41 ms·

Fear of Apple

• gress 12y ago
  This piece ignores the obvious. These people aren't afraid of their own criticisms of Apple. They are afraid that their criticisms will be magnified and distorted by the press and used as the basis of hit-pieces, and that this will reflect badly on them. This isn't fear of Apple. It's legitimate fear of what the press will do with what they say.
  • skc 12y ago
    Doesn't wash. Trick question, why is it that they are not afraid about what the press will do with their snarky comments on say, Google, Microsoft, Samsung or Android?
    • wz1000 12y ago
      Aside from a select few free software communities, the Apple community is the one I've witnessed the most negativity and hate in. Maybe this is because people in both of these communities feel they are "special" somehow, and "better" than the average user?
      • gress 12y ago
        Are you talking about hatred towards apple? Pick any positive article about Apple on the web with a comments section. You will see that the comments are filled with hateful anti-Apple invective.
        • wz1000 12y ago
          It goes both ways in my experience. People often hate on Apple, but on communities with many Apple users there is significant negativity in the opposite direction. Criticism of Apple is generally not taken well.
    • gress 12y ago
      Because the press doesn't make hit pieces about brands that are not perceived as the leader to be toppled.
      • raesene4 12y ago
        Given that in the mobile field, Android is perceived as the leader, this line of thinking doesn't really seem to hold.
        • seabee 12y ago
          Android is the leader by market share but iOS leads mind share. Android isn't a strong brand. Samsung, HTC, Sony, LG et al put their own corporate branding ahead of whatever Android version they use. Amazon barely mentions its existence. Apple and Samsung are probably the only strong brands in mobile right now and Apple is a lot further ahead.
          • rdsnsca 12y ago
            Apple leads in the most important metric profit share. They took 93 % of the smart phone profit last quater.
        • deleted 12y ago
          [deleted]
        • snowwrestler 12y ago
          The popular press does not perceive Android to be the leader in their number one metric, driving pageviews/rageviews.
        • gress 12y ago
          Android is not perceived as the leading brand. Apple is, with Samsung in second place.
    • comex 12y ago
      For some of the more notable bloggers, because everyone knows they're on Team Apple. They aren't just people who have a lot of Apple products, they're people who have significantly bought into Apple's worldview and culture. Since tech punditry as a whole is very tribal, trashing the other teams regularly is par for the course, but trashing your own team is seen as a betrayal, an extraordinary event, a reaction to the company's own betrayal of the pundit's heightened trust. The latter is newsworthy, the former is not. (While this mentality is strong in Apple-land, it certainly has its place among Google partisans as well, among others...)
      • pauloday 12y ago
        Reminds me of this[1] LessWrong post. It's not unique to tech, it's (unfortunately) part of our tribalistic instinct: > Arguments are soldiers. Once you know which side you're on, you must support all arguments of that side, and attack all arguments that appear to favor the enemy side; otherwise it's like stabbing your soldiers in the back—providing aid and comfort to the enemy. [1]: http://lesswrong.com/lw/gw/politics_is_the_mindkiller/ http://lesswrong.com/lw/gw/politics_is_the_mindkiller/
        • comex 12y ago
          I think it's telling that the two things John Gruber blogs about are tech - and sports, where fans are expected to pick a team and be loyal to it. At least in the latter arena, most people treat the tribalism as just for fun! Which is why I read Daring Fireball. I do like Apple in general, but I also just find it fun to be on a team, and try not to take it too seriously.
          • gress 12y ago
            Otherwise known as an ad hominem argument.
    • forgottenpass 12y ago
      why is it that they are not afraid about what the press will do with their snarky comments on say, Google, Microsoft, Samsung or Android? Because the press is also running snarky comments about those? Fitting in with the general direction of the press hivemind is one of the first hard lessons I had to learn about putting anything on twitter. Of course there are multiple threads in any one naval-gazing clique, and my interests span across multiple circles of press that don't pay attention to each-other, so I generally don't tweet anything anymore.
  • oddevan 12y ago
    Exactly. That was the crux of Arment's "regret" of his article. It wasn't that he was critical of Apple, it was that he said it in such a way that the tech press in general was able to quote him on stupid "hit pieces" on Apple. It wasn't his original article per se, but the way that original article was used.
  • engendered 12y ago
    They are afraid that their criticisms will be magnified and distorted by the press and used as the basis of hit-pieces Hardly. Many Apple fans still operate as if it is some tiny, vulnerable niche company, and they're a member of the few. Perhaps this is some sort of traumatic stress of those early days, but it manifests in this feeling of great discomfort if your words are used "against" the hive. Arment, significant in this piece, incredibly claimed that it was a nightmare having his entirely valid, indisputable issues with Apple software lately, spoken of by "the others". This is bizarre behavior. It is absolutely incredible. Apple is one of the largest corporations on the planet. It is an enormous money machine. And people are desperately fearful that their opinions about Apple might get known? Come on. The whole "magnified and distorted" and "hit piece" noises is just garbage. It has nothing to do with proportionality or reality, it's just this sense that a community is under attack and they need to be defensive, and it's just bizarre.
