3 ms·

The scammers need to iterate to discover the loopholes, learn how to best exploit them, and to adjust when the platform they are exploiting closes a loophole.

by jmull 6y ago

The scammers need to iterate to discover the loopholes, learn how to best exploit them, and to adjust when the platform they are exploiting closes a loophole. A cost per app release drives a stake into the general approach. It doesn’t stop scammers but makes it much harder to do on a larger scale. Meanwhile, legit developers spend hundreds or thousands or more hours on a good app. $100 in the first world just isn’t that much. At the very least the opportunity cost (e.g., the money that could’ve have been made if the time had been spent in a more convention job) easily dwarfs the amount. In lower-income places, then a commensurate amount makes sense.

ryandrake 6y ago
This would cut off pretty much all free hobbyist-built apps that have no intent to monetize, but actively develop and update. The $100/year Developer Center subscription is bad enough! If I’m releasing once a month, and making zero dollars, $1,300 a year is excessive—I just wouldn’t develop the app in the first place.
- flashgordon 6y ago
  This. I literally build apps that are 'utilities' for me and my family+friends. Paying 100 a year for the SDK is a cost of that but bearable. Now having to charge my family+friends just to release updates seems way too excessive!
heavyset_go 6y ago
I maintain several open-source apps for macOS. I don't use macOS anymore, and am not interested in investing in that platform, however users still get value from my apps. Right now, macOS treats those apps as if they're radioactive because I didn't spend the $100/year it costs to notarize the apps. The result is that some users suddenly think the apps they've been using are either broken or malicious. That $100 is already a barrier, if I had to pay more money to release apps at all for Apple devices, I just wouldn't. Which brings me back to my main point: > Many of these apps that game the App Store generate enough revenue that a $100 fee won't be a barrier to entry, but will certainly be a barrier to entry for students, hobbyists, and developers whose apps are pre-revenue. The cost barrier might stop a handful of script kiddies, but it will do nothing to stop the malicious apps bringing in $300k a month in revenue which are both more prolific and widespread. > Meanwhile, legit developers spend hundreds or thousands or more hours on a good app. $100 in the first world just isn’t that much. I don't know what country you're in, but I'm in the US and it's a country where not having $100 can mean not eating, making rent or buying medicine that you need. There are a lot of students, hobbyists and those that are trying to break into the industry who are in this boat. Your proposal would make it hard for them to release an app. There are also people in this country who are either wealthy enough, or their income is high enough, that they wouldn't notice a $100 change in their budget. Your proposal wouldn't affect their ability to release an app, but they would benefit from a lack of competition. In the end, users would suffer from the lack of competition, and people without means would be priced out of participating in the market.

by jmull 6y ago

ryandrake 6y ago

This would cut off pretty much all free hobbyist-built apps that have no intent to monetize, but actively develop and update. The $100/year Developer Center subscription is bad enough! If I’m releasing once a month, and making zero dollars, $1,300 a year is excessive—I just wouldn’t develop the app in the first place.

flashgordon 6y ago
This. I literally build apps that are 'utilities' for me and my family+friends. Paying 100 a year for the SDK is a cost of that but bearable. Now having to charge my family+friends just to release updates seems way too excessive!

heavyset_go 6y ago

I maintain several open-source apps for macOS. I don't use macOS anymore, and am not interested in investing in that platform, however users still get value from my apps. Right now, macOS treats those apps as if they're radioactive because I didn't spend the $100/year it costs to notarize the apps. The result is that some users suddenly think the apps they've been using are either broken or malicious. That $100 is already a barrier, if I had to pay more money to release apps at all for Apple devices, I just wouldn't. Which brings me back to my main point: > Many of these apps that game the App Store generate enough revenue that a $100 fee won't be a barrier to entry, but will certainly be a barrier to entry for students, hobbyists, and developers whose apps are pre-revenue. The cost barrier might stop a handful of script kiddies, but it will do nothing to stop the malicious apps bringing in $300k a month in revenue which are both more prolific and widespread. > Meanwhile, legit developers spend hundreds or thousands or more hours on a good app. $100 in the first world just isn’t that much. I don't know what country you're in, but I'm in the US and it's a country where not having $100 can mean not eating, making rent or buying medicine that you need. There are a lot of students, hobbyists and those that are trying to break into the industry who are in this boat. Your proposal would make it hard for them to release an app. There are also people in this country who are either wealthy enough, or their income is high enough, that they wouldn't notice a $100 change in their budget. Your proposal wouldn't affect their ability to release an app, but they would benefit from a lack of competition. In the end, users would suffer from the lack of competition, and people without means would be priced out of participating in the market.