[HN Gopher] Apple 'Surprised' by Developer Frustration with Its ...
___________________________________________________________________
Apple 'Surprised' by Developer Frustration with Its App Review
Process
Author : gabea
Score : 233 points
Date : 2021-10-11 17:01 UTC (5 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.macrumors.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.macrumors.com)
| gjsman-1000 wrote:
| This article is from March - maybe that should be in the title?
| andybak wrote:
| I don't think it especially makes a difference. Apple being
| surprised by something that has been a widespread complaint for
| as long as I can remember is either duplicitous or a worrying
| indictment of their lack of contact with the developer
| community. We're talking over a decade so it makes little odds
| whether this piece of written in March or 5 years ago - it's
| fairly awful in either case.
| ASalazarMX wrote:
| Five years ago (IIRC) their reviews took 3-7 days. Someone
| made a really useful website where people would self-report
| the review time, and it estimated the current average.
|
| This completely pulled down Apple's pants, which silently
| fixed their review process so it took less than a day. It was
| so effective the website became irrelevant, but it seems like
| the wheels are turning around.
|
| Edit: this is the website https://appreviewtimes.com, and it
| seems like the review time has been stable at 1-2 days for a
| while.
| iudqnolq wrote:
| That website seems a little strange. For example, they link
| to a page gushing over online casinos on their homepage. It
| feels almost like a recipe site in that there are out-of-
| place overly detailed facts combined with slightly
| irrelevant prose.
|
| > In-depth Look at Online Casino Apps In Michigan ...
| Golden Nugget
|
| > Download Size
|
| > You can download this app on iOS or Android. It's 33.6 MB
| for iPhones and just over 5MB for Android phones.
|
| > What Can You Bet On?
|
| > Golden Nugget has a ton of interesting games, including
| 320+ slots... Keep in mind that most of these games are
| original, so you can't play them anywhere else...
|
| > Interesting Features
|
| > Aside from the live dealer games, Golden Nugget offers an
| excellent rewards program. You can earn points by playing
| or entering promotions, and you can get cash prizes. It's
| similar to a sweepstakes program without the complex
| currency exchanges.
|
| https://appreviewtimes.com/michigan/casinos/
| ASalazarMX wrote:
| I guess it still drives some traffic worth profiting from
| ads, but you can read the whole story here:
| https://daveverwer.com/blog/saying-goodbye-to-app-review-
| tim...
| solarkraft wrote:
| Any idea how it got them to improve themselves here? Rather
| highlighting the issue to turn or them fearing
| embarrassment from the number being clearly available?
| ASalazarMX wrote:
| It doesn't say because Apple being Apple, it never
| acknowledged it had a problem, but this is the gist:
|
| > In 2016 Phil Schiller took over the App Store group
| inside Apple and pretty quickly review times reduced from
| weeks to "about a day" across all of the stores and
| review times have now been consistent for about three
| years. In my mind this problem is totally solved.
|
| Whole story here: https://daveverwer.com/blog/saying-
| goodbye-to-app-review-tim...
| jmnicolas wrote:
| I'm pretty sure devs are still frustrated and Apple "surprised"
| since then.
| topspin wrote:
| Apple likely to remain "surprised" for the foreseeable
| future.
| floatingatoll wrote:
| HN titles don't really have an option for that (the mods allow
| years only), but you could flag it to indicate that you don't
| think it's a valuable contribution to the front page.
| makecheck wrote:
| Many of us have certainly used a number of indirect channels like
| forum posts, blogs, podcasts, etc. but I for one have also used
| several _direct_ channels:
|
| - I have filled out their "developer surveys" multiple times and
| explained in very direct, precise terms what is so very wrong
| with App Review and which parts I do not want. And I'm not
| talking 2021, lots of this was an issue (and flagged as such)
| years earlier.
|
| - I have used the Feedback system to "suggest" changes.
|
| - I have directly communicated with App Review over my own
| rejections.
|
| I mean, even if you ignore the insane size and resources of
| Apple, they can't say they weren't told. I'd be very surprised if
| it weren't in the top 3 gripes from _all_ surveys.
| hinkley wrote:
| These days when I hear people being 'surprised' by negative
| feedback they weren't getting but 'everyone' knew about:
|
| You should ask yourself why people stopped coming to you with
| information, and why someone else has it instead of you.
| Especially if it's your job to keep on top of that issue. You've
| alienated them in some way that means they're avoiding talking to
| you, from fear or contempt.
