They seem to have some incentive to make it harder for you to switch platform. By restricting developers from using some of the common tools to build cross platform they are able to build an ecosystem that's harder to leave.
Of course Apple is working with game engine makers to support Metal, because otherwise those engines wouldn't export to the Mac. Gaming is still a Windows-centric activity, and it's mostly because of cross-platform game engines that indie designers have started to say, "yeah, I'll support Mac/Linux as well."
As an OS maker, when your choice is between having an app not come to your platform, and having it come because you contributed to a cross-platform framework, you opt for the cross-platform framework. But I'm not sure that proves anything. Literally any intelligently run company would push for compatibility with a more dominant platform.
Even a company like Oracle will push for compatibility with dominant competing product offerings; at least until Oracle's offering gets big enough that the compatibility is no longer in their best interest.
Even with games for mobile platforms iOS is dominant once you consider where all of the paying customers and high end hardware is. What hand developer if mobile games is going to target the relatively small number of high end Android phones? The ASP of S droid phones is something like $250. Most Android phones out there are low end.
A lot of this comes down to monetization. There are more Android devices out there than iOS devices, and more apps on Android. So is Android a better platform? No, the distinction is that iOS users buy apps, and Android users don't.
So if you're not trying to build an ad-supported, microtransaction-fueled experience, iOS is just a better platform to release on.
Similarly, the web is a very powerful distribution network for online apps, but there aren't many good ways to make money except via advertising, Patreon, and SaaS. The apps being sold on the Mac App Store mostly don't fit into those categories.
That means as a developer, if you want to build something that just works, that you just charge money for, that you don't need to host on some kind of remote server, or manage accounts for -- the web becomes a much less attractive platform.
The question is, once you decide to look at native, do you first look at Windows or Mac? I think that depends on what kind of app you're trying to build and who your target market is. For desktop games, 9/10 times you target Windows (which is why Apple cares about cross-platform game engines). For an app like Robomongo, I dunno. Maybe the economics become more interesting -- I'd be curious to see the revenue breakdowns for an app like that.
Interestingly enough, the lack of (well-designed) PWA features are one of the big reasons why the web is still not particularly attractive for certain classes of apps. (You can't store information offline in an accessible format, your webapp breaks whenever the browser cache is cleared, you can't make arbitrary cross-domain requests). I'm not a conspiracy theorist, and I don't see strong evidence that Apple is trying to kill the web. But it's not necessarily a crazy idea in the abstract, because I don't see the web as a dominant player in that space, and I don't see any economic incentive for Apple to care about making the web into a dominant player.
Pure monopoly means single supplier, but companies having monopoly power where they have the ability to increasingly behave independently of competitive pressures is more common. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lerner_index
Apple should be forced to stop these anticompetitive practices.
Your line of thought only works if the developers are the customer- they are not in Apple's case.
Your line of thought is the narrow "Chicago School" thinking Robert Bork in the US in the 90s where the sole focus is on the benefits to consumers and overall efficiency.
One of the reasons why Google Chrome enjoys its monopoly is because Apple does a terrible job with its browser Safari. Terrible. I mean it's a train-wreck! Since iOS 10 or probably little later they have done nothing but destroy how the web apis are supposed to function, abusing every single accessibility guideline into something that is at best a line of defense to promote their app store.
I hesitantly moved away from iPhone X to Android Pixel last month.
Chrome on the other hand... well, it's Google, one of the largest purveyors of advertising. If you don't think Chrome is watching you, I've got a bridge to sell you.
Maybe it’s telling the truth when it says there are security concerns?
If they allow alternate app store or browsers then yes apple is bold. Until then they need to consider their bottomline which requires sometimes bowing to China as well!
Microsoft only sells adware. Google is spyware (and crapware). Linux tablets don't even exist.
Apple focuses on compatibility, user experience, performance, hardware, ease of use (yet still useful for power users). Sure it's been dropping the ball a bit in the past few years, but it's still lightyears ahead of any competitor.
This word is not present in the post you replied to. I said more difficult - and forbidding some cross-platform libraries certainly has that effect.
The rejection of private keys used, by frameworks, is in no way new (2009 [1]) or misunderstood.
I find it very difficult to understand why Apple is getting any blame/concern for enforcing the violation of a very very old requirement.
[1] 2009, https://stackoverflow.com/questions/1773615/apple-and-privat...
> The reason this has become news recently is the creator of a framework used by several apps used a private API, so when developers who included his framework updated their apps, they were rejected
What’s old is new.
To be locked into Apple’s software means buying Apple hardware.
Do they control all the PC sales?
An Electron app is a web site shipped with a browser. Last I checked both browsers and websites still work on Mac.
All the real invention of value is still open and useable.
One customized way of packaging it all is not.
This is whining about a business model being upended by a technical decision.
Apple has not locked their platform to open technologies. Just their privately owned & operated market place.
> The trouble is that most managers only think about strategy one step at a time, like chess players who refuse to think one move ahead. Most of them will say, “it’s important to let people convert into your product, but why should I waste my limited engineering budget letting people convert out?“
I see this every day. People are much less likely to adopt Apple-only services than, say, Facebook and Google services that they can use on all of their devices and with all of their friends.
[1]: https://www.joelonsoftware.com/2000/06/03/strategy-letter-ii...