But history has shown companies like this fall from grace once a critical mass of once devoted customers go elsewhere. I hope I’m wrong and Apple wakes up before this happens.
I thought there was no alternative to the Apple ecosystem that wouldn’t drive me crazy (Windows) or cost me in productivity. But with my 2017 MacBook Pro dead (again) and no access to Apple service due to Pandemic, I took out an old Thinkpad T420 and installed Linux Mint. It installed perfectly, the keyboard is epic compared to MBP and I’m productive.
Now I’m happy because I have an effective alternative to Apple. Once my MBP is fixed I will sell it. And wave goodbye to Apple.
That is at least 20M lock in due to iOS. Added to many more developers have their Machine paid by company I wont be surprised if there are many more software developers on Mac platform. ( They dont care about the price of the machine nor how long it takes to repair )
That is one reason why Apple, after years of announcing the Mac User Satisfaction rate is no longer doing so in their latest conference and investor meeting. Their growth of Active Mac User has also slowed down dramatically, and hasn't reported a new Active Mac user number for quite a long time.
What all these suggest is that Apple only took action with the Keyboard and MacBook Pro 16" when they saw the sales were slowing. It wasn't the keyboard were not good enough or customers were unhappy with their Machine that brought them action. It was the sales number that did the talk. No one in Apple now has the product / user mindset whether something is good or not. The only product person is gone. And that was Steve Jobs.
The newest ipad? Copy of Android. The butterfly keys? DOA and they waited until consumers realized they made dud products at absurd prices. New macbook air? WTF kind of innovation is that? You literally are just reusing the brand name. Also 128gb hard drives as a standard? Still?! That is the biggest joke in the world seeing as the newest macbook has a 4k display. 4k files raw files can be like 50gb's at times! Thats half the drive space!
Apple can get bent at this point. The simple fact that I constantly have to tell it I'm okay with installing a third party app outside of the app store goes to show they do not care what I like about computing. They just want to funnel me through a path to make them money. This is why I'm a staunch advocate for OSS and Linux and always will be, even with their faults.
I still prefer their products to anything made by MS (and Linux is not an option for pro media reasons), but buying Apple has become less about delight and more about holding my nose while feeling like I'm being gouged for a product that is likely to have at least a few serious issues.
Developers like Adobe just need to put in the effort, because Linux itself is ready for production.
Linux ready for Production. Sure feels like the perfect time.
I built a Ryzen desktop a while ago, since there was no way I was paying what they want for an iMac Pro or Mac Pro, and I needed a decent GPU, lots of cores and memory and no thermal throttling.
Switched to Linux with a tiling WM (bspwm), since I’m a backend engineer (Go/Rust), not iOS. I also have Windows 10 installed, and honestly, it’s fine as well with WSL2.
Apple needs to realise Swift is not going anywhere except for the iOS/macOS niche, and consider general developers again, but so far Microsoft is doing a much better job of that, and I don’t hold out much hope, Apple have missed their window and are returning to their closed off locked down comfort zone. Not really sure they left, but it seemed like it for a while.
My MacBook Pro is gathering dust.
I can use whatever hardware I need, I can upgrade the hardware with ease, I can connect almost any periferals with ease.
The downside would be if you prefer OS X way of doing things. For me software I use matters more than the underlying OS, as long as the OS doesn't stay in my way.
not discounting apple's hand in all this, but that's mostly an instance of the caveat emptor problem (and paradox of choice too)--how do you know who to trust in a market?
not that it's always right, but apple and many consumers use size as a proxy for quality, a good enough, but probably not optimal, result in most cases. conversely, it's hard to evaluate small developers with no reputation. then you bring in reviews and review sites, and the additional trust issues around that.
any curation is bound to be imperfect (because humans and our systems are imperfect) but no curation at all is often even worse (paradox of choice and all). the path to a better system is not trying to get it exactly right the first time but having swift and visible procedures when it's wrong.
Charging that much is also a way to reduce support costs since anyone who will fork over that much for a VNC viewer probably knows what they’re doing or has an IT department.
(Totally agree with your take though—I have this problem with many categories of apps)
it was that way for windows desktops 10+ years ago, when i last really used a vnc client.
That was amusing; ran it for weeks. There were a few desktops and such, but the majority was camera monitoring systems from shops, kiosks, office buildings, streets and what not, some manufacturer clearly didn't do their due diligence... Found a whole bunch of industrial equipment HMI systems, although we could never figure out what it was, something with hot pipes... Some stuff looked like astronomy, some like fishing, a lot we just had no clue.
I wonder what it would look like if repeated today... ?
It works for desktop software where users know what is the best software for their particular needs.
I don't need to be told what should I use. I am doing that research myself, because I know my needs better than anyone else.
