
Apple Starts to Woo Its App Developers - hvo
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/11/technology/apple-starts-to-woo-its-app-developers.html?hpw&rref=technology&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&module=well-region&region=bottom-well&WT.nav=bottom-well&_r=0
======
MBlume
The fact that you have to build an iOS app on a Mac, that you can't even set
up a CI build on commodity hardware, or in the cloud, is pretty fundamentally
developer-hostile. I'll start to feel wooed when they take steps toward fixing
that.

~~~
mdorazio
Thank you for bringing this up since it's been massively painful for years. As
an example, when I first started developing for iOS back in 2009, I had to buy
a $500 used macbook before I could even get started coding. That hardware was
obsolete within about 3 years (couldn't update to the latest OSX or XCode), so
then I had to pony up another $800 for a refurbished mac mini just to still be
able to develop. Meanwhile, Android Studio runs on... actually I don't know
what it _doesn 't_ run on.

And yes, I know that leasing time on a mac for dev work is an option, but that
gets rather pricey over time ($1 per hour or $20/month is not cheap if you
need to work on and maintain apps for multiple years). And an RDC experience
will never be as good as having the actual computer in front of you, even on a
fast connection.

~~~
gaius
_That hardware was obsolete within about 3 years (couldn 't update to the
latest OSX or XCode_

I call shenanigans - latest OSX and XCode running on a 2008 Macbook right here
on my desk. I plan to get 10 years usage out of this machine - that's value
for money right there.

~~~
k-mcgrady
In my experience Apple laptops tend to hold their value pretty well so I'm
guessing a $500 machine was 4-5 years old when purchased. So the fact OP could
use it for 3 more seems about right. Personally I upgrade around every 4 years
and the laptop is still in great condition for most people and sells for well
over half what I paid for it.

~~~
Matt3o12_
Unfortunately this seems to be less and less true over the years. When I got
my MacBook about 4 or 5 years ago, it only had 4GB of ram and a pretty slow
hard disk. If have upgraded it to 12GB Ram and a pretty good SSD, this is why
I can still use such an old MacBook. For the new ones, I have to decide the
RAM, and disk upfront and can't replace them anymore (this is especially
worrying with the small lifetime with SSDs).

I wish Apple made their pro products more bulky so we can upgrade the hardware
and let the air products be the sexy, thin ones for Starbucks hipsters.

~~~
csydas
As a long time mac user, I do agree that the lack of upgradability in their
Pro line is a problem, and it probably should be the defining factor of Pro
versus the Air/Straight Macbook line.

That being said, Apple has gone to pretty crazy lengths to ensure that it's
modern OSes work on legacy hardware; I was a bit shocked to hear from my
parents that they were able to install El Capitan on my dad's 2008 iMac, as I
was wary about putting it on my 2012 Macbook Air due to performance concerns.
I don't know if this was a conscious decision by Apple to cater to the idea of
"Apple = Longevity", but it's very nice to know that a single purchase takes
you pretty far. I think Apple could take it a step further and really win over
more people if they added the millimeter or two to the Pro line and allowed
for the upgrades.

It's really a back and forth thing for me; on the one hand, I wish I had more
options and the ability to customize later on. On the other hand, since ~2010,
the appliance like nature of the portables has worked so seamlessly that my
only complaint comes from the lack of an option to upgrade, not the need for
an upgrade. For my previous Apple laptop, my own incompetence when trying to
do a repair hurt the laptop's longevity; had I not had butterfingers when
working on the insides, I'm sure that I could have had another 3 years with my
already 5 year old Macbook.

~~~
Matt3o12_
While I do agree with most things, there will be a need to upgrade something
in the future.

When I bought my MacBook, 4GB of Ram were plenty but it is not anymore. Chrome
takes to much ram and with 16GB, I don't have to worry about anything.
Furthermore, apples new laptops are all dual core (until you buy the bigger
one). This is also dealbreaker for me – quad cores are really awesome when
using VMs. Sure a CPU cannot be updated on most laptops (and certainly not on
apples but I can't blame really).

My point is that I'm afraid apples pro series has drifted into a state where
their lifespan will shorten while the prices go up.

