Its the most convenient option for anyone who owns an Apple device by far. Its not even an argument, the number of apps and the income generated from customers says it all.
People want fully featured apps, not companion apps. Your personal feelings on the matter aren't relevant to what a customer wants.
Not my experience. I rock climb, sail and play pen and paper rpgs. I have a companion app for the second, four for the third (2 I coded myself). The rock climbing is the only one that would need a true app (with geo-localisation and maybe a gmap interface). Idem for my work, I don't care, on my phone, about a full feature github, or even email service.
Just forgot, I also have a tuner, it's a full app but it doesn't need to be (I had one of Firefox OS too, you only had web apps on it).
The initial argument was completely different. This person makes companion apps simply because they don't like Apples business practices. Lovely for him I guess.. for most it makes absolutely no sense financially to ignore your customers needs based on a personal preference. Customer will just use a better, fully featured app thats not bound by the developers inflated ego.
> 'ignore your customers'
I'm not a customer of any music app. I'm not a customer of any dnd app. I am a user of music companion app, and in my opinion, but i'm clearly in the majority in my area, full feature tuner/music apps are inferior to companion apps for musicians. And it's the same for character sheet helpers for rpgs, we tried using an app a few years ago, it worked well enough, but companion apps are just better in my experience if you play on a table.
Probably because often, companions app have users, not customers?
Customers, users… just interchangeable terms to mean the same thing. The whole issue is this particular developer does not build fully featured apps with Apple as they would take too much money out of any generated income (if any). So yeah, this is just about money.
> People want fully featured apps, not companion apps
I gave multiple example on why this is false. I thought one example was enough to prove something is false, but okay.
From my experience in a sibling discussion.
Their language is emotional and loaded, and include ad hominem attacks.
Perhaps they are going through some difficult times or something.
By what standard?
Xcode is historically inferior when compared to the likes of Jetbrains IDEs and Visual Studio.
And their documentation is so bad devs resort to watching WWDC videos in search for scraps of information.
Anecdotal stories of developers watching WWDC videos for info means something? There are millions upon millions of developers who worked and created apps just fine without referring to WWDC videos.
Maybe because xcode has been the only sensible choice since forever due to apple's imposed limitations?
That's like saying webkit is the best browser engine since it's the most used one on iPhones.
This line of reasoning, if one can call it that, is laughable.