Show HN: My First iOS Game - Lumio | Hacker News Reader

Show HN: My First iOS Game - Lumio

joannecdyer.com

91 pointssephine45 comments

Just a small nitpick. @synthesize goes away in "modern" Objective C. Removing them will give new iOS developers one less thing to be annoyed about. Since you've done a great job, I think a lot of people will start with this project. Thanks!

---

@synthesize position = _position;

@synthesize lightManager = _lightManager;

@synthesize row = _row;

@synthesize column = _column;

@synthesize isPartOfRoute = _isPartOfRoute;

@synthesize topConnector = _topConnector;

@synthesize rightConnector = _rightConnector;

@synthesize lightState = _lightState;

@synthesize lightValue = _lightValue;

@synthesize gameLayer = _gameLayer;

@synthesize innerCircleSprite = _innerCircleSprite;

@synthesize outerCircleSprite = _outerCircleSprite;

@synthesize routedSprite = _routedSprite;

@synthesize valueSprite = _valueSprite;

@synthesize activeTimeRemaining = _activeTimeRemaining;

@synthesize cooldownTimeRemaining = _cooldownTimeRemaining;

@synthesize chargeTimeRemaining = _chargeTimeRemaining;

Got any references for this so I can do some further reading? As someone starting to learn Objective C, I'm mainly being told to use @synthesize. I did a quick Google for links about it not being required. There are some saying it might possibly be automatically added but then there were also a lot of responses saying this is still not the case & that @synthesize should be used still.

Read http://developer.apple.com/library/ios/#releasenotes/Objecti... and on a related note, read http://clang.llvm.org/docs/ObjectiveCLiterals.html too.

You only need to synthesize when you access the variable directly.

I always access via properties unless I'm within a setter for that property or if I want to bypass my own lazy loading getter code. So I'm left with only a few occasional @synthesize statements in most classes.

And in Xcode, run Edit > Refactor > Convert to Modern Objective-C Syntax. I don't think it helps remove unnecessary @synthesize, but it sure helps with those super-double-extra-verbose-old-style container subscripting accesses.

  > You only need to synthesize when you access the variable
  > directly.

You don't. @property will take care about creating ivars. So with @property (strong, nonatomic) NSString *foo you get _foo and accessors.

The only place I need @synthesize is in NSManagedObject subclasses.

Ah. I stand corrected. I @synthesize because I always want foo and not _foo.

++ for sharing the source.

Most people on HN would be able to checkout and build the app, so why not just use iAd and offer an in-app purchase to remove ads (1$) for the version in store? That way you could collect some revenue and subsidize the cost of the developer license.

If you want to put in some additional effort, a 99c in app purchase is a great option. If not, this game looks polished enough that you could charge for it. Try it at 99c or $1.99, you can always revert it back to free.

For those who want it for free, they can compile from source :)

Ads in an app is an immediate removal and a 1 star review.

Well that seems thoroughly unreasonable.

This applies to the apps that don't disclose upfront that they run ads. Otherwise, I simply don't download them.

(edit) I don't mind ads per se, but I find it exceptionally irksome when others decide, for me, that I should be made aware of this product and that service. Thanks, but no.

Immediately uninstalling an app that you don't like is reasonable. Giving it a one-star review because it has ads ... how about a little humanity for the developer trying to make a living?

"I don't mind ads per se, but I find it exceptionally irksome when others decide, for me, that I should be made aware of this product and that service."

I don't understand this sentence. What else does an ad do? Or are you referring to the fact that there wasn't a heads-up in the app description?

That's precisely what I am referring to.

Thank you for publishing the source, its always great to go over a complete working app rather than just snippets. I think charging 99c and giving away the source could be a good strategy as it gets the developer community involved (with their valuable feedback) but still allows you to recoup a bit of money to cover your expenses.

Congratulations on your first iOS game!

Have you considered taking it further and monetizing your hard work?

You deserve to be rewarded for the entertainment you're providing.

Thanks for everyone's nice comments! I just made it to be a fun project not sure it's worth charging anything for :)

It is of course your choice what to charge customers, if anything.

I often have the same thought when designing apps: "Is this worth paying even 99¢ for?" I then try to improve the app design to the point where it is worth paying for, if I would end up spending a lot of time developing it that is.

Btw, did you consider using Cocos2d-x (C++ and cross-platform)?

I think it's a shame that you need to pay Apple $100/year to put a free game on their app store. It seems like some sort of special exception for open source apps would be reasonable.

I completely agree, huge barrier to entry.

The bigger financial barrier to entry is buying a Mac and iPhone (for those who don't own these).

After that, $99 is not a big sacrifice and you quickly recuperate your money even if you sell your app for 99¢.

I am both an iOS and Mac developer ($99 x 2 per year) and I'm in the black and then some with a couple of apps sold between 99¢ and $2.99.

Complete agree, also the idea of self hosting content in order to save a few $ is really not something we can ever expect - nor should we ask for it IMO.

One of the best features of the app store is that from the consumers perspective its smooth, reliable and just works. Having lots of "cheap" app developers trying to save $100 / yr by hosting their app bin's themselves could results in an unreliable market place that ultimately drives people away from it.