And apple's OS performs really good until you use third party applications
that expect better performance then your sad 5-year-old MacBook.

~~~
csydas
Oh I'm not suggesting that it will never peak higher than what Apple offers;
again, I do agree that it would be nice if the Pro line offered a little more
to users looking for more oomph.

It's just that, again, by and large with everything with the Mac line up right
now, you throw something at it and you're good to go. Even my 2012' Air can do
moderately advanced video editing in Premiere, the only real bottlenecks being
local storage and the CPU taking a bit to render video.

The current line up is not a perfect solution for absolutely everything, and
Apple's power option in the Mac Pro line is just unacceptable for most people,
even if it does bring a lot to the table. But in most cases, Apple's line ups
do extremely well for a large majority of things you'd want to use a computer
for. I too would enjoy a quad core in the Air/Pro line, or at least the Pro
line, though I suspect the issue is heat, and as I said earlier, I'd happily
take a bit of thickness to accommodate a heftier processor.

I certainly don't endorse letting Apple tell me what hardware I need; I also
don't have too many complaints with what they've given. Price exaggerations
aside, I find the price tag for the Macbook Air/Pro lines appropriate for the
base models, and comparable to other 13" sized machines with similar specs and
amenities (for lack of a better word). Such is sort of the nature with Apple
and being a long time user - there's a lot Apple does that bugs you, but at
the same time, there is a lot of good you get with the hardware and the OS.

~~~
gaius
_I too would enjoy a quad core in the Air /Pro line, or at least the Pro line_

The 15" Macbook Pros are quad-core [http://www.apple.com/uk/macbook-pro/specs-
retina/](http://www.apple.com/uk/macbook-pro/specs-retina/)

------
guelo
Weak. The evidence provided by this article that Apple is wooing developers is
:

\- Shorter review times. This is a genuine improvement. Can be seen here
[http://appreviewtimes.com/ios/annual-trend-
graph](http://appreviewtimes.com/ios/annual-trend-graph)

\- App store ads. If you have an app marketing budget this does nothing
besides shift who you spend it with. We'll see if the roi is better but you'll
be competing with some heavy spenders for the limited inventory.

\- The new subscriptions pay model with the 15% cut after one year. In my
opinion Apple doesn't deserve any cut of the recurring money since they don't
have to do anything to earn it.

\- Some new marketing documentation.

woop dee do

~~~
agmcleod
> In my opinion Apple doesn't deserve any cut of the recurring money since
> they have to do nothing to earn it.

Aside from host the infrastructure that delivers the apps. Are they doing this
to make money? Of course. But saying they haven't earned it is flat out wrong.

~~~
rogerbinns
Indeed. Here is a list I made a while back of things they do for their cut.

* Maintains a user database including authentication, plus all the support costs (password support is very high)

* Payment handling (no one does it for free) including keeping up with tax authorities and legal systems in much of the world

* Almost unlimited (re)downloads for users to a reasonable number of devices. Bandwidth is cheap but not free.

* Backup and restore for application data. (That functionality is available to apps without extra fees.)

* A curated walled garden including a review process. Apple keeping the dregs out and avoiding the place turning into a cesspool means users can be more confident about the apps and that halo effect helps all apps in the store.

* Mechanisms to extend your app such as IAP, and an advertising solution etc

* Access to a large user base, with reasonably fair rules that everyone has play by

* They make all the above work together

It is certainly worth more than zero percent!

~~~
mcintyre1994
> A curated walled garden including a review process. Apple keeping the dregs
> out and avoiding the place turning into a cesspool means users can be more
> confident about the apps and that halo effect helps all apps in the store.

I switched from Android to iOS and I just don't see this at all. Yes I'm more
confident installing from the app store because of the security model, but
android is getting that too. I'm no more confident that an app or particularly
game will be good or worth downloading or buying though, and I don't perceive
apps to be high quality in general.

~~~
rogerbinns
Note that I am talking about a comparison with no app store at all, not
comparing Google to Apple. f there wasn't an app store at all - you just
downloaded apps from random web sites instead like for much Windows software.
Now have a random person go download VLC for Windows, or for that matter
something like Java. Between hijacked installers, "download" sites, toolbars,
dark patterns in the installers and who knows what else, the experience is
very negative and would make users far less likely to install stuff. The app
store helps alleviate those issues and increase user confidence in apps, which
in turn helps those offering apps at the app store.

~~~
mcintyre1994
Absolutely valid point and comparison, thanks for clarifying and I definitely
agree.

------
knucklesandwich
I used to work at a company whose flagship product is an iOS app. I have
typically worked on web things and was working on the API used by the product.
But it always struck me as strange how different of perceptions iOS devs had
from most developers I've met about what constituted "reasonable requirements"
from platform providers.

I get that you play ball with these things and pay what you owe to get access
to the market of Apple customers. I do get that. But I also think that
relationship is mutualistic, and that app developers bring a tremendous amount
of value to the platform that causes people to buy Apple products in the first
place. And I would argue that their value has not been assessed fairly by
Apple given the amount of cut they require and the amount of stipulations they
create about permissible ideas. Yes, a certain amount of these rules do make
sense, but some are unbelievably arcane and arbitrary. For instance:

"Apps that unlock or enable additional features or functionality with
mechanisms other than the App Store will be rejected"

It's absurd that something like this would be in your platform's rules. That
eliminates a huge number of possibilities in app development that would have
absolutely no negative impact on Apple's reputation or the safety of the App
Store.

And it would be another thing if these rules weren't given much credence, but
from what I've seen, developers are generally worried about being caught for
these kinds of things during app review, and they take the policies very
seriously.

I don't know if the iOS developers I've known are representative or not, but
in any case I'm happy that some of them are starting to push back.

