3 ms·

Okay; in which case, your little game was probably free. How much would you pay for hosting at this point? The cheapest Droplet on DigitalOcean will cost you $

Okay; in which case, your little game was probably free. How much would you pay for hosting at this point? The cheapest Droplet on DigitalOcean will cost you $60 per year. Maybe you planned to have your game downloaded from Google Drive, but I’m with Apple on this one, a small fee prevents many bad actors. Especially when 95% of iOS developers are comfortably in the top 10% of US salaries, and top 1% worldwide.

999900000999 2y ago
Itch.io is 100% free. I'd be okay with it, if it was $100 per year while you're actively publishing new content. But just to keep old stuff up there is kind of steep
- wahnfrieden 2y ago
  They don't want your unmaintained and unprofitable apps
  - tonyedgecombe 2y ago
    This. The $100 fee is inconsequential for Apple. It's there as a filter.
  - InvertedRhodium 2y ago
    That’s the issue. It’s my phone. I want to run X on it, and the developer of X is willing to provide it. Why is Apple the arbiter in the middle of that exchange?
    - wahnfrieden 2y ago
      they are protecting their 15/30% of course
  - 999900000999 2y ago
    Who is "they". I'm not forcing anyone to download my game. But Apple refuses to allow any other market place ( in most of the world) , so unless I pay 100$ a year no one gets to play it on an iPhone. It's not just the fee, it's the idea that Apple is the final decider of what anyone with an iPhone is allowed to run on devices they own. I sorta understand this argument with game consoles, since the vast vast majority of console homebrew is just enabling piracy. But that's not the case with a phone. I can't build a small app to learn and share it with my friends or teachers. I have to build something worthy of Apple, pay a 100$ annual fee and pray the Apple review team feels like being nice.
    - wahnfrieden 2y ago
      Apple I don’t like their behavior either but I’m trying to help you make sense of it. They have a profit motive which corrupts
  - talldayo 2y ago
    My apps only become unmaintained when Apple depreciates standard features. It's not my imperative to fix Apple's changes, they should be paying me to do that.
    - wahnfrieden 2y ago
      It is your imperative on their platform. Why are you protesting to me? It’s their policy and they have a profit motive leading to this. I don’t like it either!
      - talldayo 2y ago
        I'm not protesting at all, I take a bit of delight in my apps that are no longer supported. Listening to iPhone owners lament "old-school" software and "lost media" is music to my ears. It's irony amped up to a palpable level. My broader point is 1) it's not unmaintained until Apple says so and 2) it's only unprofitable once the App Store deems it is. Both of those are arbitrary decisions that justify nothing, even with profits as the context, which is why you are being downvoted. What Apple "doesn't want" is people coming up with justifications against their arbitrary fees, case closed. No need to blame the developers and implicate yourself as a victim, that's an embarrassing dog-and-pony show that hasn't been fresh (let alone acknowledged by Apple) since like 2012.
        ToucanLoucan 2y ago
        The iOS/MacOS ecosystem is changing all the time, a decent amount of that time, they're good changes to be making. Sometimes they're arbitrary. Sometimes they're stupid. Either way, you know all of this before you publish anything there, so complaining after the fact that Apple is not sufficiently incentivizing you to maintain your code that runs on and is distributed by their operating systems is bizarre to me. Yes, it's unmaintained, because you are not maintaining it. Should you maintain it? Your decision to make. However if they are not maintained then they are indeed unmaintained and will probably run into problems on newer versions of the aforementioned operating systems. I personally like that Apple trims the fat and keeps things ship-shape. Yes, the cost to that is older apps don't work on newer Macs and phones. The benefit to that is MacOS and iOS are not saddled with god knows how much legacy code and features to make sure everything that ran on, for example, Windows 95 will also work on Windows 11 (with caveats). Both of these are fine design ethos to go with: Apple went one way, Microsoft another, and both directions have pros and cons accordingly. > What Apple "doesn't want" is people coming up with justifications against their arbitrary fees, case closed. Your personification of a corporation is bizarre too. Apple doesn't give a shit if you maintain your software or not. If you maintain it, it remains available. If you don't, it doesn't. This situation is fixed, and you know both outcomes. Like I dunno, maybe it's just me, this logic doesn't hold up. It's akin to calling an engine needing oil changes arbitrary. Like, I guess? But you also knew that when you bought the thing.

