4 ms·

100$ a year for a dev in Sweden - that's like money you wouldn't notice if it got lost in your pockets - and I am sure it cuts down on spammers and covers admin

100$ a year for a dev in Sweden - that's like money you wouldn't notice if it got lost in your pockets - and I am sure it cuts down on spammers and covers administrative cost. I have no problem with a store having a small admission fee - that's perfectly reasonable and they do have operational costs. It would be nice if they had some way to waive the fee for popular OSS to garner some god will with the devs. Taking a 30% cut of revenue on the other hand ... both platforms are guilty of this

4gotunameagain 1y ago
We are not talking about software distribution or admitting it to a store, we're talking about executing something on your own device, a device that you purchased.
- rafaelmn 1y ago
  You can do that without dev license ?
  - willtemperley 1y ago
    Yes, but app is only usable for 7 days on iOS.
    - rafaelmn 1y ago
      Yes that is annoying - I hate Apple anti side loading stance. But that still doesn't make 100$ fee to apply for distribution/integration with their ecosystem unreasonable.
      - 4gotunameagain 1y ago
        Are you even reading the comments you are replying to, or ? You need to pay $100 to execute code on a device that you own. Without a 7 day time limit. And only if you have the technical expertise to do so. This is not a fee for distribution/integration. This is feudal rent.
        rafaelmn 1y ago
        Are you reading what I am saying ? 100$ for distribution access on the store is reasonable. Side-loading prevention is shit. Both can be true at the same time.
        actionfromafar 1y ago
        Your position wasn't clear to me, at least. Yes, a world where you can sideload an app on an iOS device, without time limits, but you have still pay $100 to put it on the app store, is a much less shittier world, indeed.
      - 63stack 1y ago
        Your options are either $100/year for "integration with their ecosystem", or your app stops working every 7 days. It is very unreasonable.
AnthonyMouse 1y ago
> 100$ a year for a dev in Sweden - that's like money you wouldn't notice if it got lost in your pockets For someone who is making money from it, sure, but that's exactly who this isn't about. The way they get screwed is by the 30%. A fixed fee -- in any amount -- is screwing the people who aren't in it for the money. Because to begin with, it's not just the fee, it's the bureaucracy that comes with the fee. You're a kid and you want to make your first app, but you don't have a credit card. You live in a poor country and maybe the amount you can lose without noticing when you're rich isn't the same there. Or even if you can get the money, you may not have a first world bank account and the conglomerate isn't set up to take the local currency. You're a desktop developer and you're willing to make a simple mobile app and give it away for free as long as it's not a bother. The money is nothing but the paperwork is a bother so you don't do it, and now the million people who would have used that app don't have it and have to suffer the spam-laden trash alternative from someone who is only in it for the money. And suppose the amount is as trivial as you propose. Then why does a multi-trillion dollar conglomerate need that pittance from a million ordinary people?
- rafaelmn 1y ago
  > Then why does a multi-trillion dollar conglomerate need that pittance from a million ordinary people? Because the store gets spammed by million of bot applications ? Having a small fee for store review is probably a decent noise floor. You can still develop apps on your devices without a dev license - the week long cert is annoying, they probably want to avoid people side-loading via this mechanism (which I am against FWIW). But you can develop on your devices without paying 100$/year
  - AnthonyMouse 1y ago
    > Because the store gets spammed by million of bot applications ? They're a search engine company. They can't figure out how to put real apps on page 1 and spam apps on page 500? Also, then why are they charging the fee if you use someone else's store? > the week long cert is annoying, they probably want to avoid people side-loading via this mechanism It seems like you understand their underlying motives, so then why are you defending them?
array_key_first 1y ago
> and I am sure it cuts down on spammers Okay, just so we're all on the same page: that 100 dollar fee IS NOT for publishing your app. That's not what that is. That's a separate thing with its own costs. That 100 dollars is just the fee to even make an app. Even if your iPhone never has an Internet connection. And even if you literally load the app via USB to your iPhone only. It's just extortion. It cannot be justified. Apple does it because they can - there are zero technical reasons behind it.
- jb1991 1y ago
  > That 100 dollars is just the fee to even make an app. Even if your iPhone never has an Internet connection. And even if you literally load the app via USB to your iPhone only. This is incorrect. You make it sound like you cannot even get started unless you pay a $100 fee. You do not need to pay Apple any fees to make an app and put it on your own device. You have to pay the fee once you want to distribute it on the App Store.
  - array_key_first 1y ago
    This is incorrect. If you want to load the app on your own phone WITHOUT the app store, you MUST pay Apple 100 dollars. Unless you want to rebuild the app every 7 days, which any reasonable human will conclude is a stupid ass arbitrary limitation. Again, it cannot be justified with any technical means. Please, don't even bother trying.
    - jb1991 1y ago
      You are contradicting yourself in your comment.
      - array_key_first 1y ago
        I don't think you read my comment. Trying to get me on an "erm well akshually" level semantic argument means you're wrong, you know you're wrong, and now you're just being annoying. Both of us can agree that the 7 day limitation is far too stringent to be a legitimate solution. So we will go ahead and pretend it does not exist, because for all intents and purposes, it doesn't.