If you have to market the whole thing on your own and find your own audience, what value are they providing? Hosting the infrastructure? Fine, let me pay a per download price or a monthly hosting fee. Or better yet, let me host it on my own infrastructure.
Verifying the security of the app? The customers should be paying for that, not the developers.
That's the issue here. They want you to pay a ransom but they don't actually provide any value for that ransom.
I'd expect Apple to provide three things in exchange for the 30%:
Access to a huge audience, payment processing, and the administrative/technical stuff like download servers and bandwidth.
I don't know, in theory that's why they get 30%, to figure that out.
> Apple never claimed promotion they claimed access.
From their website [0]: "the all-new Mac App Store beautifully showcases your apps and makes them even easier to find."
> Do physical retail stores actively promote your SKU over the thousands of other products?
They most certainly do. If you've ever worked in retail you'd be familiar with the daily restocking sheet, where we had to move certain products to the eye level shelf and other ones down.
Look at your supermarket. The end caps change all the time. This is a combination of those brands paying for those placements and the store putting high margin popular items up front.
But the point is that stores accept different payments from different vendors for different levels of promotion.
So what platform has 4.5 million products and can showcase them all?
They most certainly do. If you've ever worked in retail you'd be familiar with the daily restocking sheet, where we had to move certain products to the eye level shelf and other ones down.
So some products get showcased and some languish in obscurity. Apple also showcases a few apps....
And those products that get showcased on the end cap pay extra. You can also (sadly) pay extra to run search based ads in the App Store.
Fraud at scale is still fraud. This isn’t a difficult concept.
I agree it's too much. But they do offer something for that 30%.
That's not possible anymore. It's a known fact that the only way to make it on the app store these days is to blow half a million dollars on a burst ad campaign to get a large initial volume of downloads. Other option is to have the number of "App Store Managers", who decide what gets featured, and that option is only really available to top VC firms and large companies.
Back in the day if I wanted to find a good navigation app I could open up the app store, press on the navigation category and get a list of top navigation apps, determined by usage. Now it's:
open app > press "Apps" tab > scroll 10 pages worth of content down to "Top Categories" > press a small blue text button "See All" > select "Navigation" > scroll past hiking, charging and bike sharing recommended sections > find "Top Free" section > press "See All" > browse top apps
From talking to a lot of users of my app I guarantee you that 90% of people never make it past the hand picked suggestions that Apple decides to show everyone. To make things worse their search is completely broken, I just searched "maps" and got:
0. Paid Ad for Google Maps
1. Apple Maps
2. "Brainstorm and Mind-Map Your Ideas" ("Story")
3. Google Maps
4. Google Photos
5. Facebook Messenger
6. Gmail
7. Waze
A new mapping app has no shot at getting discovered the way Waze did back in the day unless it raises millions of dollars and blows all of it on Apple, Google and Facebook ads.
Marco Arment is a one man shop who saw success with both InstaPaper before he sold it and now Overcast. Overcast is often featured in the App Store.
David “Underscore” Smith is another indie Mac developer who is frequently featured in the iOS App Store and the Watch App Store. Not to mention apps like Carrot Weather and Dark Skies.
On another note what shot does an indie musician have to being successful?
m_ke's point is that you shouldn't have to be hand-picked by Apple like that to be successful. Apps that people rate highly and download more should have the benefit of being on the front page.
Apps-> Most popular.
Maybe you and m_ke are using different versions of iOS.
Open App Store. This is what the screen looks like.
Apps
Watch With Family
Disney+
Stream Pixar’s Latest hit
[ Screen shot of Onward]
Popular Apps. [See All]
Today | Games | Apps | Arcade | Search
If you click on Games you see “essential game picks”.If you click on Apps, you see “Popular Apps”.
The entire issue with “popular free apps” is that it never gives other apps the opportunity to gain exposure and the same apps stay popular for years at a time. Apps like Facebook would get exposure forever.
I mean at least make App Store Search works would be a great place to start 11 years after App Store was introduced?
Part of me just want Apple to give me a dump of all the Apps Information to shove it inside Elastic Search and see if I get better results by default than the current App Store searching. That is how bad it is. ( To add insult to injury they decided to add top placement bids to App Store )
All the apps I see on the app store are major corporations. There is hardly anything by indie or single devs anymore.
Overcast is the most popular third party podcast player on iOS and it is written by one person. David Smith has made a living on the App Store for years as a solo developer.
But how is the power law that you see in the App Store any different than in music, books, podcasts or on the web?
With more critical services and partnerships depending on Google, we're currently choosing our battles, even though I'd love to take this out in public.
That doesn't take away that Apple still takes the crown. Over the years, we've been revoked for doing some basic app behavior, then for not doing it anymore and lastly for doing it again (sorry that I can't go into specifics).
We're not doing anything remotely shady, just basic item comparison for consumers.