    • declan 12y ago
      I've been an Apple user since the IIe days, and I remember the tiny, vulnerable niche company it was very well. But as you say: "Apple now twice as big as world's second-largest company, ExxonMobil" http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/mediatechnologyandtelecoms/electronics/11431132/Apple-now-twice-as-big-as-worlds-second-largest-company-ExxonMobil.html http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/mediatechnol...
    • gress 12y ago
      There is nothing bizarre about people not wanting to have their names used in support of positions they don't agree with.
  • mwfunk 12y ago
    Why the hell would someone downvote gress' comment? The article misrepresented the reason for Marco's regret, to use as evidence for its thesis. Marco regretted what he said because it was being used out-of-context to support a flood of stories in the press that he thought were BS not to mention the gazillion emails he was getting about it. Now, I suppose someone could be reading this and thinking, "sure, that's what Marco wants everyone to believe, but really he's just scared of the Apple mafia." If you, a reader who downvoted gress, are thinking this as well, step back and really think about that statement for a second, and think about things like projection and assumptions and confirmation bias. I guess I'm sticking up for Apple here, but really I'm sticking up for intellectual honesty. I love it when people criticize the utter living hell out of Apple, but for actual legitimate things. Opinions based on conspiracy theories, tribalism, or just plain making stuff up discredits real, authentic criticism that actually means something and that might actually result in positive change. This goes for any topic really, not just Apple stuff. I'm not characterizing this particular article in that way- it seemed thoughtful and well-written, aside from misrepresenting Marco and possibly others. I'm giving the author the benefit of the doubt here that this was just a misunderstanding. It's more a response to people who have assumptions that are so entrenched that they would disbelieve Marco's own stated reasons for regretting what he wrote, because not believing him and assuming something more sinister better reinforces whatever much more dramatic narrative they've already imagined.
• sschueller 12y ago
  There are a few who have been banned[1] from Apple events etc. because of a negative review of something Apple made. [1] http://www.computerbild.de/artikel/cb-News-Handy-Apple-boycotts-COMPUTER-BILD-An-open-letter-to-Tim-Cook-10953399.html http://www.computerbild.de/artikel/cb-News-Handy-Apple-boyco...
  • chrisper 12y ago
    I don't know if anything BILD is a valid source.
    • gress 12y ago
      No, but they did ban Gizmodo for buying a stolen prototype.
      • austenallred 12y ago
        That's a little bit different than "censorship," don't you think?
        • gress 12y ago
          Did I say it was censorship? I think the original post is misguided, but it is true that Apple withholds press access from outlets that do things it doesn't like.
      • makeitsuckless 12y ago
        So Bild and a Gawker publication buying stolen property. Still not impressed.
    • urda 12y ago
      It is not that's why.
  • higherpurpose 12y ago
    This was also a good and long article about how Apple pressures the press into being favorable to them in reviews: http://9to5mac.com/2014/08/29/seeing-through-the-illusion-understanding-apples-mastery-of-the-media/ http://9to5mac.com/2014/08/29/seeing-through-the-illusion-un...
• Corporate_Shill 12y ago
  Lets just ignore how awful app discovery is in the Apple app store.
• gcb0 12y ago
  how times change. tomorrow i will have to put down my windows and Linux laptops to get a sanctioned apple at work. despite my claims that i won't be able to test touch screen interactions with it... apple hardware is the new Microsoft outlook in the corporate world. all i wanted was a sexy surface pro 3 :( how times have changed
  • msane 12y ago
    "I know, how are you going to test touch screen interactions if you don't have a surface pro 3?" I hear that at the water cooler every day.
    • gcb0 12y ago
      and then you proceed to not do it.
  • integraton 12y ago
    Don't worry. There are still big parts of the world outside of the technology industry that are held hostage by Microsoft and their devoted IT department foot soldiers who refuse to acknowledge anything outside of the Microsoft bubble.
    • gcb0 12y ago
      didn't get you point. you mean i have to choose a side on the holy wars of fanboism? ...yeah, i rather not. but if i must choose any hardware which i will dual boot linux anyway, i rather not be stuck with a beige-box of the 21st century with glossy screen, and instead get something, you know, innovative? maybe, be as bold as, thinking differently. anyway. all that is moot since my CTO probably is swimming in apple shares.
• smackfu 12y ago
  This is the same Apple who has a published document saying: "If your App is rejected, we have a Review Board that you can appeal to. If you run to the press and trash us, it never helps." https://developer.apple.com/app-store/review/guidelines/ https://developer.apple.com/app-store/review/guidelines/ When this company controls your livelihood, you are wise to take a very broad view of what "trash us" means.
  • waterside81 12y ago
    Ha - I thought you were paraphrasing and editorializing, but it actually says that. I'm surprised they're so blunt & honest about that.
    • artursapek 12y ago
      It's written in a much different voice from most of Apple's stuff.
      • Zelphyr 12y ago
        If I recall, much of it was written by Jobs himself.
  • serve_yay 12y ago
    It's worse than that - sometimes "trashing them" (i.e., writing a dryly-worded blog post simply stating events that transpired with no hint of anger) is the only thing that helps.