~~~
IBM
How doesn't that make sense? What if app developers started saying you could
unlock 100 gold coins for free if you visit some website and click 3 ads or
some other shitty experience? Maybe having that restriction is bad for
developers but developers aren't Apple's only constituency, customers are too
(Apple has definitely shown they care more about their customers than the
needs of developers).

From a pure business strategy of commoditize your complements, encouraging app
developers to have subscription pricing works against the interests of their
customers (who want to minimize their costs). Yet they're obviously doing it
because the long-term interests of customers is in having sustainable
businesses develop those apps/services.

~~~
knucklesandwich
Note I didn't say that there weren't examples of applications that could be
abusive if such a rule didn't exist. I'm saying that the rule is far too
general and covers far too many benign ideas that could end up becoming
incredible products. Many iOS apps have an admin console that can only be
unlocked by special designators in their account on the server side, yet by
this rule that would be disallowed. In fact the company I worked for disabled
their admin panel for this very reason, despite the fact that it was very
useful for debugging and field testing a released build.

EDIT: Also is there any evidence that companies in the App Store are more
sustainable than elsewhere? I can see how this is possible, but it's also
unintuitive that companies paying higher costs would end up keeping their apps
maintained for longer.

~~~
IBM
I don't think it's a surprise that Apple's rules chafe developers, I also
don't think it's a surprise that Apple has a bias towards their customers
which is why they're willing to have restrictive rules.

Ultimately it comes down to leverage, and they have plenty of it because
they've aggregated a very nice demographic of users that are willing to spend
money.

~~~
knucklesandwich
This is exactly the kind of "Apple is infallable" logic I'm talking about. How
exactly does it benefit customers to limit access to safe, cool apps that
violate some arcane rule they have? If they actually wanted to do right by
their customers it stands to reason that they should work with developers to
come up with a more precise set of rules that still keeps their reputation
intact and their customers happy so that customers have access to _more
varied_ kinds of apps. I'm an iOS customer (and not an app developer) who is
irked by this, so there's at least an existence proof of people that feel the
opposite.

~~~
mcphage
> If they actually wanted to do right by their customers it stands to reason
> that they should work with developers to come up with a more precise set of
> rules that still keeps their reputation intact and their customers happy so
> that customers have access to more varied kinds of apps. I'm an iOS customer
> (and not an app develop

Apple's general MO around restrictions against abuse is to make them too
strong, see what kind of useful apps get developed in other app stores that
would be against Apple's rules, and then change the rules to allow for just
those examples. So if there's an overly strict Apple rule, but no other good
apps come out elsewhere, then the rule will stay.

------
jsemrau
Here is the beef that I have with Apple. Hands down the app store is rotten
infrastructure to the core for app developers. In my experience, app discovery
is so bad it shows everything but the app you were looking for unless the app
you were looking for is in the top 10.

Most indy-apps are brutally left out in the cold. As a result, app downloads
are stagnating.

[2014][http://qz.com/253618/most-smartphone-users-download-zero-
app...](http://qz.com/253618/most-smartphone-users-download-zero-apps-per-
month/) [2015][http://www.businessinsider.sg/how-many-apps-people-
download-...](http://www.businessinsider.sg/how-many-apps-people-download-per-
month-2014-8/?r=US&IR=T)

So it boggles the mind why going forward we should invest months into the
development in an app where the only benefit the app store brings is payment
(for a free app) and versioning.

Apple is in dire need for an app store disruption.

~~~
kranner
These are complaints about visibility. Can you market it yourself? Then the
app store provides cryptographically-signed peace of mind to users that they
can use your app without their contacts stolen or their phones hijacked.

~~~
jsemrau
The problem with visibility is the following. Let's say you make a
commercial/web-ad/etc for App "A".

The customer would with 0.05% probability click the link, but maybe remembers
the name.

So now in their spare time they would think, let's look for this app "A" ? so
they input the name and only "B","C", and "D" that have nothing to do with "A"
came up, that would be not that good, right?

