5 ms·

This is pretty ridiculous. There's very little comparison. 1. Apple didn't respond to a letter from Taylor swift in < 24 hours - this had been building for a w

This is pretty ridiculous. There's very little comparison. 1. Apple didn't respond to a letter from Taylor swift in < 24 hours - this had been building for a week or two as large indie labels made their opinions public and let's not forget it's rumoured that Apple was having difficulty signing any indie labels. I would be shocked if Apple hadn't been considering this for weeks already. 2. App devs - of which I am one - get a decent deal. It's simple, clear cut, and quite high especially when compared with how things are in brick and mortar stores. 3. There is no comparison here anyway. When Apple TELLS developers that you can only have your apps on the store if you give up 3 months of revenue then there is one.

magicmu 11y ago
This is completely true. Apple's absolute control over their ecosystem is not just a drawback -- it's also a significant benefit of them. There are far fewer apps in the Apple store than the Play store that are DOA, and the general quality of apps is far higher. Although it's somewhat contrary to the modern spirit of development, Apple's policies have proven to be a very good method of quality control.
- notsony 11y ago
  This is highly subjective...
  - magicmu 11y ago
    I can see how my claim comes off that way, but I really just meant "better quality" as "adhering to the basic best practice principles for mobile," not as a claim on design quality or usefulness. A ton of apps on the Play store really don't even function correctly.
- lips 11y ago
  I hear this constantly, and if you base your judgements on top-tier apps that are recommended via various techie sources, it's absolutely true. But if you start searching blind, you're quite likely to end up trying out or purchasing some truly craptacular iOS apps. I've been a split iOS/Android for 5 years or so, and am always flummoxed at this claim.
hahainternet 11y ago
1. Apple explicitly responded directly to Taylor Swift. 2. App devs get a decent deal, but restrictions like taking a cut of all purchases done through an app are very distasteful.
- strictnein 11y ago
  Apple is processing those purchases and providing access to its vast collection of payment information. That has a lot of value. The amount purchased through Apps if each one had to ask for and process credit cards would be _far_ lower. I would never provide my card to some random app dev, but I'll happily drop $1 or $2 in a decent app/game that I'm enjoying.
  - mikeash 11y ago
    Regardless of how much value it provides, we have no choice if we want to sell on the platform. In a hypothetical world where we could either sell ourselves or go through Apple, if it really provided that much value, everyone would still go through Apple. I kind of doubt that would be the case.
  - hahainternet 11y ago
    I agree there are some costs, but I think that the amount Apple feels entitled to take is still distasteful. As there is no competition, the pricing is quite high.
    - oldmanjay 11y ago
      That "no competition" stance requires defining that Apple has a monopoly on selling their own products, which is true, but fairly useless. In the larger market in which iOS is a participant, they have quite a competitor in Google, with a number of also-rans clawing for attention.
  - Touche 11y ago
    The distasteful part is where they disallow you from using a different payment processor.
jediMac 11y ago
Agreed. One other thing to note—Apple doesn't prohibit timed trials of content. In fact, Apple supports it and builds in free subscriptions. What they prohibit is apps that completely stop working after a trial period. But they allow apps to have some functionality cease after an introductory period.
mikeash 11y ago
It's nonsensical to compare to brick-and-mortar stores. We didn't go from brick-and-mortar to the App Store. We went from direct internet sales, where we got to build whatever we wanted, ship updates instantaneously, and keep 98% of the revenue, to the App Store.
- adambratt 11y ago
  You're forgetting all the money that we had to spend on marketing.
  - mikeash 11y ago
    The marketing picture hasn't changed for 99.999% of developers. Unless you're fortunate to get featured by Apple, you still have to do all the work yourself.
  - WorldWideWayne 11y ago
    So nobody who has an app in an app store has to advertise anymore? I see advertisements for Wix all day long on Bloomberg TV, perhaps someone should tell them that they should have just put an app in Apple's store.
- tfinniga 11y ago
  One nice advantage of the iOS ecosystem is that installing a new app is risk free. I have a relative that uses an iPad as their primary computing device. They install new apps all the time, as opposed to their laptop, which they are afraid that they will mess up. Apple made a new market, and is charging for access to it. I believe that you're still free to sell your apps on Android or jailbroken iOS devices, direct over the internet.
  - yellowapple 11y ago
    > I believe that you're still free to sell your apps on Android or jailbroken iOS devices, direct over the internet. Trying to compare jailbroken iOS devices to the pre-iOS days is nonsensical. You're limiting your userbase to those with both the technical know-how and the motivation to continually re-jailbreak their devices as Apple fights tooth and nail to prevent said jailbreaking. Your argument re: jailbroken devices would be more relevant if iOS followed the Android model of "here's an app store, but you can check this box here if you're fine with the risks of installing things from outside of our app store". Until that happens, it's pure nonsense, as I'm sure you're already fully aware of.
Cthulhu_ 11y ago
#2 is true, but what the article points out that it's mainly an app store reform that the indie devs have been asking for for seven years now - to no avail, app discovery is still pretty much non-existent in the app store outside of the top listings and the 'featured apps'.
atmosx 11y ago
> It's simple, clear cut, and quite high especially when compared with how things are in brick and mortar stores. Care to explain further?
- k-mcgrady 11y ago
  Sure. If you're an indie dev you get 70% of all purchases. No complicated contracts, no middle-men, no varying deals in different countries and distribution is as simple as uploading a file to Apple. With musicians they get almost the same % but it also has to go through a ton of middle men and the deals vary around the world. They're also locked in at a single price point (the streaming rate). Finally with brick and mortar stores the deals were much, much worse and if you couldn't get a deal you couldn't sell your software. With pure online distribution you had to build a website, payment system, update mechanism, manage DRM/serials and if you didn't market heavily you wouldn't make a penny because no one would know you exist.
esolyt 11y ago
> Apple didn't respond to a letter from Taylor swift in < 24 hours - this had been building for a week or two Yet the reply was addressing Taylor Swift personally. The fact that Apple replied to a letter by Swift in 24 hours does not change.
austenallred 11y ago
I've read this a few times, and I'm still failing to understand what, specifically, indie app developers have been demanding "for over six years." Apple isn't going to publicly respond to every support ticket filed in less than one day - this really are apples and oranges (Not to mention, the answer from Apple could be 'no' in both scenarios.)
- titaniumdecoy 11y ago
  Off the top of my head... 1. App trial periods 2. Paid app upgrades 3. App Store search results that are actually relevant 4. Ability to respond to negative reviews 5. Mac App Store sand boxing that doesn't suck Of course, there are many more issues but the primary problem is that Apple has addressed exactly zero of these issues and the App Store itself is virtually unchanged after 5+ years.
  - austenallred 11y ago
    Right, Swift had one very specific and timely request for a new product. That's not comparable to, "There's a bunch of stuff that's needed fixing for years."