|
| In the cases I've been involved with, I've come to realize that
| people don't like to look stupid, and some people accidentally or
| on purpose put you into that scenario a few times, and they just
| start avoiding you. You no longer get all the information, and
| the people they feel safe giving it to will include people who
| you already have a strained relationship with, and they may use
| this information as ammunition against you.
|
| It's better that people ask you dumb questions and you teach them
| how to answer them or steer them toward better questions, rather
| than imply that's a dumb question. Most especially if any other
| people are going to observe the conversation. Will you get
| interrupted a lot? Yes. But you'll also know where all of the
| choke points are in the system - where everyone else is getting
| interrupted. If you're doing policy or architecture without
| knowing pain points, you're going to be the one who looks like an
| idiot. But nobody is gonna tell you that to your face. Or at
| least not until your goose is cooked.
| firecall wrote:
| So you don't think the new $5 Billion new HQ sent the warm
| fuzzy feelings they'd hoped for?
|
| Nothing at all like a Fortress Temple of Elitism...
| solarkraft wrote:
| And that's the charitable interpretation. The non-charitable
| one is that they simply lied.
| javadocmd wrote:
| A bit like Captain Renault proclaiming his shock at finding
| gambling in Rick's cafe.
| hinkley wrote:
| Here are your winnings, sir.
| hinkley wrote:
| I think it's somewhere in the middle, which is somehow worse.
|
| The 'dumb' vector works on technical people. But we know, or
| at least can read between the lines, from big scandals that
| management has trained their reports to lie to them by
| omission. Don't bring me bad news and I can say with a
| straight face that we aren't aware of any problems.
| speedybird wrote:
| 'Public Relations' is the result of the word 'propaganda'
| being given the propaganda treatment. To corporate PR, lying
| comes as naturally as breathing. Every time an executive gets
| publicly disgraced they _" decide to spend more time with
| family."_ Every time an employee is injured, the company _"
| takes safety very seriously."_ Every time your personal
| information is sold to data brokers, it's _" shared with our
| trusted partners."_
|
| These lies are so prevalent they've practically become memes.
| PR is propaganda. To a propagandist, lying is just another
| tool for manipulating people. Lying is in their professional
| DNA. Never give these assholes the benefit of the doubt;
| assume they are lying until proven otherwise.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _' Public Relations' is the result of the word
| 'propaganda' being given the propaganda treatment_
|
| This meme elides over the historical reason Bernays _et al_
| eschewed the term propaganda: the fascist regimes were
| printing outright lies, something he worked to avoid. To
| differentiate propaganda which doesn't lie (but still, of
| course, seeks to influence) from the kind which embraces
| outright lying, the term "public relations" emerged.
| speedybird wrote:
| Public relations doesn't distinguish itself from
| propaganda by not lying; that is itself propaganda about
| "public relations". Public relations lies nonstop. Public
| relations is nothing more than a rebranding of propaganda
| because propaganda became associated with fascism.
|
| And Bernays had no qualms about lying. This is the man
| who endeavored to convince women that cigarettes were
| "Torches of Freedom." He was an amoral psychopathic
| dirtbag.
|
| And yes, he _knew_ what he was doing was wrong:
|
| > _Throughout the job, Bernays concealed the fact that he
| was working for the American Tobacco Company, and
| succeeded in keeping his own name out of the affair as
| well. Staff were instructed never to mention his name.
| Third parties were used, and various notable people
| received payments to promote smoking publicly as if on
| their own initiative.[47] (Decades later, however,
| Bernays boasted about his role.)[48] Bernays did not
| smoke cigarettes himself, and persistently tried to
| induce his wife Doris to quit.[49]_
| echelon wrote:
| Apple is "surprised" that other countries are starting to
| tear down the App Store. They don't want their minimal effort
| cash cow going away.
|
| Don't be silent. Keep telling your representatives how unfair
| this is. Show them how PCs and Macs do not have an app store
| or review process. They'll need a little help to understand.
| amluto wrote:
| This happens in all kinds of modern companies. A (paid!) vendor
| I'm working with uses Zendesk exclusively for support. Want to
| pay them for an enterprise plan with phone support? Great, but
| you initiate phone support using Zendesk.
|
| It turns out they thoroughly flubbed their integration. It
| works on Chrome and fails on (at least) Firefox and Safari. By
| "fails" I mean "complete inability to interact with the
| ticketing system." This includes their iOS app. Click support,
| click a ticket, get home page, not logged in, embedded under
| the word "support".
