement by Apple. Just failing to see how "Pay more to Indies" is bad.
whywhywhywhy 6y ago
HN users and Twitter users might both be developers but they're very different types of people that have very different views of the world of computing. To brush it off as "cynicism" is ignoring the full picture.

swiley 6y ago

Right, the app store is an issue for users not developers already invested in Apple's platform. That's probably a PR goal for Apple, to turn users and developers for other platforms into one group and iOS developers into another group.

lux 6y ago

This absolutely improves the situation for a lot of indie developers, but praising Apple for it is short-term thinking. It's a strategic move, and it's not cynical to recognize that.

ogre_codes 6y ago
> praising Apple for it is short-term thinking. Praising Apple for doing the right thing for small developers is not "Short Term thinking". It's a good first step, It should be recognized as such. There is a lot of room for improvement, but whining about something that puts millions of dollars in the pockets of indie developers is just not cool.
- zamadatix 6y ago
  Something can be better than it was before and still not be good enough. There is no need to cast things in a single light.
- mchusma 6y ago
  The issue is they are trying to make 15% seem reasonable. 1.5% is unreasonable. They provide developers negative value, it's just a tax on all transactions.
  - imtringued 6y ago
    They only have to shut up whiny tech giants complaining about the cut. This thing started with greed and will end with greed. Small developers and users don't matter.
  - ogre_codes 6y ago
    Last I checked, 15% is closer to zero than 30% so it's objectively better. Nobody is saying it's perfect or that there isn't a lot of room for improvement.
    - bogwog 6y ago
      Yet the fact remains that what they’re doing is still not good. It’s a bad thing. Them taking a 15% cut for no reason other than they can is bad, and evil. The reason people shouldn’t be praising them for loosening their iron grip ever so slightly is because they are currently in the midst of the most antitrust scrutiny they’ve ever had to worry about. With that context, this 15% reduction is clearly nothing more than an underhanded deflection tactic. The legal system is the only thing that’s going to help “indie” developers. Apple themselves are not going to do it. They’ve shown nothing but more and more disdain towards competition over these past 10 years, and the only time that has started to change is when an actual legal threat appeared. I don’t even know why I bother writing this, since it’s all obvious. And even though it’s obvious, some people continue to ignore it and come up with excuses for this company for some reason. I don’t know what that reason is, but I doubt logical arguments are going to make a difference. Hopefully the courts aren't the same way.
      - ogre_codes 6y ago
        Can we at least agree that this is 50% less bad. Or perhaps 25% less bad? 10%? Ultimately the impression I get from posts like yours is some people just think whatever Apple does is bad regardless of how it affects others.
        bogwog 6y ago
        > Can we at least agree that this is 50% less bad. Or perhaps 25% less bad? 10%? No, because as has been said many times already, it's a deflection tactic. Focusing on whether 15% is less bad than 30% is a bad thing to do because it accomplishes exactly what Apple's underhanded deflection tactic seeks to accomplish. But if you really need that addressed, here's a response to your very important question: no, 15% is not less bad than 30% because it means Apple makes less money, and if Apple makes less money they might have to abandon their fancy new M1 chips, and the pace of technological progress will once again fall into stagnation. Sure, small devs will make some more money, but those small devs aren't giving the world shiny toys with rounded corners. > Ultimately the impression I get from posts like yours is some people just think whatever Apple does is bad regardless of how it affects others. So if Apple releases a cure for cancer, you get the impression that I'll think that's bad? What is even the point of you writing this, is it an argument? Are you trying to passive-aggressively call me something negative? How does this even relate to the discussion?
- hrktb 6y ago
  You have a point, but we can't ignore they are showing good will while being sued for abusive behaviour. Sure it's a step in the right direction, but it's much alike a kid giving his snack to one of his siblings when caught racketing their lunch money.

Siira 6y ago

Perhaps that’s because Twitter people are less well-versed in technology and its business models? This move is clearly moving towards a low local maximum.

ogre_codes 6y ago
If anything, it's the reverse since I'm talking about Twitter comments by independent developers who are directly affected by this. I'm pretty sure they are quite familiar with technology and their own businesses.
- Dahoon 6y ago
  Not surprising that people that make money on this is more shortsighted than HNers that doesn't.
  - ogre_codes 6y ago
    It's good that people with 0 years of running a profitable business in the iOS store are more far sighted than people with 5-10+ years doing it. I guess? I mean... shrug

chii 6y ago

> cynicism around this is overblown. it isn't. By making a small concession here, apple prevented the law of society from opening up the walled garden (which is the bestest outcome for all, except for apple). A corporation only under take actions that it stands to benefit from - it has zero ounce of altruism, even if what it did seem altruistic.

ogre_codes 6y ago
> By making a small concession here, apple prevented the law of society from opening up the walled garden No they didn't. It's not clear if Apple would have ever been affected by government regulation here. It's even less clear if this would affect any potential regulation. This is purely speculation. > it has zero ounce of altruism Irrelevant and unknowable. While we can speculate about Apple's motivations, none of us have access to insider info on this so it is just speculation and ultimately doesn't matter. The simple fact is it helps Indies. Whether it's altruism or pure profit motivation, doesn't matter.
- chii 6y ago
  > It's even less clear if this would affect any potential regulation. Regulation only happens when there's public pressure for such regulation. the argument by epic was that apple's 30% cut of revenue is too high. I don't agree because i don't see the %-take as the issue at all. Apple is framing the issue as far away from the real issue as possible - that of the device being locked down and you can only install via the app-store. By conceding to a 15% cut, they've steered the overton window of discussion to just the %-cut rate, rather than the actual issue of having a competing app-store (or at least side-loadable apps).
  - ogre_codes 6y ago
    This makes zero sense. All I'm getting out of your comment is it's bad because it makes fewer people hate Apple. Again... I still see plenty of room for improvement by Apple. Just failing to see how "Pay more to Indies" is bad.

whywhywhywhy 6y ago

HN users and Twitter users might both be developers but they're very different types of people that have very different views of the world of computing. To brush it off as "cynicism" is ignoring the full picture.