If you're relying on any of the app stores for your business these days, you're screwed. Both major ecosystems are unreliable, inconsistent dictatorships by now.
It's really time to unite as app developers and take out those big anti-trust guns.
Like Firefox and other proper browsers (not just Safari reskins)? ;-)
And other stuff like emulators and on-device development environments, software under GPLv3 and others.
It’s not exactly winning over hearts and minds on the other platforms where it’s available - Windows, Macs, or Android.
And “successful” as in “makes decent money”.
It’s the authors choice to use a license that’s its incompatible with Apple’s policies. You are free to have open source software and publish it on github and run it on iOS.
Also if you are the legal rights holder of the emulated system, you are free to distribute your emulator with games - see Sega.
So basically you'll just be moving the goalposts until you prove Apple is the only innovative company around? Right.
Even if you are just looking for ubiquity and not looking for profitability, Firefox doesn’t exactly win there either.
You should be able to find one worldwide or at least nationwide mass market success that is successful on Android that isn’t available on Apple.
iOS has about the same marketshare in mobile that Macs have in the PC market. You can find plenty of Windows only successful software that is massively profitable. Where is the same software for Android?
The software that is Windows-only isn't the most successful stuff that everybody has heard of (e.g. Office, Adobe, Chrome), that's the stuff available for both because it has enough demand to justify development even for smaller platforms.
The Windows-only applications are the ones with a niche. It's the control application for some piece of industrial equipment, or some line-of-business application, and then you need Windows because you have that equipment or you're in that line of business. And it's the same thing for Android. They can only justify development for one platform so they choose the most popular one. They're just not apps you'll have heard of if you aren't in that niche.
It's even moreso for Android because many types of applications are prohibited by Apple. Like what's the best BitTorrent app for iPhone? File manager? Remote desktop? Screen recording?
Even the popular apps that exist on both platforms aren't as good on iOS. Firefox has to use Safari under the hood. Maybe that doesn't matter to you. Until the "Firefox" you want to run is Tor Browser, which is designed to resist client fingerprinting in ways that Safari isn't, and then the inability to use that on iOS compromises your security. Similarly, the way Signal does backups on Android (i.e. with its characteristically diligent security properties) isn't allowed on iOS, so it doesn't support backups on iOS at all. So even for apps that exist on both, on iOS they're not as good.
There are plenty of Remote Desktop apps for the iPhone. There are also screen recording apps for the iPhone - there is an API for it. It’s used by Zoom.
What policies are in place that don’t allow Signal to do backups using its own service - something that other apps do?
And seeing how Signal does “backups”. It’s not exactly user friendly (https://support.signal.org/hc/en-us/articles/360007059752-Ba...)
And you’re worried about “security” but you want a File Browser to have unfettered access to your data? It’s a feature that third party apps can only access files outside of their own sandbox that you explicitly give them permission to.
No company wants to deal with the hassle and legality of bit torrent. Most people aren’t using to “download Linux ISOs”. I’m definitely not.
But before as far as bit torrent, my use case is starting and downloading things on my computer from my phone and adding them to my Plex library. I can do that by pairing my mobile browser to Vuze and going to remote.vuze.com.
There are plenty of Windows only consumer apps - especially games. Even from Microsoft, Access and Publisher are Windows only and are included with Office 365.
counterpoint: https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.delphicode...
It seems like Apple’s strategy is working better for consumers and app developers...
What do you think made Chrome so popular?
People have been saying that marketing is the only reason that Apple is successful since the iPod. Are other companies that incompetent that they could figure marketing out in almost 20 years?
Not screen sharing, something equivalent to Windows Remote Desktop Services or X11 forwarding, where your device acts as a thin client for an application running on a remote server. It's expressly prohibited by the Apple guidelines, presumably because any such client would allow someone to compete with the app store by using remote apps. But it's also useful for other things, like keeping all your data on your company's trusted servers instead of on a device that could be lost or stolen.
> What policies are in place that don’t allow Signal to do backups using its own service - something that other apps do?
It doesn't use a service because the entire point is to not have all your data in the hands of a third party service. On Android it stores the backup in the filesystem which you copy off the device via USB.
> And you’re worried about “security” but you want a File Browser to have unfettered access to your data? It’s a feature that third party apps can only access files outside of their own sandbox that you explicitly give them permission to.
"It's not a bug, it's a feature!"
There should obviously be a permission required to do that, but if the user wants to use the app to view their files, they should be able to use the app to view their files.
This is the problem with Apple deciding everything for everybody. Some people have really stringent security requirements and don't want their data getting uploaded to a service, someone else wants a copy of all the data from every app to be backed up to some third party cloud service. But Apple restricts things to such an extent that you can't choose to do either one. One size fits none.
> No company wants to deal with the hassle and legality of bit torrent. Most people aren’t using to “download Linux ISOs”. I’m definitely not.
