5 ms·

> Given Apple's general money-grubbing ways (see: the App Store), this is somewhat surprising. The age of it is the why. Steve was far less focused on service

> Given Apple's general money-grubbing ways (see: the App Store), this is somewhat surprising. The age of it is the why. Steve was far less focused on service revenue. Plus, podcasts sold iPods and iPhones.

Hamuko 3y ago
Apps also sold iPhones. They built an entire marketing campaign around the idea (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=szrsfeyLzyg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=szrsfeyLzyg). And yet they're trying to squeeze app developers for all they're worth.
- moolcool 3y ago
  The original iPhone didn't even launch with apps. A big part of the vision was that "apps" would be dynamic websites which you could create links to on your home screen. I think if the web tooling ecosystem was up to snuff at the time, we may not have an "App Store" as we know it today.
  - bombcar 3y ago
    Which is amusingly sad today, as so many "applications" on desktop and elsewhere are Electron which is ... a dynamic website.
    - moolcool 3y ago
      What's old is new again, for better or worse
    - dr-detroit 3y ago
      [dead]
- jasode 3y ago
  >Apps also sold iPhones. [...] And yet they're trying to squeeze app developers for all they're worth. It's because Apple was emboldened by the fact that the original June 2007 iPhone exceeded sales expectations of 10 million units without any 3rd-party apps. The App Store didn't exist until July 2008. In June 2007, consumers were getting in line to buy the so-called "Jesus phone" even though there were no 3rd-party apps ecosystem for it. (Look back at the hundreds waiting in line overnight to buy the first iPhone: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_iSE0bBgUsQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_iSE0bBgUsQ) So, Apple rationally concludes that 3rd-party developers need access to Apple's customer base more than customers need access to outside developers. Back in 2008, the developers en masse could have revolted and said "fuck the Apple iOS SDK, fuck the App Store, and they can fuck off with their stupid rules and 30% fee" -- but they didn't. Instead, developers grumbled and complained while they were submitting apps to the App Store. Developers -- via their actions -- keep signaling to Apple that Apple has the leverage and not the developers. That's why you had 2008 articles and threads such as this: - This Is Why iPhone Developers Put Up With All the Bullshit From Apple (daringfireball.net) - 46 points by sant0sk1 on Sept 19, 2008 | hide | past | favorite | 23 comments https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=308975 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=308975
  - mhink 3y ago
    One of the most surprising things (from a modern perspective) about reading that daringfireball article is that a game could be successful on the App Store at a $5 price point ($7 in 2024 dollars).
    - bombcar 3y ago
      It still happens - most every app has gone to "free with in-app purchases", sadly. https://apps.apple.com/us/app/stardew-valley/id1406710800 https://apps.apple.com/us/app/stardew-valley/id1406710800 $5 Combined revenue over all platforms: $300m +
  - mathgradthrow 3y ago
    The reason for this is that Apple has managed to argue that its app store is not a monopoly. This is false (If developer accesss to apple and androids app stores were competing even the tiniest bit, then you should mainly see developers releasing apps on one platform and not the other). in essence, this means that in order for developers to achieve negotiating power parity, they would need to form a cartel, (an illegal anticompetitive practice they would not be able to defend). As a result, Apple's negotiating power advantage is a matter of law.
  - hinkley 3y ago
    And prior to the app store, app writers dealt with carriers who wanted 70% of revenue, not 30%. There was no money in phone apps prior to the App Store. I had left the mobile industry by then because I'd seen enough to know that mobile companies were just a funnel of VC money to goods and services for carriers who looked a hell of a lot like Ma Bell (employed some of the same people, in fact) While the iPhone was certainly interesting tech, that's not what made a bunch of devs learn Objective C. It was money. That Apple has only lowered their fees one, one and a half times in that period is how we end up with all the grumbling we have today. but at the time it was much much better than the status quo.
    - FireBeyond 3y ago
      > And prior to the app store, app writers dealt with carriers who wanted 70% of revenue, not 30% Disagree there. Maybe to preload apps. But in all my Symbian dealings in Nokia-land, almost every app purchased was direct from producer, and pushed to the device by a sync cable, with zero revenue going to the carrier.
- nemothekid 3y ago
  >Apps also sold iPhones This seems apocryphal. Apple famously resisted apps and was dragged kicking in and screaming into supporting native applications.
hinkley 3y ago
And iPhones and iPods were selling Macbooks. Pretty good loss leader really.
ttepasse 3y ago
iTunes/iPod for a time was advertised with the slogan "Rip. Mix. Burn."
PaulHoule 3y ago
I always thought the use of the term "podcast" for podcasts was just another selfish meme. I listen to podcasts all the time but: (1) never on an iPod or other portable listening device, (2) never find them on RSS feeds. I guess I could (YOShInOn looks at 3000 articles a day on my behalf, some of them are podcasts, I don't really have the right UI for queuing podcasts so I think about putting in a rule or some models for filtering them out) but I don't. In fact I was consuming and mastering "podcasts" before the iPod even existed and before there was RSS. It might well be that the median user has never "used as directed" It's one of those cases where Apple makes up a word and it is like the way the priest transforms the bread and wine at Catholic Mass.