|
| Of course, most customers won't tell them it's busted because
| _the only way to tell them is via Zendesk_. Oops. So they can
| live in their little bubble and not realize how broken their
| site is.
| Taniwha wrote:
| It's a bit like trying to deal with Facebook without having a
| FB account .... no phone numbers, no email, ....
| hinkley wrote:
| The last time I had trouble with my personal AWS account,
| which I use very intermittently, by the time I figured out
| how to even file a ticket for having trouble logging in, I
| was so spun up that I'm not sure my report even made any
| sense.
|
| I had an old account that I had stopped using before my
| credit card got reported as stolen, but I owed like $30
| which they couldn't bill me for so my account got closed.
| Once you have a closed account the entire AWS workflow has
| mystery failure modes that don't show up the rest of the
| time. A closed account is closed forever, and it mucks up
| their whole UI (as if their UI needs any help in that dept)
| cptskippy wrote:
| It's like trying to deal with FB or Google period.
|
| We got locked out of our FB account once because FB
| randomly required a phone number and someone in our
| marketing Dept provided their own. Despite owning the email
| address and knowing the password, we couldn't get in
| because we didn't know who the 2FA code was going to.
|
| We had similar issues with our Google Pay Account.
| BugsJustFindMe wrote:
| Zendesk was still requiring third party cookies long after
| blocking them was the default configuration in all major
| browsers. They're kind of a sad joke.
| Spivak wrote:
| It is? I thought the rollout of that change wasn't coming
| for a few more years. I feel like I've had to turn it on
| explicitly in Firefox and Chrome fairly recently.
| nikanj wrote:
| Searching my inbox for "Zendesk incident notification", it
| seems Zendesk has some trouble weekly, if not daily. During
| the slow summer months, I actually got more notifications
| for Zendesk issues than issues in our own product.
| PedroBatista wrote:
| Either "Apple" is lying or "Apple" should be fired for
| incompetence.
|
| Since they control ALL the process and have ALL the logs and data
| points, so there's absolute no reason to be "surprised".
|
| Also there are plenty of internal emails talking about many
| reasons for these "frustrations". Maybe our guy Tim Cook is
| really a Michael Spindler type of guy.
| incanus77 wrote:
| I have (had) been developing for the Mac, then iOS, since 2002,
| coming originally from a UNIX/Linux background. I essentially got
| out of doing any iOS development work specifically because of the
| review process and its hoop-jumping and awful opaqueness. I was
| only able to do it as long as I did because I was making
| developer-facing tools for seven years at Mapbox and didn't have
| to submit apps.
| ddingus wrote:
| Seriously?
|
| People talk. They talk HERE.
|
| Frankly, I read that surprise as real surprise all the PR didn't
| make it go away.
| ravedave5 wrote:
| These last few weeks was the first time I dealt with this
| process. App was rejected for reason 1, resubmitted, now there's
| a reason 2, which is they clearly didn't read the instructions
| how to continue, ok, resubmit with more instructions, and now
| rejected for reason 3. Resubmitted And finally passed. The
| reviewers were definitely not all applying the same rules/info.
| Released to prod and it had a major defect for 2/10 people.
| Dropped a minor update and it took ~48 hours for a review. REALLY
| frustrating.
| OldHand2018 wrote:
| Fixing the major defect involved a minor update?
|
| You resubmitted it to Apple twice without noticing, and you're
| mad at Apple for all the "delays". Really? Other developers
| were waiting their turn in the review line while you were going
| back and forth with the reviewers on an update that was
| defective from the start. Take some responsibility!
| Volundr wrote:
| You've never written a bug that wasn't discovered until
| production? I certainly have, and given that I still haven't
| found the secret to never doing so again, I also build
| systems that are updatable with as little friction as
| possible.
|
| I don't see how the parent failed to take responsibility.
| They were responsible for the bug. Apple was responsible for
| the delay in the fix.
| tinus_hn wrote:
| Were they? Apple does have a process for expedited review
| of critical bug fixes. But that's not for 'minor updates'.
| It's not at all clear they attempted to get expedited
| review.
| cwp wrote:
| I sympathize; this sort of thing is very frustrating. However,
| it's better than it was. I was working on iOS apps 7-8 years
| ago and it was just like the story above, but each review took
| 2-3 weeks.