Actually I think that's exactly the point... it somewhat limits the amount of crappy apps that could get to the approval stage.

To play devil's advocate: Apple hosts your app, (sometimes) promotes your app, handels updating, has good uptime, etc.

And you have no choice but to sell through their shop.

They also have to screen it every time you update it.

It would be nice if iOS developers could distribute apps on their own the way Mac app developers always have, at no cost to Apple.

But if Apple is hosting an app on their CDN and listing it in their DB they'd be losing money on the amount of work involved for handling all the free apps.

It would be enough if they allowed e.g. all github users to upload their apps to a shared "github community" vendor - github would gladly take the $99 hit for the publicity, and everybody wins.

Congrats on the release and thanks for open-sourcing! I downloaded it and left a positive review!

Thanks for open-sourcing it!

Hey, I saw you used Bugsnag -- my former coworkers made that. What's it like using them?

Using Bugsnag yeah, I'm happy to say I haven't had any crashes yet! It's nice to know I'll see them if I do, plus it's free and really easy to add.

Look great and thanks again for open sourcing it. I am also working on a fun iOS side project (as a break from the day job).

Do you have any recommendations for useful resources (books, websites, etc.) for somebody just starting off?

It's a girl!

And a nice game!

But why release exclusively on a platform controlled by an evil monopolist, considering you are apparently not seeking to shear the easily-parting-with-their-cash sheep that use it?

Where exactly is Apple a monopoly?

Monopoly of iOS app distribution due to iOS/App Store lock-in, robbing developers of $100 and 30% of all profits.

Also monopoly of iOS devices, monopoly of OSes for iPhone/iPad and control of a large proportion of smartphone market share with their closed locked-in platform.

There is no monopoly.

Apple created this ecosystem and if we don't like it we can develop for any of the Android flavors and even Windows Phone.

The costs of the iOS and Mac developer programs are to keep Apple from losing money while they do all the heavy lifting for us developers.

Thanks to Apple I don't have to process credit card transactions, set up an app download system, handle refunds nor calculate the taxes to pay to the government.

For 30% of the revenue I'd consider that fair. I make so much more from sales that $99 + 30% is nothing if it lets me concentrate on what I love: developing apps!

I also used to develop J2ME games for a Japanese content aggregator back in 2005 and they took 69% of my earnings for providing the same services Apple does. I'm not being "robbed".

I'm curious, what's with the sense of entitlement? Do you really expect companies to offer these services for free? If not, what would be your idea of a fair price?

Android has none of those monopolies by comparison (although Google Play still appropriates 30%, but at least it's not mandatory to use it)

Developer programs are supposed to be a loss offset by the higher amount of sales of your devices due to having more apps thanks to the developer programs.

Paypal, Stripe, 2checkout etc. process transactions for 2-5.5% fees, not 30% (of course 2-5.5% is also extortionate, but that's mostly due to the VISA/MasterCard duopoly, also very evil, and the horrible idea of credit card chargebacks).

Bandwidth is 0.10$/GB, so it would be another 1% at most for most apps, and doubling and rounding would make 15% the very maximum acceptable cut, with 5-10% a more reasonable one.

But of course most developers are themselves complicit in exploiting the userbase with obscenely pay-to-win games, trivial apps that are $1-2, in-app purchases and more, so they are basically content to share their loot with Apple in exchange for Apple's approval of their dubious practices and protection against their users' attempts to not pay.

I'm sorry but who are you to dictate to Apple how it should be running its business? Apple doesn't do loss leaders like some other companies.

While other companies are offering free services (not really free - you and your data are the product) Apple sells products/services at a profit.

If you consider that evil then all I can suggest is that you don't give Apple any of your money. "Vote with your wallet" as they say.

------

Those payment services you listed only provide the payment end of things.

They don't make a giant store that helps users find you in the first place.

In case you didn't know, 63% of sales are derived from discovery within app stores ( http://www.businessinsider.com/search-is-the-biggest-driver-... ).

People who otherwise wouldn't have learned about my apps if I went solo and used paypal DO discover them because of Apple.

In other words we make more money in the end because of the ecosystem Apple has created for us developers.

Have you ever actually developed and marketed your own apps? This should be obvious to you if you have.

Please stop feeding this obvious troll

Please ignore the above commenter. The more constructive way to comment...

-------------

Nice game! <no mention of gender, it's irrelevant when all you do is think and type>

Do you plan on only releasing for iOS? I use <different platform> and would love to try your game.

I'm not a fan of Apple and can't see myself buying an iPhone anytime soon so I fear I'll be left out of the fun.

In any case thanks for sharing!

-------------

But your way is no fun at all.

Also, girls are lovely, sweet and cuddly, with rainbows, unicorns, pink ponies and lots of other delicious stuff like that.

And they are rare as developers, so it's awesome there's some.

Nice hole you're digging yourself into there.

The tide is coming in though.

You may be right, or wrong, but the source was released. Some ++ for that.

Down voted and I wish blacklisted.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com