Hamuko 3y ago

Apps also sold iPhones. They built an entire marketing campaign around the idea (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=szrsfeyLzyg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=szrsfeyLzyg). And yet they're trying to squeeze app developers for all they're worth.

moolcool 3y ago
The original iPhone didn't even launch with apps. A big part of the vision was that "apps" would be dynamic websites which you could create links to on your home screen. I think if the web tooling ecosystem was up to snuff at the time, we may not have an "App Store" as we know it today.
- bombcar 3y ago
  Which is amusingly sad today, as so many "applications" on desktop and elsewhere are Electron which is ... a dynamic website.
  - moolcool 3y ago
    What's old is new again, for better or worse
  - dr-detroit 3y ago
    [dead]
jasode 3y ago
>Apps also sold iPhones. [...] And yet they're trying to squeeze app developers for all they're worth. It's because Apple was emboldened by the fact that the original June 2007 iPhone exceeded sales expectations of 10 million units without any 3rd-party apps. The App Store didn't exist until July 2008. In June 2007, consumers were getting in line to buy the so-called "Jesus phone" even though there were no 3rd-party apps ecosystem for it. (Look back at the hundreds waiting in line overnight to buy the first iPhone: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_iSE0bBgUsQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_iSE0bBgUsQ) So, Apple rationally concludes that 3rd-party developers need access to Apple's customer base more than customers need access to outside developers. Back in 2008, the developers en masse could have revolted and said "fuck the Apple iOS SDK, fuck the App Store, and they can fuck off with their stupid rules and 30% fee" -- but they didn't. Instead, developers grumbled and complained while they were submitting apps to the App Store. Developers -- via their actions -- keep signaling to Apple that Apple has the leverage and not the developers. That's why you had 2008 articles and threads such as this: - This Is Why iPhone Developers Put Up With All the Bullshit From Apple (daringfireball.net) - 46 points by sant0sk1 on Sept 19, 2008 | hide | past | favorite | 23 comments https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=308975 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=308975
- mhink 3y ago
  One of the most surprising things (from a modern perspective) about reading that daringfireball article is that a game could be successful on the App Store at a $5 price point ($7 in 2024 dollars).
  - bombcar 3y ago
    It still happens - most every app has gone to "free with in-app purchases", sadly. https://apps.apple.com/us/app/stardew-valley/id1406710800 https://apps.apple.com/us/app/stardew-valley/id1406710800 $5 Combined revenue over all platforms: $300m +
- mathgradthrow 3y ago
  The reason for this is that Apple has managed to argue that its app store is not a monopoly. This is false (If developer accesss to apple and androids app stores were competing even the tiniest bit, then you should mainly see developers releasing apps on one platform and not the other). in essence, this means that in order for developers to achieve negotiating power parity, they would need to form a cartel, (an illegal anticompetitive practice they would not be able to defend). As a result, Apple's negotiating power advantage is a matter of law.
- hinkley 3y ago
  And prior to the app store, app writers dealt with carriers who wanted 70% of revenue, not 30%. There was no money in phone apps prior to the App Store. I had left the mobile industry by then because I'd seen enough to know that mobile companies were just a funnel of VC money to goods and services for carriers who looked a hell of a lot like Ma Bell (employed some of the same people, in fact) While the iPhone was certainly interesting tech, that's not what made a bunch of devs learn Objective C. It was money. That Apple has only lowered their fees one, one and a half times in that period is how we end up with all the grumbling we have today. but at the time it was much much better than the status quo.
  - FireBeyond 3y ago
    > And prior to the app store, app writers dealt with carriers who wanted 70% of revenue, not 30% Disagree there. Maybe to preload apps. But in all my Symbian dealings in Nokia-land, almost every app purchased was direct from producer, and pushed to the device by a sync cable, with zero revenue going to the carrier.
nemothekid 3y ago
>Apps also sold iPhones This seems apocryphal. Apple famously resisted apps and was dragged kicking in and screaming into supporting native applications.

hinkley 3y ago

And iPhones and iPods were selling Macbooks. Pretty good loss leader really.

ttepasse 3y ago

iTunes/iPod for a time was advertised with the slogan "Rip. Mix. Burn."

PaulHoule 3y ago

I always thought the use of the term "podcast" for podcasts was just another selfish meme. I listen to podcasts all the time but: (1) never on an iPod or other portable listening device, (2) never find them on RSS feeds. I guess I could (YOShInOn looks at 3000 articles a day on my behalf, some of them are podcasts, I don't really have the right UI for queuing podcasts so I think about putting in a rule or some models for filtering them out) but I don't. In fact I was consuming and mastering "podcasts" before the iPod even existed and before there was RSS. It might well be that the median user has never "used as directed" It's one of those cases where Apple makes up a word and it is like the way the priest transforms the bread and wine at Catholic Mass.