magicmu 11y ago

This is completely true. Apple's absolute control over their ecosystem is not just a drawback -- it's also a significant benefit of them. There are far fewer apps in the Apple store than the Play store that are DOA, and the general quality of apps is far higher. Although it's somewhat contrary to the modern spirit of development, Apple's policies have proven to be a very good method of quality control.

notsony 11y ago
This is highly subjective...
- magicmu 11y ago
  I can see how my claim comes off that way, but I really just meant "better quality" as "adhering to the basic best practice principles for mobile," not as a claim on design quality or usefulness. A ton of apps on the Play store really don't even function correctly.
lips 11y ago
I hear this constantly, and if you base your judgements on top-tier apps that are recommended via various techie sources, it's absolutely true. But if you start searching blind, you're quite likely to end up trying out or purchasing some truly craptacular iOS apps. I've been a split iOS/Android for 5 years or so, and am always flummoxed at this claim.

hahainternet 11y ago

1. Apple explicitly responded directly to Taylor Swift. 2. App devs get a decent deal, but restrictions like taking a cut of all purchases done through an app are very distasteful.

strictnein 11y ago
Apple is processing those purchases and providing access to its vast collection of payment information. That has a lot of value. The amount purchased through Apps if each one had to ask for and process credit cards would be _far_ lower. I would never provide my card to some random app dev, but I'll happily drop $1 or $2 in a decent app/game that I'm enjoying.
- mikeash 11y ago
  Regardless of how much value it provides, we have no choice if we want to sell on the platform. In a hypothetical world where we could either sell ourselves or go through Apple, if it really provided that much value, everyone would still go through Apple. I kind of doubt that would be the case.
- hahainternet 11y ago
  I agree there are some costs, but I think that the amount Apple feels entitled to take is still distasteful. As there is no competition, the pricing is quite high.
  - oldmanjay 11y ago
    That "no competition" stance requires defining that Apple has a monopoly on selling their own products, which is true, but fairly useless. In the larger market in which iOS is a participant, they have quite a competitor in Google, with a number of also-rans clawing for attention.
- Touche 11y ago
  The distasteful part is where they disallow you from using a different payment processor.