| pier25 wrote:
| The first time I submitted an app it was rejected because
| something like "the screenshots must be taken from the app".
| The screenshots _were_ taken from the simulator...
|
| It took a couple more days until the app was finally published
| while we had thousands of users waiting for it. The company I
| worked for provided services to schools and its students. Our
| call center was on fire for a couple of days with calls from
| annoyed teachers and parents and there was nothing we could do
| about it.
| hobofan wrote:
| It's an unwritten rule (actually, I wouldn't be surprised if
| it's a written rule for their internal review process) that
| your app will be rejected on the first review.
|
| One of the most valueable insights a mobile freelancer
| working on our app gave us was to submit the app for first
| review at least two weeks before planned launch. Just as they
| anticipated, the first review came back negative because
| "hey, could you please also make the app work on the iPad?",
| even though we explicitly marked it as not available for iPad
| (and didn't include it in the app bundle) to cut down the
| scope for initial launch.
| Aulig wrote:
| I've managed to publish apps on the first try, but it's
| really rare. Most of the time I get 2 or 3 rejections and
| then an approval - just by continuously telling the app
| reviewers that the app does in fact comply with the
| guidelines, citing Apple's definitions of certain terms
| (which the app reviewers in many cases don't seem to know).
| leshokunin wrote:
| I'm skeptical the surprise is genuine.
|
| The App Store review process has always been an issue. It is
| slower than Android's approach, preventing effective stages
| rollouts. It slows down iteration speed. It forces teams to ship
| at Apple's cadence.
|
| Compare the process with the sophistication of a mature devops
| team for a web app. The App Store is orders of magnitude less
| effective.
|
| It's frankly hard to believe that Apple hasn't had hires in the
| relevant teams, that came from dev teams that felt bottlenecked
| by this process.
| andrekandre wrote:
| i think a big issue is that apple thinks of apps like actual
| "things" you can buy on a store shelf whereas just about every
| app is actually some kind of going concern that needs to deploy
| anytime and anywhere... it just doesn't scale
| sdflhasjd wrote:
| It's not just the review process that frustrates me, it seems to
| be every tool and service.
|
| Even something as basic as logging in: Apple does not support
| proper TOTP, they only support SMS 2FA (or their trusted device
| second factor - I don't want to be glued to my Mac), which has
| been great when I'm out of signal or a few months ago when their
| SMS system went down.
|
| Every time I have a problem like this, I just think back to the
| Magic Mouse with the charging port on the bottom.
| handrous wrote:
| > Every time I have a problem like this, I just think back to
| the Magic Mouse with the charging port on the bottom.
|
| I thought this was the dumbest goddamn thing ever until I was
| issued one at work. It turned out to be completely fine. The
| (long) battery life and (fast) charge time make it a non-issue.
| The degree to which it'd have been better with a more-
| traditionally-placed port is so tiny that it's hardly worth
| consideration.
|
| Now, the backward-ass assumptions about how I'll prefer to
| charge my gen. 1 Pencil and which mode would be the better one
| to require a tiny, easy-to-lose adapter--that's another matter.
| "Surely users will want to plug it in to an iOS device
| lightning port to charge, such that it makes the iOS device
| nearly impossible to use while the Pencil's charging, and in a
| way that looks designed to break the charging connector on the
| Pencil if you look at it wrong, rather than simply charging it
| with their normal charger--which they couldn't use to charge
| the iOS device while the pencil's in its lightning port, anyway
| --while continuing to use their tablet or phone normally.
| _Surely_ wanting to plug it in to a normal charger will be
| unusual, and not something that people want to do in all but
| the most unusual circumstances. " _eyeroll_
| vericiab wrote:
| After reading the actual submission by Apple that the article
| links to, I think the article (especially the title) somewhat
| misrepresents what Apple said.
|
| The overview section of Apple's submission states (numbering in
| original)
|
| > 1. Apple understands that the Commission has received
| submissions from certain app developers concerning their ability
| to engage with Apple in the app review process.
|
| > 2. As outlined in our meeting of 23 February 2021, Apple is
| surprised to hear that developers have legitimate concerns about
| their ability to engage with Apple in the app review process in
| circumstances where the purpose of app review is to ensure the
| quality of apps on the App Store and Apple invests significant
| time and resources in engaging with developers directly to work
| together to achieve that shared goal.
|
| > 3. Apple would therefore like to provide further information to
| the Commission to assist it in assessing the veracity of the
| concerns raised by developers in their submissions.
