4 ms·

> In the current model, the barrier to entry is pretty low. $99 gets you xcode, plus you need done hardware. Hundreds of dollars in apple hardware and software

> In the current model, the barrier to entry is pretty low. $99 gets you xcode, plus you need done hardware. Hundreds of dollars in apple hardware and software compared to zero dollars for MSVC community, zero dollars for android developer studio, zero dollars for linux toolchain or whatever. >Once you've made something you need to reach a market. A good market place (like a regular super market) brings together suppliers and customers. That market has costs. The cost of hosting the app store is essentially the cost of hosting a web service that lets you download and buy programs. The developers could easily host their own app store as a web page if iOS just facilitated running programs downloaded from the internet or loaded externally. Apple has built themselves a dam upstream and is charging everyone downstream for water-rights-as-a-service. >One model for costs is to charge each app the same amount. Say, for example $5000 per app submission. Lots of successful suppliers would like this model because it raises the bar for completion, and means they pay less money. >Another model is free-to-enter, but takes a cut of the sales. Successful products end up paying much much more than stuff no-one wants. The only fair model here is the one where 100% of apple's income comes from hardware sales alone. That is the only situation where you don't set up the user to be exploited by erecting these walls around what they can and cannot run on their own hardware. > If you develop for iOS you know the rules. They know the rules, and they know the rules are bullshit. What do you want them to do, throw their hands in the air and say "welp, them's the rules, I guess we can should never try to use our leverage or negotiate better rules cause that's just how it is I guess."

Someone 4y ago
> Hundreds of dollars in apple hardware and software compared to zero dollars for MSVC community, zero dollars for android developer studio, zero dollars for linux toolchain or whatever Apple’s software is free, and you need more than zero dollars for the hardware to run Android Developer Studio. Also, on both platforms you may need a few (or more than a few) phones and tablets for testing (you may be able to test on a simulator, but that doesn’t guarantee things work on the real hardware, doesn’t give you a good idea about performance, and certainly is not a good option for apps that use on-board sensors such as accelerometers) In the end, I think the difference in cost is between the cost of a PC and that of a Mac, so ballpark $500 in both cases, the phones to test on may cost more.
bruce511 4y ago
>>What do you want them to do, throw their hands in the air and say "welp, them's the rules, I guess we can should never try to use our leverage or negotiate better rules cause that's just how it is I guess." They can choose not to play. If Apple is not offering any value for their 30% then simply don't publish on IOS. If all the developers stop developing for IOS then the rules would change. Of course small developers have no power because individually they have no power, and they are not willing to pool that power collectively (ie unionize). They're trying to get the govt to act as a collective bargainer on their behalf. Which is likely to fail,because Apple is better at govt than they are. So yeah, I expect them to say "I can make more money elsewhere, so I'm leaving ios - the fact they don't suggests apple is adding plenty of value worthy of their 30%
- smoldesu 4y ago
  > Which is likely to fail,because Apple is better at govt than they are. Oh my sweet summer child.
nfcampos 4y ago
>The only fair model here is the one where 100% of apple's income comes from hardware sales alone. That is the only situation where you don't set up the user to be exploited by erecting these walls around what they can and cannot run on their own hardware. And that is what we call the slippery slope. Apple has created a successful product, therefore developers want to make money from it, therefore apple cannot charge a fee for access, therefore apple cannot charge for developer tools, therefore apple cannot charge for hardware (lest it makes the developers market smaller than it could be if phones were free)

Someone 4y ago

> Hundreds of dollars in apple hardware and software compared to zero dollars for MSVC community, zero dollars for android developer studio, zero dollars for linux toolchain or whatever Apple’s software is free, and you need more than zero dollars for the hardware to run Android Developer Studio. Also, on both platforms you may need a few (or more than a few) phones and tablets for testing (you may be able to test on a simulator, but that doesn’t guarantee things work on the real hardware, doesn’t give you a good idea about performance, and certainly is not a good option for apps that use on-board sensors such as accelerometers) In the end, I think the difference in cost is between the cost of a PC and that of a Mac, so ballpark $500 in both cases, the phones to test on may cost more.

bruce511 4y ago

>>What do you want them to do, throw their hands in the air and say "welp, them's the rules, I guess we can should never try to use our leverage or negotiate better rules cause that's just how it is I guess." They can choose not to play. If Apple is not offering any value for their 30% then simply don't publish on IOS. If all the developers stop developing for IOS then the rules would change. Of course small developers have no power because individually they have no power, and they are not willing to pool that power collectively (ie unionize). They're trying to get the govt to act as a collective bargainer on their behalf. Which is likely to fail,because Apple is better at govt than they are. So yeah, I expect them to say "I can make more money elsewhere, so I'm leaving ios - the fact they don't suggests apple is adding plenty of value worthy of their 30%

smoldesu 4y ago
> Which is likely to fail,because Apple is better at govt than they are. Oh my sweet summer child.

nfcampos 4y ago

>The only fair model here is the one where 100% of apple's income comes from hardware sales alone. That is the only situation where you don't set up the user to be exploited by erecting these walls around what they can and cannot run on their own hardware. And that is what we call the slippery slope. Apple has created a successful product, therefore developers want to make money from it, therefore apple cannot charge a fee for access, therefore apple cannot charge for developer tools, therefore apple cannot charge for hardware (lest it makes the developers market smaller than it could be if phones were free)