
Fear of Apple - q7
http://www.elischiff.com/blog/2015/3/24/fear-of-apple
======
firloop
This article summarizes the epitome of my experience as an Apple developer.
I'm 17 years old and a developer on the app store. The App Store feels opaque
and like a black box where I submit builds with little to no feedback or
control. I get paid when Apple decides, and could be eradicated from the App
Store at a moment's notice.

I realized early on that being featured by Apple was unlikely, and have
adopted a sustainable pricing model (a term I was unfamiliar with before
reading this piece) to fund my development. I'm certain that by charging
$14.99, I stay out of the bottom 47% of developers that make less than $100 a
month from the app store. I do not rely on the app store for anything. From
visibility to app discovery, I feel that Apple has failed me. When I get
support emails, I cannot even refund a single paying user, which means I have
to send $14.99 back to the user using PayPal and eat Apple's $4.50 fee for
that transaction. It's immensely frustrating and a main reason why I allow
users to sign up concurrently on my website using a card (Stripe).

Every part of developing for Apple leads me to this conclusion: I do not
matter. My app does not matter.

~~~
Spooky23
Your experience is the price of admission to gain access to a global audience.
The low barrier to entry is why you're fighting for pennies.

Twenty years ago when I was in high school, I worked at CompUSA. They sold a
lot of software in their day... in my region of the country, 40% of software
sold passed through our store's door. To sell software at CompUSA or similar
retailers, you needed to interface with a publisher, who would then try to
sell your software to a buyer at the store. Then you'd need to print
collateral, get an attractive box, duplicate physical media in quantities
sufficient to stock 500 stores. At your expense.

And for all that, you'd be a box on a bottom shelf somewhere.

If you wanted to actually sell software, you'd need to pay for premium
placement on an endcap or display. I recall one vendor who paid over $2M for
premium endcaps at each store for a handwriting recognition app.

When customers were dissatisfied, or returned your software that wasn't
supposed to be returnable, the store would withhold payment for your software
(which was running 60-90 days late in most cases) and mail you back the
resealed box at your expense, which may have contained a rock instead of your
software.

Fast forward to 2015, and you're paying $99 to sell software for $15 that nets
you $10, which is paid promptly every month. Apple treats you like cattle,
because you are in effect a cow to them... there are thousands of people like
you!

~~~
tomjen3
Or, more realistically, he could pay shit all for a domain name (.io, .ly is
so last year) 10 usd/month for a VPS, 3% to Stripe (which is criminally high,
but there you go) and have access to the global market. He is more likely to
get customers and he isn't constrained to change pennies.

~~~
coldtea
People have tried that, e.g. with Android apps. It doesn't turn out to be much
better, actually quite worse sales wise.

~~~
tomjen3
Apparently I didn't make the comment very clear: he should build a webapp
instead. Make it a game if you want, but build it outside their walled
gardens.

~~~
coldtea
But web-based games/apps don't sell very well at all, compared to iOS and
Android native apps (even if the native are built with the same web
technologies).

Unless it's a service website, the monetization for web apps just isn't up to
par.

------
kaolinite
Whoa, whoa, whoa. I was following quite closely when Marco Arment's article
was published and the storm erupted around it. Marco's comments have totally
been taken out of context here: the reason he regretted publishing the article
was not out of fear of Apple primarily but because many publications took it
and used it to justify the "Apple is doomed" narrative which Marco personally
doesn't agree with. He was quite sad about that because the article was a
serious piece highlighting particular problems that need addressing but it was
just used as fodder for "This wouldn't have happened if Steve Jobs was
alive..." headlines.

Whilst I didn't see the particular tweet when it happened, it's pretty clear
that Cabel Sasser is also talking about the press in his tweet (note
"dramapress").

Whilst elements of this article do seem a bit biased, there are some good
points later on which aren't taken out of context. It's a shame that it
started out with this.

~~~
elischiff
I'm just going to note that the people most frequently mentioning the "Apple
is Doomed" narrative are Apple apologists themselves. I discussed this in the
previous article: [http://www.elischiff.com/blog/2015/3/17/critical-sharks-
part...](http://www.elischiff.com/blog/2015/3/17/critical-sharks-part-iii-
design-fallacies)

Yes the media distorts things. But that does not mean that it is invalid to
say 'this wouldn't have happened under Steve.' Jobs had clear differences from
the new leadership.