    • matheweis 12y ago
      I did have success once with sending an e-mail to tcook@apple.com. I have read that like Steve, he does read many of those external e-mails. This was when the App Store review times had climbed to 28+ days. I never did get a response, but shortly thereafter they started going down, and within a few weeks were down to the 3-7 day range. I don't think they've gone significantly over 7 days since.
• jmduke 12y ago
  This was a much better article than I was anticipating. (A lot of Apple criticism is either shallow or vitriolic, I guess a side effect of inspiring so much fervor on either end of the spectrum.) My new favorite anecdote of Apple's deficiencies in the services side of things is how the App Store and iTunes Connect was just down for at least half a day a couple weeks back, with no visibility except a press release: http://thenextweb.com/apple/2015/03/11/the-apple-app-store-is-having-problems-and-itunes-connect-is-down/ http://thenextweb.com/apple/2015/03/11/the-apple-app-store-i... Or back in late January, where iTunes Connect had a bug that just randomly logged you in as a different user: http://9to5mac.com/2015/01/29/widespread-itunes-connect-issue-presenting-wrong-user-name-and-apps-for-developers/ http://9to5mac.com/2015/01/29/widespread-itunes-connect-issu... It's hard for me to imagine another company for which either of these incidents wouldn't inspire a round of warranted criticism -- especially given their bad services track record. Still, it makes sense that Apple would continue to deprioritize developer relations (either implicitly or explicitly.) Put frankly, we're a tiny sliver of their consumer base: while the App Store might be raking in billions from that 30% its still more valuable to the company as a method of selling devices than as a revenue stream in its own right.
  • ctdonath 12y ago
    But if they don't take good care of that "paltry" revenue stream, there will be a greater cost on lost device sales.
  • jasode 12y ago
    >Still, it makes sense that Apple would continue to deprioritize developer relations (either implicitly or explicitly.) Yes. I think it also makes sense to remind ourselves of how Apple and Microsoft started in the 1970s. They have very different origin stories. When Bill Gates and Paul Allen were burning the midnight oil for their first successful Microsoft product, it was a BASIC interpreter for the Altair computer. It was a product for programmers. Yes, Microsoft went on to dominate with operating systems (first DOS, then Windows) but they have "programmers" within their DNA. The CEO of the company (Bill Gates) was an ex-programmer and that perspective cascaded all the way down as direct and indirect decisions in what they did. People mocked Steve Ballmer's stage antics about "developers developers developers" but Microsoft really did pay attention to programmers like no other major corporation. The high praise of Visual Studio (in comparison to other IDEs such as Xcode, Eclipse, etc) is one testament to this. So are dev friendly connections with their internal programmers such as active blog posts and channel9.msdn.com featuring informal whiteboard coding sessions. Contrast with Apple. Steve Wozniak and Steve Jobs were burning the midnight oil assembling the Apple I to sell to consumers. Wozniak was a programmer but the coding was incidental to making the Apple computer work. (E.g. his triumphant story of programming the floppy disk controller to work correctly.) They were selling end-user hardware and not a programmer's product like Microsoft. In 2011, none of the top 3 guys (Steve Jobs, Tim Cook, Jony Ive) were programmers. Craig Federighi is an ex-programmer but Apple doesn't seem like the kind of company that would hand the reigns over to him if Tim Cook stepped down. Craig is a powerful figure at Apple but obviously, he doesn't have the clout that Bill Gates did at Microsoft. The way Apple originated in 1976 has had a ripple effect all the way to the present day in 2015. It guided their org structure and their attitudes towards 3rd-party developers. As a consequence, we should expect blogs in 2015 complaining about their "hostility" towards developers. It's just the way Apple has always been. As for the issue of too few developers making money in the App Store, I have an opinion that programmers are not going to want to hear: Let go of the idea that you'll get significant income from the App Store. Consider the few megahits that happened (beer drinking app, fart app, Flappy Bird, etc) as outliers and lottery ticket winnings. Sort of like the guy that sold 1-pixel-per-dollar on a 1 megapixel billboard when the web first appeared.[1] I believe the only realistic way to view the App Stores is to think of it as an adjunct function to something else that makes you money. In other words, you just can't write a college study iOS app for $1.99 and expect income but instead, you create a whole college assistance website and the iPhone app is just one gateway to that functionality. It's the website that has subscribers and generates the major revenue. It's sort of like the "enterprise" model. American Airlines doesn't "sell" their iOS app; they sell plane tickets and the $0.00 app is just their way for customers to conveniently generate boarding passes, check gate times, etc. That's the financial picture I've come to accept from the App Store and I recommend programmers consider it to avoid heartache. There's no need to complain about getting a "bigger piece of the pie" from the App Store because there is no (predictable) pie of any significance to fight over. I put predictable as a qualifier because I'm not dismissing that the megahits can make a lot of money. You just can't depend on it. [1]http://www.milliondollarhomepage.com/ http://www.milliondollarhomepage.com/ EDITED to fix spelling errors.
• m_eiman 12y ago
  How could anything Apple could possibly do be something that would give all the million(s?) apps their "fair share" of App store front page time be useful, when there are just too many apps in there? It's a bit like expecting Google to divide traffic to all existing sites because it isn't fair that Facebook gets so much traffic. I just don't see how it isn't the developers' job to raise interest in their work.