|
| Personally I would paraphrase that not as Apple claiming to be
| "surprised" by developer concerns, but rather as Apple claiming
| to be surprised by "legitimate" developer concerns. Or to put a
| finer point on it, that Apple isn't actually claiming to be
| surprised at all and "surprised to hear" is just a euphemistic
| way to say that they don't believe the complaints the commission
| has received are legitimate.
|
| Probably a smart choice of wording on Apple's part - I don't
| think it would have been a better look if the headline had
| instead been "Apple Suggests That Developers' Complaints Are Just
| Sour Grapes".
| chris_wot wrote:
| Then perhaps Apple should make submissions to the ACCC in a
| less passive-aggressive manner.
| grumple wrote:
| > If an app is rejected, Apple says it provides the developer
| with information on the reason for the rejection, and says that
| the app makers have an opportunity to "correspond with the Apple
| team member who reviewed the app." Furthermore, developers have a
| chance to appeal a rejection to the App Store Review Board.
|
| Having been through this and heard stories from others, Apple
| will send you the very broad section of the rules they think
| (often incorrectly) that you've violated, but they won't tell you
| what part of your app is violating which part of the section of
| rules quoted. The correspondence with the Apple team member will
| just reiterate the rules, and won't tell you what you're
| supposedly doing wrong with any sort of specificity.
| Someone wrote:
| I wouldn't read much in that. It's from a formal reply to the
| Australian Competition and Consumer Commission, so it's
| legalese/PR/politics, probably vetted by a committee, with none
| of them entirely happy with the final result.
| nottorp wrote:
| This is a good candidate for joke of the year.
| zionic wrote:
| I have shipped ~100 apps on the app store, ranging in size from
| simple to large/complex.
|
| The app store, review process, and (especially) Apple's demands
| for 30% of everything make dealing with them easily the worst
| aspect of my work.
|
| Apple makes several million/year off their cut from me, and I
| would drop the App Store in a heartbeat if I could.
| echelon wrote:
| Apple is doing nothing for you except for bullying, extortion,
| and removing your customer relationship, risking your business'
| health.
|
| Desktop applications and operating systems don't have to put up
| with manual review and tax. (Can you imagine how horrific that
| world would be?) Mobile shouldn't either. They serve the same
| purpose.
|
| In addition, there's one more unspoken burden Apple places on
| everyone: you have to write a native app for iOS. There should
| be a standard for devices. The differences are trivial.
|
| I'm glad the EU, Korea, and Japan are standing up to this and
| launching antitrust cases.
| HatchedLake721 wrote:
| This is so dishonest, it's unbelievable.
|
| Just over 10 years ago pretty much only way to install latest
| apps on your "internet communicator" phone was to go to xda-
| developers, browse the forum and download some random files
| and trust they won't brick your Windows Mobile device.
|
| Mobile operators controlled the market and software on the
| phones everywhere.
|
| Apple came in, kicked everyone in the butt and changed the
| whole mobile and app development industry in every country,
| worldwide, forever.
|
| Mobile operators can no longer dictate phone's software or
| hardware.
|
| Apple enforced quality, design (UIKit), added manual reviews,
| mobiles and software became easy and accessible to consumers.
| They also gave developers a marketplace with instant access
| to millions (now over a billion) of users with a connected
| credit card, making a simple purchase just a tap away.
|
| They also took away any issues of selling software worldwide.
| If you sell your app in Germany or South Korea, you don't
| need to worry which VAT to charge or when to file your local
| German tax reports.
|
| And so many more things, from insane APIs, app
| discoverability and to all the billions they spent on
| software and hardware R&D to make apps even better.
|
| And now you're telling they do nothing except bullying and
| extortion.
|
| Seriously, it's so unbelievable that people forget what the
| world was just a few years ago, and suddenly feel so entitled
| that it's their basic human right to have access to a 1+
| billion people marketplace to distribute their software.
|
| If you would tell anyone 15 years ago that they would be able
| to sell software on a digital shelf where 1 billion people
| can find and purchase it in under 30 seconds, they wouldn't
| believe you.
|
| But today, you're saying what Apple made possible after
| making a huge bet and changing everyones lives, are suddenly
| bullies and extortionist...
| mthoms wrote:
| Where have I seen this before.... oh yeah:
|
| Bell [0] brought the home telephone to tens of millions of
| people. They made it affordable and reliable. They laid
| millions of miles of wires, provided tens of thousands of
| high paying jobs, and made life measurably safer.