4gotunameagain 1y ago

We are not talking about software distribution or admitting it to a store, we're talking about executing something on your own device, a device that you purchased.

rafaelmn 1y ago
You can do that without dev license ?
- willtemperley 1y ago
  Yes, but app is only usable for 7 days on iOS.
  - rafaelmn 1y ago
    Yes that is annoying - I hate Apple anti side loading stance. But that still doesn't make 100$ fee to apply for distribution/integration with their ecosystem unreasonable.
    - 4gotunameagain 1y ago
      Are you even reading the comments you are replying to, or ? You need to pay $100 to execute code on a device that you own. Without a 7 day time limit. And only if you have the technical expertise to do so. This is not a fee for distribution/integration. This is feudal rent.
      - rafaelmn 1y ago
        Are you reading what I am saying ? 100$ for distribution access on the store is reasonable. Side-loading prevention is shit. Both can be true at the same time.
        actionfromafar 1y ago
        Your position wasn't clear to me, at least. Yes, a world where you can sideload an app on an iOS device, without time limits, but you have still pay $100 to put it on the app store, is a much less shittier world, indeed.
    - 63stack 1y ago
      Your options are either $100/year for "integration with their ecosystem", or your app stops working every 7 days. It is very unreasonable.

AnthonyMouse 1y ago

> 100$ a year for a dev in Sweden - that's like money you wouldn't notice if it got lost in your pockets For someone who is making money from it, sure, but that's exactly who this isn't about. The way they get screwed is by the 30%. A fixed fee -- in any amount -- is screwing the people who aren't in it for the money. Because to begin with, it's not just the fee, it's the bureaucracy that comes with the fee. You're a kid and you want to make your first app, but you don't have a credit card. You live in a poor country and maybe the amount you can lose without noticing when you're rich isn't the same there. Or even if you can get the money, you may not have a first world bank account and the conglomerate isn't set up to take the local currency. You're a desktop developer and you're willing to make a simple mobile app and give it away for free as long as it's not a bother. The money is nothing but the paperwork is a bother so you don't do it, and now the million people who would have used that app don't have it and have to suffer the spam-laden trash alternative from someone who is only in it for the money. And suppose the amount is as trivial as you propose. Then why does a multi-trillion dollar conglomerate need that pittance from a million ordinary people?

rafaelmn 1y ago
> Then why does a multi-trillion dollar conglomerate need that pittance from a million ordinary people? Because the store gets spammed by million of bot applications ? Having a small fee for store review is probably a decent noise floor. You can still develop apps on your devices without a dev license - the week long cert is annoying, they probably want to avoid people side-loading via this mechanism (which I am against FWIW). But you can develop on your devices without paying 100$/year
- AnthonyMouse 1y ago
  > Because the store gets spammed by million of bot applications ? They're a search engine company. They can't figure out how to put real apps on page 1 and spam apps on page 500? Also, then why are they charging the fee if you use someone else's store? > the week long cert is annoying, they probably want to avoid people side-loading via this mechanism It seems like you understand their underlying motives, so then why are you defending them?

array_key_first 1y ago

> and I am sure it cuts down on spammers Okay, just so we're all on the same page: that 100 dollar fee IS NOT for publishing your app. That's not what that is. That's a separate thing with its own costs. That 100 dollars is just the fee to even make an app. Even if your iPhone never has an Internet connection. And even if you literally load the app via USB to your iPhone only. It's just extortion. It cannot be justified. Apple does it because they can - there are zero technical reasons behind it.

jb1991 1y ago
> That 100 dollars is just the fee to even make an app. Even if your iPhone never has an Internet connection. And even if you literally load the app via USB to your iPhone only. This is incorrect. You make it sound like you cannot even get started unless you pay a $100 fee. You do not need to pay Apple any fees to make an app and put it on your own device. You have to pay the fee once you want to distribute it on the App Store.
- array_key_first 1y ago
  This is incorrect. If you want to load the app on your own phone WITHOUT the app store, you MUST pay Apple 100 dollars. Unless you want to rebuild the app every 7 days, which any reasonable human will conclude is a stupid ass arbitrary limitation. Again, it cannot be justified with any technical means. Please, don't even bother trying.
  - jb1991 1y ago
    You are contradicting yourself in your comment.
    - array_key_first 1y ago
      I don't think you read my comment. Trying to get me on an "erm well akshually" level semantic argument means you're wrong, you know you're wrong, and now you're just being annoying. Both of us can agree that the 7 day limitation is far too stringent to be a legitimate solution. So we will go ahead and pretend it does not exist, because for all intents and purposes, it doesn't.