  • ChrisLTD 12y ago
    You're right, it's probably impossible to give all apps and developers a fair shake. But that doesn't mean Apple shouldn't try to improve the situation, especially if they want to keep good developers interested in their platform.
  • ryanbrunner 12y ago
    You probably can't give totally equally billing to every app out there, but there's a big gap between that and "just show top lists and featured". The Play Store, for instance, does a pretty good job of recommending me stuff that's not chart-topping based on my ratings and downloads.
• Animats 12y ago
  There's a strange phenomenon if you make negative remarks about Apple on forums such as HN or Slashdot. They tend to be voted up shortly after posting. Then, about an hour later, a lot of downvotes come in. I've seen this several times, with a consistent response delay of about an hour. After the downvotes at one hour, more upvotes may come in; the downvote effort is a one-time event. Anyone else seeing this?
  • deleted 12y ago
    [deleted]
    • m3rc 12y ago
      Uhm, I think your comment is a real show of confirmation bias, or I suppose reverse confirmation bias. HN is deeply entrenched in the current Startup culture, a movement that is HEAVILY connected to both Apple and libertarianism...
  • m3rc 12y ago
    I see it with pretty much any divisive opinion. People who don't share the opinion in the original low score comment don't pay it any attention and don't vote, but those who do share that opinion upvote it in a sort of comradery display. Then the comment gets higher up on the page, and the people who disagree now see it as a sentiment that people are actually discussing, and downvote it. In places like HN where the pro-Apple camp far outnumbers the anti-Apple camp, that leads to the comment being downvoted into oblivion. Additionally, on HN you have the added strange behavior of the downvote button needing to be unlocked. Since the current prevailing attitude is very Apple-fanboy-ish the people that choose to stay around long enough to actually get the downvote tend to be those who agree with the pro-Apple sentiment, and those who dislike Apple (or any popular thing) tend to leave or aren't active enough to get their downvote button.
    • josu 12y ago
      I believe that the HN crowd is educated enough not to fall for cheap manichaeism. It is true that Apple is a brand that tends to polarize opinions, but if a critic against Apple is well backed I don't think that people that usually support Apple would downvote it just out of spite or loyalty.
• shimfish 12y ago
  While I agree with the basic thrust of the article (Apple is not your friend, is often vindictive in response to criticism and could do more to help developers), I always feel when reading App Store articles that there's quite an odd underlying assumption, namely that Apple somehow owes all developers a living and has it within its power to achieve this if only it wanted. Please correct me if my history is wrong but I don't think being an independent software developer has been anything but a high risk and/or low profit endeavor. It's not like everything was just great for indies until Apple came along and devalued software. On the contrary, I feel the App Store has done more to level the playing field for indies than anything before it. Discoverability is not a solved problem for any product or service apart from massive advertising expenditure, which is why "big labels" come to exist. It's not like Apple is holding back on a solution out of spite. Is it supposed to routinely feature each of the million apps on the store? In a short space of time, the App Store has become a mature market of too many people chasing after too little money. This isn't some kind of outlier in capitalism. It's an entirely predictable pattern of consolidation that we've seen time and time again. The only unusual thing is that the independent developers got invited the party in the first place without having to worry about payment or delivery infrastructure.
  • rpedroso 12y ago
    I don't believe this article was implying that Apple owed anything in particular to developers, but rather, laying out all the issues on the table for Apple developers to digest. Self-censorship of criticism against Apple really only contributes to information asymmetry. Conversely, feeling free to publish criticisms helps developers make informed decisions about what platforms to target. Indeed, there is a section of the article where he quotes Arment on the possibility of Apple's hostility towards developers driving some of them to the Android platform. That said, I think the rest of your comments are on the mark. In the long-run of a sufficiently competitive market, firm profits fall to 0. The App Store lets any indie dev compete, but there is a reason some of the biggest firms don't like competition and indie developers should understand that it's only going to get harder to make a killing in apps.
  • nothrabannosir 12y ago
    I don't think there is (always) this assumption. For example, the author in this article tries to focus on the objective issues with the App Store, rather than who owes whom what. Perhaps not perfectly, but, afai can see, he tries. Sure, Apple being the gatekeeper, it's easy to take criticism of the App Store as criticism of Apple. It's also easy to slip into criticizing Apple while criticizing the App Store. Fundamentally, however, while similar, the two are not the same. It depends on what conclusion you draw. Which is it: "Boo Apple, fix your store," or "Boo developers, boycott iOS until they fix the store!" However, boycotting becomes less realistic the longer the feedback loop gets. I can stop buying some kind of milk brand tomorrow, and pick up the day after. Deciding what platform to publish apps on is an entirely different ball game. In that light, the unviability of any "free market" alternatives we as devs have to combat Apple on this makes it look very much like a monopoly, and that holds weight as an argument against Apple (not just against the App Store). Yeah, they technically don't owe us anything, but no, the playing field is too uneven for that to just be the end of the story.