|
| They improved the quality of life for everyone. The
| improvement is practically immeasurable.
|
| Despite what they did, they (and their descendants) went on
| to become _the very villains you deride in your post_.
| Imagine that!
|
| The Bell companies introduced world-changing technology and
| were richly rewarded. Then they morphed into abusive
| monopolists. Funny how we've come full circle.
|
| [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell_System
| autoexec wrote:
| > Just over 10 years ago pretty much only way to install
| latest apps on your "internet communicator" phone was to go
| to xda-developers, browse the forum and download some
| random files and trust they won't brick your Windows Mobile
| device.
|
| I had an LG Chocolate in 2006 and you could get new apps on
| your device in a few ways, but primarily through LG's own
| "app store" which was just an app pre-installed on the
| phone. At the time it wasn't much different than what we
| have now really, just much less polished. In the end, it
| still comes down to the phone manufacturers (and carriers)
| deciding what apps you can or cannot easily install on your
| phone.
|
| Selection wasn't great back then, but mobile devices were
| very limited and the demand wasn't there either.
| smoldesu wrote:
| This is also disingenuous. For decades before Apple entered
| the scene, distributed package management was the norm and
| perfectly functional (while also completely free and
| transparent to maintain). When Apple came in, they threw
| away a perfectly functional system because it didn't make
| enough money, and then replaced it with their own flawed
| approach that's starting to melt before our very eyes. It's
| not an "us vs them" situation like you're painting it out
| to be, it's a "humanity vs extortion" scenario where Apple
| is most definitely not fighting alongside humanity.
|
| If Apple's system were really as good as you claim, it
| would be a monopoly on it's own merit alongside alternative
| stores. However, without the opportunity to exercise such a
| theory, we simply have to assume the worst (or prepare to
| be proven wrong).
| heavyset_go wrote:
| > _Just over 10 years ago pretty much only way to install
| latest apps on your "internet communicator" phone was to go
| to xda-developers, browse the forum and download some
| random files and trust they won't brick your Windows Mobile
| device._
|
| Nonsense, I had a Palm Pre with webOS in 2009 and at that
| time it had an official App Catalog _and_ you could add
| third-party repositories to it. PreWare[1] was amazing, and
| made the Pre one of the best phones I 've ever had.
|
| Before that I had a Nokia N900 with Maemo/Meego. It had an
| app store based on apt, and you could add third-party
| repositories to it, as well.
|
| > _Mobile operators controlled the market and software on
| the phones everywhere._
|
| They certainly didn't on the Pre, Pre 2 or N900. I had more
| freedom to install software on my phone in 2010 than I do
| now with a modern iPhone or iPad.
|
| > _If you would tell anyone 15 years ago that they would be
| able to sell software on a digital shelf where 1 billion
| people can find and purchase it in under 30 seconds, they
| wouldn 't believe you._
|
| Steam's store existed in 2005.
|
| [1] https://webos-internals.org/wiki/Application:Preware
| echelon wrote:
| > This is so dishonest, it's unbelievable.
|
| Not one word is dishonest. Please don't attack me.
|
| Apple was not the first to market with a capacitive touch
| screen phone. LG Prada and others beat iPhone to
| announcement and launch. Apple won because of build quality
| and brand power. They fought so hard that they won 50+% of
| the American market, when there could have been room for
| far more players.
|
| Steve Jobs focused on making sure Apple had a monopoly over
| the software executing on the iPhone processor. Devices
| that came before it were mostly open. The marketplace was
| Jobs' idea.
|
| If Jobs had tried this with Mac back in the early 2000s, it
| would have failed. He got to do it with iPhone because he
| dominated the market.
|
| It doesn't make it fair or right.
| SahAssar wrote:
| Apple has done a lot, and I remember it but this would have
| been a much more convincing argument if you also included
| why apple should be able to dictate what runs on a device I
| bought.
|
| Your argument would also mean that HP, Dell, Microsoft and
| any other OEM or enabler of functionality should be able
| extract payment after the sale of a device is done. Should
| every computer program require license payment to the OEM?
|
| I think people should be able to use what they bought as
| they want and need. The device manufacturer should not be
| involved post-sale unless the consumer wants it.
| IggleSniggle wrote:
| Not the person you're replying to, and I haven't forgotten
| what Apple contributed. I remember being a young person,
| trying to figure out how to load my own program onto my
| _clearly_ capable Motorola Razr (pre-iPhone), and getting
| so incredibly frustrated that there wasn 't a way for me to
| boot up whatever software I wanted to boot up.