BitTorrent is not illegal, that isn't Apple's problem any more than it is with anything else anyway (what if someone pirates movies with Safari?), and "no company wants to deal with that hassle" is exactly the problem with putting the decision of what you can use your device for in the hands of a third party that isn't responsive to your needs.
> But before as far as bit torrent, my use case is starting and downloading things on my computer from my phone and adding them to my Plex library. I can do that by pairing my mobile browser to Vuze and going to remote.vuze.com.
Which is a fully generic counterargument, because you can make any app a web page and then do whatever you want on the web page. That's a total cheat when you're asking for things there are no iOS apps for.
> There are plenty of Windows only consumer apps - especially games.
There are plenty of Android only games, like Doom 3.
Not to mention all of the games that can be played in emulators on Android but not iOS because Apple doesn't allow emulators.
> Even from Microsoft, Access and Publisher are Windows only and are included with Office 365.
You must realize the equivalent to this would be Google apps for Android that don't exist on iOS, which there are several of.
There is are existence proofs that you are wrong.
Microsoft Remote Desktop for iOS.
https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/windows-server/remote/remot...
Chrome Remote Desktop.
https://remotedesktop.google.com/
TeamViewer for iOS
https://www.teamviewer.com/en-us/download/ios/
Should I continue?
It doesn't use a service because the entire point is to not have all your data in the hands of a service. On Android it stores the backup in the filesystem which you copy off the device via USB
You know Apple supports standard USB storage devices now right?
There should obviously be a permission required to do that, but if the user wants to use the app to view their files, they should be able to use the app to view their files.
They can. It’s called the “Files” app. It’s built into iOS.
This is the problem with Apple deciding everything for everybody. Some people have really stringent security requirements and don't want their data leaving their device, someone else wants a copy of all the data from every app to be backed up to some third party cloud service. But Apple restricts things to such an extent that you can't choose to do either one.
You mean you can’t attach a standard USB device to iOS and the App Store data on it? You know that feature was added in iOS 13?
Which is a fully generic counterargument, because you can make any app a web page and then do whatever you want on the web page. That's total cheat when you're asking for things there are no iOS apps for
I thought the favorite Anti- Apple talking point was that Apple forced everyone to create apps instead of using the “open web”?
There are plenty of Android only games, like Doom 3.
There is no official port for Android either. There is an unofficial port for iOS and Android....
You must realize the equivalent to this would be Google apps for Android that don't exist on iOS, which there are several of
How is the equivalent of anything? Microsoft has been writing software for Apple platforms since the original AppleSoft Basic in 1980.
You have listed a bunch of screen sharing apps again. They're designed to let you view the screen of your PC or game console from your phone, not to let you run apps designed for phones remotely instead of running them on your phone (so that your data is never stored on your phone).
In theory you could probably use those apps to do that anyway since they use sufficiently generic protocols, but it would be quite risky to rely on the availability of expressly prohibited behavior for a workflow you require to actually continue to work.
In fact, that is a major risk of using an iPhone in general, because they can change the rules at any time and boot any app out of the store even if it's critically important for your workflow.
> They can. It’s called the “Files” app. It’s built into iOS.
No they can't, they have to use the "Files" app instead of the app they actually want to use. If it would do something the "Files" app can't do, now they can't do that.
> You know Apple supports standard USB storage devices now right?
How is that supposed to help if the app still can't write to the filesystem?
> I thought the favorite Anti- Apple talking point was that Apple forced everyone to create apps instead of using the “open web”?
I don't want to call this a straw man because I'm sure somebody has said it at some point, but that's a weak argument.
The web is like the lowest common denominator. It's universally available and in principle you can make it do anything (browsers are certainly Turing-complete), but then it's slower and uses ugly languages like javascript and is inherently client-server which is centralizing and terrible for privacy and offline availability etc. etc.
As far as I'm concerned the problem with what Apple is doing is that it makes it harder to have native apps that do what you want them to do which pushes more things to be crummy websites full of ad spam when they ought to be local apps that never contact an external server.
> There is no official port for Android either. There is an unofficial port for iOS and Android....
It's open source. "Official" isn't particularly relevant. What's relevant is that you don't need to be in a developer program to install it on your Android phone.
> How is the equivalent of anything? Microsoft has been writing software for Apple platforms since the original AppleSoft Basic in 1980.
You're asking for apps that are available on Android but not iOS. There are several of them from Google, but that hardly proves anything because Google makes Android. They have an obvious incentive to favor their own platform. Apps made by Microsoft that only run on Windows prove just as little for the same reason.
Or do you think that when someone uses Firefox on iOS that doesn’t count as far as monetization?
I’ve also been “told” that Apple doesn’t allow subscriptions outside of the App Store. That clearly isn’t the case.