Hacker News Reader

Comment by read_if_gay_ | Hacker News Reader

> $100 will buy a _ton_ of hosting

It’s not just about hosting, they also provide basically the entire software stack you’re using. Pricing that is difficult but I don’t think it should be disregarded.

> but can you even name one example in the past 5 years (literally about half the life of the ecosystem) where the App Store promoted an indie developer into success?

There are tons of apps that got popular due to App Store editors choosing to promote them. For example, getting App of the Day nets you a 1700% boost in downloads: https://techcrunch.com/2017/10/24/apples-app-of-the-day-feat...

View on HN

>It’s not just about hosting, they also provide basically the entire software stack you’re using. Pricing that is difficult but I don’t think it should be disregarded.

The entire Software stack are included in the iPhone purchase price, and as of 2018 they are included in Apple's Services revenue on a per unit cost including but not limited to OS, Siri and Maps.

The software stack argument makes sense in consoles where they are selling at cost or barely break even from a BOM / Hardware perspective. But Apple is making industry leading profit margin on all front. So Apple is double dipping, as Apple like to call it in the case against Qualcomm.

The software stack argument would be fine if there was an alternative. There isn’t. For one reason or another apple says everyone needs to use their stack. When people buy apple devices they’re buying that simplicity and security that comes from apple controlling the whole software stack. If they want that “feature” they can do that but then to charge developers for it when they can’t use an alternative I find ridiculous.

I find the marketing argument silly. All apps pay the fees (well paid apps). Not all apps are promoted (almost by definition). You’re not paying for marketing. You could stretch to argue you’re paying for a slim chance to be promoted, sure. I think that’s a weak argument however given there’s millions of apps and only a couple featured at any time.

Of course there is an alternative. Android.

And android does have alternative stores. Amazon, F-Droid and even directly side-loading applications. Not everyone takes advantage and most sales go through the Google Play Store, but it still happens. Apple offers none of that.

AFAIK, Google also doesn't charge for dev-tools or access to dev options. I admit, however, it's been several years since I've done any app development for either, and then it was mostly a wrapper around a browser control with some custom integration for use with NFC.

> It’s not just about hosting, they also provide basically the entire software stack you’re using. Pricing that is difficult but I don’t think it should be disregarded.

What if I don't want to use their "software stack"? Frankly, as developer, I'd rather spend my time developing than learning Apple specific ecosystem. Heck, React Native and Flutter do me just fine. Develop once and run everywhere.

In the end what does that $99/year license get me? A fancy certificate to publish on their only app store?

Those frameworks still depend on their APIs though.

Because Apple requires them to. If I wanted to ship a PWA in a Firefox-based shell using no iOS-specific APIs other than required (rasterize using OpenGL ES + Skia, Mozilla's JS interpreter, etc) they wouldn't let me because I'm required to use their browser and JS runtime, among other things. And they've deprecated OpenGL, so now you have to use their custom graphics API too.

I pay more for iPhones partially because the ecosystem is not yet fully crapped up with C++ programs with bad UIs, and I think Apple would argue this point too. You’re fully allowed to draw your UI with Metal though, and MoltenVK supports iOS. Many iOS games use almost no platform UI components.

Sure, but the argument becomes circular, doesn't it? They deserve X% because you use their APIs, and they force you to use their APIs. Congratulations? If it's so expensive to develop/maintain those APIs that they can't afford to part with them for less than 30%+cost of hardware, maybe they shouldn't require you to use them?

You’re not required to use them though, as I just explained. What you can’t do is write to memory and then execute it, because that’s a security risk.

That's not a security risk, it's a "makes App Review potentially pointless" risk.

How is it not a security risk?

How is it one? It’s not like the ability to JIT magically lifts the platform sandbox.

Gawd, why do you want to inflict crappy web UI framework on an innocent iphone ?

It’s their prerogative to force the issue. Switch to Android if they won’t listen to petitions.

I got one better, add an extra "Apple Tax" to the apps on the app store.

React Native and Flutter are lowest common denominator frameworks that make for lousy apps. My experience was so bad that I no longer even respond to recruiters for companies using React Native.

Apple should charge non-native apps a large premium to be on the store. They degrade every users experience.

> It’s not just about hosting, they also provide basically the entire software stack you’re using. Pricing that is difficult but I don’t think it should be disregarded.

You paid for that already when you bought the Mac that's mandatory for developing on iOS.

The iOS software stack is certainly not what people are paying for when they buy a Mac.

People pay for the simplicity and (arguable) security of apple devices that comes with a tightly controlled software stack. They buy the device with the expectation that 3rd party software will be made for it that they can use. Apple then says you need my software stack to develop that 3rd party software.

> they also provide basically the entire software stack you’re using.

Without giving developers a choice to use a different software stack this doesn't mean much. You first have to buy an expensive Mac in order to use the free iOS development tools.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com