|
| Part of how we got apps on phones was by Apple bullying
| corps in the names of users. I remember how Apple leveraged
| their desirability to get AT&T to do all kinds of things
| they previously blocked outright.
|
| They were bullies, and they're still bullies. It's just
| that we really needed a bully back then to change the
| telecoms. I'm not convinced they're using their power to
| make things better for the user anymore. What Epic is doing
| to Apple feels _very_ similar to what Apple did to AT &T.
| LanceH wrote:
| If their store is so awesome, why do they need to block
| any other method of loading?
| HatchedLake721 wrote:
| So that Apple customers keep having awesome experience?
| LanceH wrote:
| Why would they choose the less awesome experience?
| HatchedLake721 wrote:
| Customer's might not have a choice at all if app's
| available only in the less awesome experience.
|
| Also bad experience often comes after, not at the point
| of service.
|
| From not being able to get a refund to bad actor abusing
| the system/personal data/credit card information.
|
| Yes there are financial incentives for Apple to control
| the App Store, but we also know Apple was always
| notoriously picky and laser focused on customer
| experience even before the App Store.
|
| That's what they do for decades. Vertical integration.
| Hardware + software fitting like a glove.
|
| That's how they've beaten the music player industry, the
| phone industry and the tablet industry. And built huge
| ecosystems around these devices.
|
| By making sure customers have the best experience
| possible.
|
| Not only they want to keep the marketplace revenue
| they've tirelessly built, but they want to stay the
| leader in customer satisfaction and I honestly believe
| they want to keep customers safe and happy.
|
| I don't really see much customer or Apple benefits for
| them to give away control over software distribution on
| their platform.
|
| Pretty much all discussions and Epic's court case is not
| about customers, it's about giving less to Apple and
| keeping more to themselves. That's it.
|
| Customers don't know and don't care if developers take
| 70% home or 85% home.
|
| That's how any physical or digital distribution channels
| work, from Walmart to PlayStation store.
| HatchedLake721 wrote:
| Steve Jobs personally met with every carrier in the US.
|
| So by your logic being an excellent negotiator and to
| make a historic business deal to take industry out of the
| stone age and make both companies financially successful
| is bullying?
|
| What's up with with comments here today? Am I missing /s?
| IggleSniggle wrote:
| From the cut of your comment, I think you're only missing
| my tone, which is of course is notoriously difficult to
| convey in text form. I probably should have used these:
| ""
| MarcoZavala wrote:
| Shut up you ungrateful whiny faggot. Even if I hadn't made
| millions off the App Store I still wouldn't be complaining like
| a little bitch like you. Apple's entire approach to this is
| perfect.
|
| But go ahead and keep sucking each other off for complaining
| the loudest, it sure inspires the "curiosity" that dang gets
| such a hard dick for, doesn't it.
| viktorcode wrote:
| That's exactly why for me as a customer the stringent review
| process is a bonus. When thousands of developers autogenerate
| their apps from templates with minimum amount of original
| content I want someone to control the floodgates between me and
| them.
| emouryto wrote:
| Your reply does not follow based on the original comment. An
| app that generated millions to Apple made multiple millions
| in revenue from users that found it useful.
|
| There is nothing Apple needs to do to 'protect' you: people
| are buying the app, it's probably doing something well.
|
| Apple is just milking the developer.
| droopyEyelids wrote:
| >users that found it useful
|
| "Useful" is a huge stretch. I tried the game "egg, inc"
| this weekend and one of the mechanics forces you to view
| adds for other apps, and it's all addiction mechanics with
| an indecent 'skin' on them.
|
| For example, there is one bejeweled-like game where there
| is a king who is being tortured, and you must make matches
| at speed or the spikes are driven into him, or he is forced
| to pee himself. There is another 'match two' like game
| where your reward is to take a female character and shave
| her head so she acts ashamed, and then dress her in
| streetwalker clothing.
| ketralnis wrote:
| So you're mad about a game unrelated to the GP, that
| passed through the review process anyway?
| simion314 wrote:
| >That's exactly why for me as a customer the stringent review
| process is a bonus.
|
| Nobody would force you not to continue using the Apple Store
| or maybe an even better store with even better reviews and
| with an actual quality static analyzer. Apple fans will say
| that evil apps will go to the bad App Store, then this would
| be a great news for you and if for some reason a super
| quality not evil app will not be on the App Store you can
| then ask yourself why good apps don't want to.