A real world equivalent would be: You are in a supermarket and want to buy "A"
beer because you heard the radio commercial and the assistant guides you to
the vegetable, the ice-cream, and the raw meat section but neither to "A" nor
the beer section. So you need to know before you newly discover "A" in the
beer section that there is a beer section and that "A" is the beer to try. If
there are now 20,000 beers that is your problem right there.

In comparison, on Amazon it is more effective to find products through
recommendations and "similar products" which help customers find new products.

The app discovery path does not work in the app store.

~~~
kranner
OK, I agree that finding a particular app by name has been broken for a long
time in the app store.

------
chris_wot
I really feel that at this point the biggest issue is Apple's lack of
openness.

My biggest issue with Android is the UI. For whatever reason it's fragmented
between devices, and when I worked in an area that needed to support both iOS
and Android devices, I preferred helping those with iOS because it was much,
much easier to support them.

However, in terms of troubleshooting beyond a certain point I discovered that
Android devices were by far superior. On an Android I can get access to log
files, low level network features and a host of other goodies (like the
filesystem!) much more easily. Heck, some of the devices we eventually ended
up using had great emulators and remote access tools - something iOS devices
just don't have.

The company I worked for had a custom mobile app-based solution. Like any
solution it had bugs, but we fixed more bugs in the Android version in shorter
timeframes than we did for iPhones - largely because we had more options for
people in the field who experienced intermittent and hard to track down
problems.

The fact I can't view logs on an iPhone app on my iPhone seems ridiculous. And
not being able to setup network filtering ion the device, well I know why
Apple doesn't want that but it's not for any good technical reason - it's only
to "protect" their ecosystem.

------
tomglynch
The complaint by Fanify is ridiculous. It's very clear the app "violated
Apple’s requirement that all in-app payments be routed through iTunes" so you
can't pay through paypal.

Sounds like poor planning by Fanify to submit the app only 10 days before
their planned launch, when they clearly didn't bother following Apple's T&Cs.

~~~
softbuilder
It does sound like poor planning, given the known realities of the app store.
But I've never understood why Apple feels entitled to a cut of in-app
purchases. They aren't providing any added value and in some cases (like w/
Kindle) they seem to be begging for an anti-trust suit.

~~~
sokoloff
One reason is that without it, there'd be nearly no paid apps. Every app would
be free with some minute amount of functionality (to pass the review process)
and an in-app purchase to unlock the "pro" version, with Apple getting
nothing.

Apple built a platform and wants to extract value from that platform. It seems
perfectly reasonable to me.

~~~
LanceH
Nothing except the very large margins on the hardware.

~~~
sokoloff
A good rule of thumb is that a consumer electronics product should retail for
about 2.5x the COGS (cost of goods sold). That's pretty much where the iPhone
sits.

I don't see evidence of excessive margins on hardware; I see a company that's
planned for and executed on proper margins.

------
FreedomToCreate
The App store has reached maturity and at this point, breaking through the
noise is near to impossible if you don't have millions to begin with. There
are those odd apps that like in the first couple of years, tear through to the
top and are made over a month by an independent dev, but that is rare. The app
store is no where close to as exciting as it was. Its basically become like
the PC software market now, though with less liberty.

------
waynecochran

        "At one point, Apple raised a fundamental objection, 
         saying that Fanify’s method for tipping artists, which
         used the online payment services Venmo and PayPal,
         violated Apple’s requirement that all in-app payments 
         be routed through iTunes so the company could take 
         its 30 percent cut."
    

Duh Fanify.. I am amazed at developers who complain about their apps not
getting accepted when they clearly _never_ read the App Store Review
Guidelines.

    
    
         "11.2 Apps utilizing a system other than the In-App Purchase API (IAP) 
         to purchase content, functionality, or services in an App will 
         be rejected."
    

[https://developer.apple.com/app-
store/review/guidelines/#pur...](https://developer.apple.com/app-
store/review/guidelines/#purchasing-currencies)

------
galistoca
More like "Apple does a PR piece to convince developers that everyone else is
being wooed so they should be wooed too". I miss the days when Apple used to
generate hype simply based on great product, instead of artificial pieces like
this.

------
tianlins
I am very surprised that it takes Apple years before they finally decide to
release Siri API (supposedly). The benefit of speech assistant for apps seems
huge. And would it been released earlier, Apple can collect much more speech
data as well, which may help build next-gen Siri.

------
nathanvanfleet
I don't really get the whole wedge of the article. Giving developers a Siri
Kit is them trying to make it easier for them? Apple has continually improved
developers access to the different hardware and software on the iPhone.

Same thing for the improvement of app review times. It's great they did it.

I don't see the connection between that and "stagnating" iPhone sales.

------
datashovel

      "Developers Developers Developers Developers!"
        --Tim Cook WWDC 2016