• serve_yay 12y ago
  I know somebody who is close with one of the people mentioned in the article. It's strange to me that people can even be so devoted to Apple to start with, but beside that, it's terrible to see how Apple's callousness is disillusioning even their most loyal developers. It's not a good situation, and when I ask "but why?!", nobody has any answers. It just seems senseless.
• Dotnaught 12y ago
  The commodification of software isn't just an issue for Apple developers. It applies to all content, because there's so much competition for limited attention and the tools to produce content are so widely accessible. Many ebooks get released for free and $2.99 seems to be the upper limit for self-published authors. Established software and literary brands can ask more. But among those trying to get recognition, the price pressure is considerable. And good luck getting people to pay for your music.
  • anon_adderlan 12y ago
    > It applies to all content, because there's so much competition for limited attention and the tools to produce content are so widely accessible. What isn't widely accessible however are the tools needed to filter and find the content a user might like/need, which is now far more important to a work's success than any other factor.
• JimmaDaRustla 12y ago
  I got banned from theverge.com for suggesting that celebrities' Apple ID passwords may have been cracked by a brute force vulnerability with iCloud. Permanent ban, no explanation, no e-mail. The fishiest part, someone (not verge staff) replied to my comment saying "enjoy your ban". I've been weirded out by the power and bias of Apple employees and/or fans ever since.
  • akfanta 12y ago
    I don't know. Are you sure you didn't violate any other rules? The Verge might be close to Apple, but I doubt you'd get banned just because of that.
    • JimmaDaRustla 12y ago
      I am/was a bit opinionated, but within reason. I never made threats or claimed anything I said was fact. It seemed like there were a team of people who were on news sites denying comments like mine, probably just your average tech site commenters though. Some people were adamant that brute forcing (algorithms and dictionaries) would not be possibly and would take 20+ years to crack one password. The real interesting thing to me was how it was permanent ban without warning and without ability to be appealed.
  • dublinben 12y ago
    Do you know of any technology news sites that aren't as obviously partisan and pro-Apple? It's pretty clear from the volume and depth of Apple coverage that most sites are dominated by Apple fans among their staff and leadership.
    • JimmaDaRustla 12y ago
      True. But it feels like a chapter out of 1984 when people can't make ambiguous opinions without someone knocking at your door to correct you and deny you your speech.
      • 12y ago
• dognotdog 12y ago
  Indie developers have often been at the whim of Apple, throughout its history. But prior to the iPhone, Apple was small, as was the developer 'community' (a more apt moniker then, than now). Apple did control the platform, but not the sales channel. A few evangelists and engineers were enough to sustain a dialog with the developer community. And indie software then consisted of mostly unique applications, often brilliant and unique to the platform, and it was important for the platform to have those apps. With the introduction of the iPhone, this all changed. It was (is) a gold rush. The number of developers grew from a few thousand to a few hundred thousand. At first, the Mac developers profited from the uptick in Mac popularity, and some could place iOS apps early in the iOS App Store, leveraging their familiarity with OS X and Objective C. But the sheer number of new developers meant that the dialog almost completely broke down. The App Store is a walled garden, but not only in the usual sense. It's also a wall between Apple and the developers, and the image of a horde of zombie like bazaar salesmen trying to scale it is quite apt to describe the situation. Developers are no longer rewarded for making the best or most beatiful apps. Be fast, be loud, be a winner. A little slip, and you're back to the bottom of the pile, or with a bit of bad luck, out of the game. Apple is in a position of power, and they seemingly no longer have to care about some small indie dev's app, it's now no more than a drop in the bucket of the App Store ecosystem. So they don't expend any more effort on developer relations than absolutely necessary to keep the bucket overflowing. It make business sense. At least in the short term. Apple is now in a working mode like any other corp which has become too large for its own good. The shareholders are mostly in it for the money, so they have no qualms about milking the company for short term gains. There is no longer a man at the helm of the company who had a vision and was willing to fight for it, and wasn't just looking to make a quick buck. Tim Cook is doing the best job he can, no doubt, but he is in a completely different position than Steve Jobs was. The tyranny of money is arguably worse than the tyranny of Steve Jobs could ever have been. Not that his presence would fix most problems, but he was seemingly the only one capable of bypassing Apple's corporate machinery to make things happen. So it's not surprising that developers are frustrated. The decline in software quality is undeniable. The App Store process is a running joke. The App Store UI is absolutely horrible. It simply doesn't scale to the hundreds of thousands of apps it now contains. And for the less scrupulous, it is still too easy to game, more to the harm of other developers, than their own gain, too. Those in prominent positions in the App Store will do their best to stay in Apple's graces while it lasts, and this is Apple's current version of the Reality Distortion Field. The developers don't fear the company itself, but are continually on such thin ice that they fear putting their foot down too forcefully. [Good god, what a rant. Despite all the frustration, I seem to be caught in the RDF as well.]