|
| For sure you will get the option to install a numberous
| number of GPL software.
| amluto wrote:
| You're making an assumption that the process actually
| benefits you in a way you care about. If the actual effect is
| to drive away developers of useful, thoughtful apps while
| letting a large fraction if trash through, you're not
| actually getting the benefit.
| barsonme wrote:
| They explicitly said it's benefiting them in a way they
| care about.
|
| Similarly, when I put my user hat on (as opposed to my SWE
| hat) I appreciate the curation, at least compared to the
| Wild West of downloading applications off the internet.
| echelon wrote:
| The consumer won't feel the developer struggling with less
| margin. They won't feel the pain as the developer has to
| work 30-40% harder.
|
| But the impact to global productivity is substantial. Less
| innovation occurs. Less energy to try new things. Money
| doesn't spread as widely as it should.
| nebula8804 wrote:
| I find this argument difficult as this is kind of how
| China operates. This free sharing of IP was claimed to
| enable untold amounts of innovation. However what I
| actually see for the most part is a market flooded by
| shitty clones of original IP.
|
| For example, take this dumb phone[1]. It is powered by a
| Mediatek processor whose IP is freely shared. The
| innovation that resulted is not something better like an
| iPhone. Instead 1000s of different shells or an
| additional button here or there.
|
| [0]: https://hackaday.com/tag/mt6260/
|
| [1]:http://bunniefoo.com/fernvale/fernvale-phone-
| spread.jpg
|
| I guess this scenario might be a bit different since we
| are talking about software...but i'm not so sure.
| comeonseriously wrote:
| You seem to be making some assumptions here. Why would they
| be making so much money if they were an app farm?
| ClumsyPilot wrote:
| You you feel like you get the level of service of a premium
| customer paying several million?
| zionic wrote:
| There has been absolutely zero change in "service" quality
| from when my first app made $15 a month to my developer
| account pulling in >$10mil annually.
|
| An email would be nice. Maybe a fruit basket.
| amelius wrote:
| > An email would be nice. Maybe a fruit basket.
|
| Ask not what Apple can do for you -- ask what you can do
| for Apple.
| tomtimtall wrote:
| > I would drop the App Store in a heartbeat if I could.
|
| You can. Nothing is stoping you. Just do it.
| [deleted]
| bborud wrote:
| I have never understood how someone dares base their business
| on the benevolence of a company that can, at any time and for
| whatever reason, shut them down and essentially render a
| product entirely worthless. Personally that's a risk I'm not
| comfortable with.
| cptskippy wrote:
| For some people it isn't their only revenue source and the
| adage "you don't leave money on the table" applies.
| burnished wrote:
| Sure, but clearly other people are. As an outsider it's clear
| why people do, the risk drives away some of the competition
| (people like you), and I'll presume you are a thoughtful and
| skilled engineer. So here you have a situation where you have
| an increased risk of a rug-pull without recourse (maybe
| already a risk for you anyway), but plenty of money on the
| table, and good principled engineers like you choosing
| another route.
| heavyset_go wrote:
| Two companies control the entirety of the mobile app
| distribution and mobile app payment markets.
|
| If you want to enter nearly any mobile-related markets, you
| have no other choice but to have rent extracted from your
| business by either Apple or Google. Those two companies have
| stifled innovation in the mobile app market for over a decade
| now, and they expect you to pay tribute.
| kenver wrote:
| I've had a similar path to you. Whenever I'm having a
| frustrating experience with them I just remind myself that it's
| better than it used to be. It used to take weeks to resolve
| things - now it merely takes days. The problem is that most of
| the time the frustration should have never existed.
| rexf wrote:
| Similar comment from Panic (major independent mac app
| developer):
|
| > ... the App Store takes parts of our job that we're already
| extremely good at like customer support, quick updates, easy
| refunds and makes them all more stressful and difficult, in
| exchange for giving Apple 30% of our revenue.
|
| via https://twitter.com/TechEmails/status/1412850761231392773/
|
| (update: formatting)
| MarcoZavala wrote:
| As a user of Apple devices, I don't want Panic or anyone else
| handling my payment information. I don't trust them with
| that. I only trust Apple. Fuck you all for trying to change
| this. Whiny selfish cunts.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2021-10-11 23:01 UTC)