jediMac 11y ago

Agreed. One other thing to note—Apple doesn't prohibit timed trials of content. In fact, Apple supports it and builds in free subscriptions. What they prohibit is apps that completely stop working after a trial period. But they allow apps to have some functionality cease after an introductory period.

mikeash 11y ago

It's nonsensical to compare to brick-and-mortar stores. We didn't go from brick-and-mortar to the App Store. We went from direct internet sales, where we got to build whatever we wanted, ship updates instantaneously, and keep 98% of the revenue, to the App Store.

adambratt 11y ago
You're forgetting all the money that we had to spend on marketing.
- mikeash 11y ago
  The marketing picture hasn't changed for 99.999% of developers. Unless you're fortunate to get featured by Apple, you still have to do all the work yourself.
- WorldWideWayne 11y ago
  So nobody who has an app in an app store has to advertise anymore? I see advertisements for Wix all day long on Bloomberg TV, perhaps someone should tell them that they should have just put an app in Apple's store.
tfinniga 11y ago
One nice advantage of the iOS ecosystem is that installing a new app is risk free. I have a relative that uses an iPad as their primary computing device. They install new apps all the time, as opposed to their laptop, which they are afraid that they will mess up. Apple made a new market, and is charging for access to it. I believe that you're still free to sell your apps on Android or jailbroken iOS devices, direct over the internet.
- yellowapple 11y ago
  > I believe that you're still free to sell your apps on Android or jailbroken iOS devices, direct over the internet. Trying to compare jailbroken iOS devices to the pre-iOS days is nonsensical. You're limiting your userbase to those with both the technical know-how and the motivation to continually re-jailbreak their devices as Apple fights tooth and nail to prevent said jailbreaking. Your argument re: jailbroken devices would be more relevant if iOS followed the Android model of "here's an app store, but you can check this box here if you're fine with the risks of installing things from outside of our app store". Until that happens, it's pure nonsense, as I'm sure you're already fully aware of.

Cthulhu_ 11y ago

#2 is true, but what the article points out that it's mainly an app store reform that the indie devs have been asking for for seven years now - to no avail, app discovery is still pretty much non-existent in the app store outside of the top listings and the 'featured apps'.

atmosx 11y ago

> It's simple, clear cut, and quite high especially when compared with how things are in brick and mortar stores. Care to explain further?

k-mcgrady 11y ago
Sure. If you're an indie dev you get 70% of all purchases. No complicated contracts, no middle-men, no varying deals in different countries and distribution is as simple as uploading a file to Apple. With musicians they get almost the same % but it also has to go through a ton of middle men and the deals vary around the world. They're also locked in at a single price point (the streaming rate). Finally with brick and mortar stores the deals were much, much worse and if you couldn't get a deal you couldn't sell your software. With pure online distribution you had to build a website, payment system, update mechanism, manage DRM/serials and if you didn't market heavily you wouldn't make a penny because no one would know you exist.

esolyt 11y ago

> Apple didn't respond to a letter from Taylor swift in < 24 hours - this had been building for a week or two Yet the reply was addressing Taylor Swift personally. The fact that Apple replied to a letter by Swift in 24 hours does not change.

austenallred 11y ago

I've read this a few times, and I'm still failing to understand what, specifically, indie app developers have been demanding "for over six years." Apple isn't going to publicly respond to every support ticket filed in less than one day - this really are apples and oranges (Not to mention, the answer from Apple could be 'no' in both scenarios.)

titaniumdecoy 11y ago
Off the top of my head... 1. App trial periods 2. Paid app upgrades 3. App Store search results that are actually relevant 4. Ability to respond to negative reviews 5. Mac App Store sand boxing that doesn't suck Of course, there are many more issues but the primary problem is that Apple has addressed exactly zero of these issues and the App Store itself is virtually unchanged after 5+ years.
- austenallred 11y ago
  Right, Swift had one very specific and timely request for a new product. That's not comparable to, "There's a bunch of stuff that's needed fixing for years."