• fumar 12y ago
  From the sidelines it is apparent that Apple uses apps (free ones or cheap ones) to entice consumers with the idea of purchasing one device and having access to free* compatible software. Similar to when you purchase a video game console that is bundled with other games. Apple can sit on the sidelines while developers create applications that cater to consumers ever changing needs. Apple's job is to sell their products and communicate to the market that each device comes bundled or has access to great free* applications. It is a great strategy that allows them to position their hardware as forward thinking. Why would they change their position to promote higher cost applications? I don't see any reason, as this would change how consumers perceive their devices. Would the average iOS user want to purchase every application on their device or pay a higher cost then today? I firmly believe that iOS devices have been successful because of the wide range of applications created in the app store.
• firloop 12y ago
  This article summarizes the epitome of my experience as an Apple developer. I'm 17 years old and a developer on the app store. The App Store feels opaque and like a black box where I submit builds with little to no feedback or control. I get paid when Apple decides, and could be eradicated from the App Store at a moment's notice. I realized early on that being featured by Apple was unlikely, and have adopted a sustainable pricing model (a term I was unfamiliar with before reading this piece) to fund my development. I'm certain that by charging $14.99, I stay out of the bottom 47% of developers that make less than $100 a month from the app store. I do not rely on the app store for anything. From visibility to app discovery, I feel that Apple has failed me. When I get support emails, I cannot even refund a single paying user, which means I have to send $14.99 back to the user using PayPal and eat Apple's $4.50 fee for that transaction. It's immensely frustrating and a main reason why I allow users to sign up concurrently on my website using a card (Stripe). Every part of developing for Apple leads me to this conclusion: I do not matter. My app does not matter.
  • usaphp 12y ago
    Those who purchase your apps are paying to Apple, why would YOU send them a refund? If they want a refund they have to figure that out with a marketplace not a seller.
    • fiblye 12y ago
      When a user's disappointed with a product, they blame the creator of the product, not Apple. Not offering up good customer service would only tarnish his reputation. People will keep paying Apple no matter what, so they really don't care. People won't keep paying an unknown developer with 2 star ratings.
    • bduerst 12y ago
      That's the point? Customer service is lacking this basic functionality, so this developer is providing it on the side at an increased cost.
      • bandushrew 12y ago
• kaolinite 12y ago
  Whoa, whoa, whoa. I was following quite closely when Marco Arment's article was published and the storm erupted around it. Marco's comments have totally been taken out of context here: the reason he regretted publishing the article was not out of fear of Apple primarily but because many publications took it and used it to justify the "Apple is doomed" narrative which Marco personally doesn't agree with. He was quite sad about that because the article was a serious piece highlighting particular problems that need addressing but it was just used as fodder for "This wouldn't have happened if Steve Jobs was alive..." headlines. Whilst I didn't see the particular tweet when it happened, it's pretty clear that Cabel Sasser is also talking about the press in his tweet (note "dramapress"). Whilst elements of this article do seem a bit biased, there are some good points later on which aren't taken out of context. It's a shame that it started out with this.
  • engendered 12y ago
    but because many publications took it and used it to justify the "Apple is doomed" narrative which Marco personally doesn't agree with Show me one. Just one single example. I'll wait. EDIT: Chuckle. A mod bomb on this benign post. Cool. ... You're not going to find one. The hit piece/exaggerated/"doomed" noise is a defensive fiction. Nothing was taken out of context (does anyone actually disagree with the observation that Apple has lost the focus on software quality?). Nothing was exaggerated. If anything the issues with Apple software quality lately have hugely been under-stated: My children all refuse to use the Mac Mini because it is, by far, the most issue-prone device in the house. The iPad now sits on its charger all day. Marco was sad because his words were used by "the other side". It is as simple as that (as others have said, it's a "tribal" mentality). Criticisms are okay if they're kept in house, but make sure you don't let the neighbors hear. Which is an extraordinary situation. I can't imagine a single parallel to this where so many are so fearful of upsetting their tribe of literally tens of millions of people. Maybe in North Korea?
    • jusben1369 12y ago
      I gave you an upvote to try and offset the flurry. I think you're both right. My sense was Marco did regret writing it not because of fear of a Black Apple planet but rather because it became a tool for people to attack Apple with "If Marco the fanboi is concerned then wow!" So the original author is misconstruing it by representing it as being fear of Apple. And I think you're right that Marco's exasperation wasn't with the "If Steve Jobs was alive" crowd. He was just taken aback because he unleashed a wave of pent up criticism against Apple from others in the tech community who like Marco are generally very positive towards Apple. It was like he signaled to others that it was time to air grievances that had been building.
• pasta_2 12y ago
  I love that coders are all worried about their "craft" being devalued while these are the very same people that will unironically tell music artists that they should sell t-shirts and to do concerts. Well my friends, like the music industry it's time to adapt. It's time to start selling t-shirts.
  • matheweis 12y ago
    Not all of us feel that way... I've having such a rotten time finding the digital music that I actually want that I'm quite ready to go back to CDs.
    • arrrg 12y ago
      That’s just you getting old, I think? Also, I’m not really sure what the medium has to do with that.
      • matheweis 12y ago
        Nope, we're talking fairly modern things, I think. Film scores from 5-10-year old blockbusters? Countless unavailable on streaming services, many unavailable on iTunes/Amazon. Still can be found on CD no problem. Not just audio either. It's 2015, where can I buy a legal digital download of any episode of Star Wars? Nowhere.