999900000999 2y ago

Itch.io is 100% free. I'd be okay with it, if it was $100 per year while you're actively publishing new content. But just to keep old stuff up there is kind of steep

wahnfrieden 2y ago
They don't want your unmaintained and unprofitable apps
- tonyedgecombe 2y ago
  This. The $100 fee is inconsequential for Apple. It's there as a filter.
- InvertedRhodium 2y ago
  That’s the issue. It’s my phone. I want to run X on it, and the developer of X is willing to provide it. Why is Apple the arbiter in the middle of that exchange?
  - wahnfrieden 2y ago
    they are protecting their 15/30% of course
- 999900000999 2y ago
  Who is "they". I'm not forcing anyone to download my game. But Apple refuses to allow any other market place ( in most of the world) , so unless I pay 100$ a year no one gets to play it on an iPhone. It's not just the fee, it's the idea that Apple is the final decider of what anyone with an iPhone is allowed to run on devices they own. I sorta understand this argument with game consoles, since the vast vast majority of console homebrew is just enabling piracy. But that's not the case with a phone. I can't build a small app to learn and share it with my friends or teachers. I have to build something worthy of Apple, pay a 100$ annual fee and pray the Apple review team feels like being nice.
  - wahnfrieden 2y ago
    Apple I don’t like their behavior either but I’m trying to help you make sense of it. They have a profit motive which corrupts
- talldayo 2y ago
  My apps only become unmaintained when Apple depreciates standard features. It's not my imperative to fix Apple's changes, they should be paying me to do that.
  - wahnfrieden 2y ago
    It is your imperative on their platform. Why are you protesting to me? It’s their policy and they have a profit motive leading to this. I don’t like it either!
    - talldayo 2y ago
      I'm not protesting at all, I take a bit of delight in my apps that are no longer supported. Listening to iPhone owners lament "old-school" software and "lost media" is music to my ears. It's irony amped up to a palpable level. My broader point is 1) it's not unmaintained until Apple says so and 2) it's only unprofitable once the App Store deems it is. Both of those are arbitrary decisions that justify nothing, even with profits as the context, which is why you are being downvoted. What Apple "doesn't want" is people coming up with justifications against their arbitrary fees, case closed. No need to blame the developers and implicate yourself as a victim, that's an embarrassing dog-and-pony show that hasn't been fresh (let alone acknowledged by Apple) since like 2012.
      - ToucanLoucan 2y ago
        The iOS/MacOS ecosystem is changing all the time, a decent amount of that time, they're good changes to be making. Sometimes they're arbitrary. Sometimes they're stupid. Either way, you know all of this before you publish anything there, so complaining after the fact that Apple is not sufficiently incentivizing you to maintain your code that runs on and is distributed by their operating systems is bizarre to me. Yes, it's unmaintained, because you are not maintaining it. Should you maintain it? Your decision to make. However if they are not maintained then they are indeed unmaintained and will probably run into problems on newer versions of the aforementioned operating systems. I personally like that Apple trims the fat and keeps things ship-shape. Yes, the cost to that is older apps don't work on newer Macs and phones. The benefit to that is MacOS and iOS are not saddled with god knows how much legacy code and features to make sure everything that ran on, for example, Windows 95 will also work on Windows 11 (with caveats). Both of these are fine design ethos to go with: Apple went one way, Microsoft another, and both directions have pros and cons accordingly. > What Apple "doesn't want" is people coming up with justifications against their arbitrary fees, case closed. Your personification of a corporation is bizarre too. Apple doesn't give a shit if you maintain your software or not. If you maintain it, it remains available. If you don't, it doesn't. This situation is fixed, and you know both outcomes. Like I dunno, maybe it's just me, this logic doesn't hold up. It's akin to calling an engine needing oil changes arbitrary. Like, I guess? But you also knew that when you bought the thing.