Comment by DMiner | Hacker News Reader

Comment by DMiner | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

I wish your comment was a fact. But Apple is a business and they have business interests when it comes to these outsider platforms.

My understanding is that Apple doesnt allow Java ,Silverlight , Qt or any of those, because these platforms could gradually in-signify the need for a walled garden of apps. App Store is a real cash cow with a lot of potential and Apple clearly doesnt want to purge it off(and that is a good business move.)

IMHO, the same even applies to html5. Apple runs huge campaigns and invests in Safari development to make sure that webkit could gradually insignify the need for a plugin to run interactive content. But try running most of these html5 apps on an iphone/ipad.The rendering framerate is very low and is almost not usable. While native apps run real good, the discrimination against webkit could be that Apple is purposefully delaying the iDevice users' dependency on web apps .

I believe Apple's all-control policy is more of a business move than a security related one

>App Store is a real cash cow with a lot of potential and Apple clearly doesnt want to purge it off

What evidence do you have to back up your claim? If it were true that Apple is making a profit from the App Store, then wouldn't there exist an opportunity for Android Marketplace to undercut Apple's App Store?

When it comes to smartphones, Google cares only about marketshare. More Android apps guarantees more Google searches, and therefore more opportunities to serve advertising. One factor preventing Google from attaining more marketshare is the huge range of quality apps that exists for the iPhone. If it were true that a 30% cut of app revenue enabled Google to make a significant profit, wouldn't they reduce their cut in an effort to try and attract more developers?

>The rendering framerate is very low and is almost not usable.

This problem will disappear in a couple of years as mobile processors become faster and JS engines improve.

I understand the business move, but I never understood the "cash cow" reasoning. Most apps appear to be in the $2.99 to $.99 range. The 60 cents Apple gains from a $1.99 app barely covers credit card fees (for multiple currencies), bandwidth fees, bank fees to send money to developer, and paying salaries for all those app reviewers.

Occam's Razor suggests that they want to build "only the best apps" so the way to do that is to "completely control the build toolchain". Has nothing to do with "cash cow" conspiracy theories.

> The 60 cents Apple gains from a $1.99 app barely covers credit card fees (for multiple currencies), bandwidth fees, bank fees to send money to developer, and paying salaries for all those app reviewers.

What's your source for this?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com