  • aikah 12y ago
    was thinking exactly the same. "Spotify not paying enough ? stop complainingf,just go sell tshirts ...",well too bad, soon "app developers" will earn as little peny as I earn with Spotify.
• litso 12y ago
  Apps behave the same way that other kinds of media does online: 1. sell for rock bottom prices 2. become a hit or don't 3. their popularity if any is short lived and highest when they debut It may be the case that Apple is fine with this phenomenon, but its a pretty big leap to say they are creating it.
• rebootthesystem 12y ago
  We had a product plan consisting of over twenty educational apps in various segments. It took about a year to develop the framework for these apps based on machine kearning technology. We then released one to the App Store to gain some experience. And, based on that experience we decided to not spend another dime builing iOS native apps. We switched to web-based and in same cases even desktop native apps. And it was the right decision. Couldn't pay us enough to even consider the App store again. Apple is a horrible host for your products. You don't get to build a relationship with your customers. Apple controls your very existence. If you are doing a game like Clash of Clans perhaps it makes sense. Not sure it does for most other products. If Apple released stats on the "distribution of wealth" on the app store most developers would run away as fast as they could.
• vinceguidry 12y ago
  I've learned to adopt the following attitude concerning software and hardware: Use a device for things that the company making the device cares seriously about. My iPhone was absolutely fantastic at music playback. Apple takes a great deal of pride in its relationship to the music community and it shows. Bluetooth happens instantly. Songs sound great. When I switched to a Nexus 5 last year, the difference in software quality was immediate and jarring. I can't put my car in reverse any more until my music starts playing because I don't know whether it actually will. Sometimes getting it going requires a simple hitting of play on the player. Sometimes I have to go into the settings menu, force a shutdown of Google Play Services, turn off the Bluetooth, turn it back on, then finally re-select Bluetooth playback in my car so it'll re-connect. Occasionally the Music app will incompletely break, the only fix I've found is rebooting the phone. Even the music sounds off. For the first few seconds, I get this weird wobble in the pitch. It crackles and stutters. Software is hard. Managing software development even harder. You have to focus your limited resources somewhere, if you don't, you get Google software, which is OK when you look at it in aggregate, but horrible if you're looking for a refined experience in something important. The music player wasn't given priority over other stuff, and the resource management isn't great, so the Music app sucks. I'd go so far as to call it dogshit, Google oughta be ashamed of themselves. Apple is opinionated, and its opinions tend to be pretty good. A device streamlined around a few critical functions that are in use all the time is all I really need. I make calls, I listen to music, I read books. That's all I really need from my phone. The App store is similarly opinionated. You need to have a certain kind of business and buy into Apple's philosophy if you really want to do well with it. The more I used my iPhone when I had it, the more I started to understand the issues Apple faces when providing a mobile platform and why that philosophy and opinionated-ness exists. I'm really glad Apple has found a way to ignore the noise from developers that don't understand those challenges. Apple is a design company, they focus all their resources around providing a consistent, gorgeous, and useful experience, that has to come at the expense of the hacker mentality that exists in software developers. The ones that do well understand Apple's design mentality, and Apple helps them out by featuring their products.
  • JimDabell 12y ago
    > The more I used my iPhone when I had it, the more I started to understand the issues Apple faces when providing a mobile platform and why that philosophy and opinionated-ness exists. > I'm really glad Apple has found a way to ignore the noise from developers that don't understand those challenges. To mangle a Churchill quote, the best argument in favour of a curated App Store is a five-minute conversation with the average app entrepreneur. Especially in the early days, there were no end of clients asking for user-hostile and abusive behaviour. "Apple won't allow that" was an oft-repeated phrase that won a lot of battles for end-users. It certainly has its down-sides as well, but it really does protect end-users from incredibly shitty experiences.
• Futurebot 12y ago
  This story is a specific instance of a larger story, one as old as human power structures. This can happen in any relationship where power is very asymmetrical, and where the weaker party feels so dependent on being in the good graces of the former. Websites fear making Google mad. Content creators fear making Facebook mad. The press sometimes fear making politicians and sponsors mad. It's perverse, because those with the most expertise are the ones we need doing the critiquing, but fear or loss of access - to people, to jobs, to inside information - and even the fear of social ostracism (you stop getting invited to meetings, events, interviews, etc.) cause self-censorship (http://ijbssnet.com/journals/Vol_5_No_3_March_2014/9.pdf http://ijbssnet.com/journals/Vol_5_No_3_March_2014/9.pdf) I think what this all really shows is that if you want to be able to have controversial opinions about things and be taken seriously, you need to already be successful, and preferably wealthy, so that your livelihood depends on nothing. Anonymity and pseudonymity can let you say whatever you want, but that doesn't mean anyone will take you seriously. Bloomberg, Buffet, and Gates can potentially say whatever they want (and Bloomberg certainly does); if you can't bribe or starve someone, you probably also can't silence them.
• drcube 12y ago
  I'm not going to pay $10 for an app I can't transfer to another device. As long as our phones are disposable so too are our apps. And I don't pay top dollar for garbage.
  • djrogers 12y ago
    Wait, what??? iOS apps aren't hardware locked you know...
