You can see how it works on the Economist where there are two "titles" for each article, a catchy one and a useful one.
e.g. From http://www.economist.com/printedition/2017-02-18:
Catchy / Useful
- Taking the low road / Scotland's economy
- Back to the desert / Britain in the Gulf
- Still cleaning up the Co-op / Ethical banking
- Errant Flynn / Turmoil in the administration
- etc
Quite often an excellent article will have a really generic or vague title that few people will ever read, and a judiciously edited title will interest people enough to read it.
At that point, upvotes should determine whether the article lives or dies, as usual. If readers don't think the article is worthwhile, they don't have to upvote it.
I like your subtitle idea too. It's definitely better than insisting on keeping just the original title. Unfortunately, it will make for some practical difficulties with the layout of HN pages, which will be able to fit fewer articles in the same space, and it will also be problematic with RSS feeds and the like, which will often still display just one title, not a title and subtitle.
"Dear Apple" or "Requests regarding XCode and Swift/ObjC" or "Developer tooling in the Apple ecosystem"
Uneditorialized titles also encourages marketing via title wording. But in general, isn't this the Facebook "link as it is" vs "how would be objectively and fairly make links better" debate?
Is this a manifesto, or an attempt to get a bunch of Apple developers to put their email addresses on a list as part of someone's marketing campaign for iOS-focused dev tools?
Every developer on an Apple device who actually makes apps for Apple devices. There are a lot of devs on Macbooks who produce server applications that run on Linux, possibly more than create iOS or macOS apps.