    • drcube 12y ago
      Do they run on Android? Windows? Linux? My point is that they're locked to an ecosystem I'll never be able to leave if I heavily invest in. I minimize app purchases for this reason. I don't want my digital life to be tied to a particular company or brand, and I run free software as much as possible because of this.
• lips 12y ago
  When I first saw the app store, my initial reaction was that this was the K-martization of software. Numerous low cost products, difficult to distinguish (publishing of specs in differing orders makes direct comparison difficult), leveraging audience for supplier allegiance, and both cost & product range over consumer. Apple managed to add in true vertical integration, and it was pretty obvious it was going to work out well for them, but with side effects. I hate it as a consumer (I don't code), and I hate it all the more because I know why my options & buying experience are being impacted by their business model, given that I do know developers, and have been buying software since the late 80s.
• smoyer 12y ago
  I love my rMBP ... It's the best laptop I've ever run Linux on!
• guelo 12y ago
  You're a sharecropper. It doesn't matter how much you pour your heart and soul into someone else's platform it's still their platform. They don't owe you anything, they care about one thing, maximizing their profits. People sometimes appeal to the large corporation pleading that helping the "ecosystem" will make more money for everybody. But this is not necessarily true. There are many situations where screwing over the ecosystem in some way maximizes the corporations' profits while hurting everyone else, and the corporation will choose that route every time. The only option is to stop being a sharecropper. We are incredibly lucky that their is one open platform out there: the web. It is an amazing accident of history that we ended up with the web as an open platform. And there are corporations working hard to lock it down, like Facebook, Google, Twitter, etc. But so far it's still open. If you don't want to be a sharecropper the web is your only option.
  • mavdi 12y ago
    Well said. I made the mistake of investing in a closed ecosystem once with Adobe and Flash. They pulled the rug out from under their developers (Flash was dying, they said it wasn't and then it died anyway and they dropped it like a sack of potatoes)and I promised myself not to EVER invest any time on any closed platform. I don't even use PaaS systems as much as possible as we've seen what happens when they go bust.
    • walterbell 12y ago
      I can't find the reference at the moment, but apparently Apple's commodization of iOS developers was intended to prevent any iOS ISV gaining the negotiating power that Adobe once had against Apple.
      • kalleboo 12y ago
        Wouldn't Microsoft be a better example of a developer holding "too much" power over Apple? I'm sure Jobs didn't enjoy having Gates' face leering down on him on stage, promising to keep developing Office for Mac.
• dools 12y ago
  I experimented one afternoon with developing for Apple, then figured it wasn't for me for precisely these reasons: http://www.workingsoftware.com.au/page/PickDrop_NOT_available_on_the_Mac_App_store http://www.workingsoftware.com.au/page/PickDrop_NOT_availabl...
• MarkG509 12y ago
  No one has mentioned that recently IBM has become an app developer for Apple.
• jsz0 12y ago
  These developers are very naive if they are unaware confidentiality / non-defimation clauses are part of most B2B agreements. As a general rule yes you should fear breaking contracts. Bad things might happen.
• pmontra 12y ago
  There is only one sure way to make money as an app developer, iOS or Android: getting paid to develop for customers that will publish those apps on the stores. And there is only one sure way for those customers to be profitable: give the apps away for free and make money with the service people access with those apps. In the software world think Trello, Slack. Other services, think Uber. If you want to make money through the store, by selling your app, it's very hard because of all the reasons discussed in the other posts here.
• wishiknew 12y ago
  Thanks to the author for the quality of the article (could have been a tad shorter but I'm nit-picking) and for the Steinbeck quote!
• tempodox 12y ago
  The app store is a PITA for both developers and users, both on iOS and OS X. What keeps me in the appleversum is mostly lock-in and inertia. There were times once when I genuinely thought the Apple platform was actually the best solution for my needs. Now, they torture me more with every OS X & iOS release. I do OS updates solely to avoid planned obsolescence. I never thought I would say that: I will gladly jump ship at the first feasible opportunity, and heave a massive sigh of relief.
• tripzilch 12y ago
  > "Perhaps though Ivanovic should have known better than to publicly promote his Android-first launch. This was tantamount to badmouthing Apple in the press." What. No, it's not. Sure Apple can try and "hide" behind that, but that doesn't change it's a totally unreasonable interpretation of "run to the press and thrash us".
• anon_adderlan 11y ago
  I have no idea if I should fear Apple. Then again, I have no idea if what I say affects my relationship with Apple. But assumptions emerge in this information vacuum, and because my relationship with Apple is the only 'legitimate' way I have of getting my Apps on a user's iOS device, I have to be concerned with this. No wonder conclusions like this emerge. And while it may have cost more money to market software in the 'bad' old days, you could still give it away for free, which is NOT possible on iOS or Windows Phone, and even Android requires extra hoops which many users are not savvy enough to jump through. So Fear of Apple makes sense if you think they can hurt your bottom line. And given that Apple (or at least Steve Jobs) has been a very spiteful in the past, I think it's more than warranted. And just because it's better now (which it is) doesn't mean we shouldn't continue to push to make it even better.