Further, the media's inevitable distortion of stories should not make
criticism something regrettable or something to hide in blog posts or
podcasts. If the developers in question have legitimate grievances, which they
clearly do, then those should be aired accessibly and publicly. Otherwise
what's the point of writing them?

~~~
albedoa
_I 'm just going to note that the people most frequently mentioning the "Apple
is Doomed" narrative are Apple apologists themselves._

I see the claim mirrored in your article, also stated as fact:

 _Strangely enough, the people doing the most service to the narrative of
Apple’s impending “doom” are Apple apologists themselves._

Is it discussed or supported beyond that? Sorry if I missed it.

~~~
flomo
The article alludes to Guy Kawasaki's 'evanga-list' back in the 1990s which
seems to be the source of the "Everyone thinks Apple is doomed" meme. I don't
know if anyone has written up the whole story, but it's been discussed on
various Mac fora over the years.

------
jmduke
This was a much better article than I was anticipating. (A lot of Apple
criticism is either shallow or vitriolic, I guess a side effect of inspiring
so much fervor on either end of the spectrum.)

My new favorite anecdote of Apple's deficiencies in the services side of
things is how the App Store and iTunes Connect was just _down_ for at least
half a day a couple weeks back, with no visibility except a press release:

[http://thenextweb.com/apple/2015/03/11/the-apple-app-
store-i...](http://thenextweb.com/apple/2015/03/11/the-apple-app-store-is-
having-problems-and-itunes-connect-is-down/)

Or back in late January, where iTunes Connect had a bug that just randomly
logged you in as a different user:

[http://9to5mac.com/2015/01/29/widespread-itunes-connect-
issu...](http://9to5mac.com/2015/01/29/widespread-itunes-connect-issue-
presenting-wrong-user-name-and-apps-for-developers/)

It's hard for me to imagine another company for which either of these
incidents wouldn't inspire a round of warranted criticism -- especially given
their bad services track record.

Still, it makes sense that Apple would continue to deprioritize developer
relations (either implicitly or explicitly.) Put frankly, we're a tiny sliver
of their consumer base: while the App Store might be raking in billions from
that 30% its still more valuable to the company as a method of selling devices
than as a revenue stream in its own right.

~~~
jasode
>Still, it makes sense that Apple would continue to deprioritize developer
relations (either implicitly or explicitly.)

Yes. I think it also makes sense to remind ourselves of how Apple and
Microsoft started in the 1970s. They have very different origin stories.

When Bill Gates and Paul Allen were burning the midnight oil for their first
successful Microsoft product, it was a _BASIC interpreter_ for the Altair
computer. It was a product _for programmers_. Yes, Microsoft went on to
dominate with operating systems (first DOS, then Windows) but they have
"programmers" within their DNA. The CEO of the company (Bill Gates) was an ex-
programmer and that perspective cascaded all the way down as direct and
indirect decisions in what they did. People mocked Steve Ballmer's stage
antics about "developers developers developers" but Microsoft really did pay
attention to programmers like no other major corporation. The high praise of
Visual Studio (in comparison to other IDEs such as Xcode, Eclipse, etc) is one
testament to this. So are dev friendly connections with their internal
programmers such as active blog posts and channel9.msdn.com featuring informal
whiteboard coding sessions.

Contrast with Apple. Steve Wozniak and Steve Jobs were burning the midnight
oil assembling the Apple I to sell to consumers. Wozniak was a programmer but
the coding was incidental to making the Apple computer work. (E.g. his
triumphant story of programming the floppy disk controller to work correctly.)
They were selling end-user hardware and not a programmer's product like
Microsoft. In 2011, _none_ of the top 3 guys (Steve Jobs, Tim Cook, Jony Ive)
were programmers. Craig Federighi is an ex-programmer but Apple doesn't seem
like the kind of company that would hand the reigns over to him if Tim Cook
stepped down. Craig is a powerful figure at Apple but obviously, he doesn't
have the clout that Bill Gates did at Microsoft. The way Apple originated in
1976 has had a ripple effect all the way to the present day in 2015. It guided
their org structure and their attitudes towards 3rd-party developers. As a
consequence, we should expect blogs in 2015 complaining about their
"hostility" towards developers. It's just the way Apple has always been.

As for the issue of too few developers making money in the App Store, I have
an opinion that programmers are not going to want to hear: _Let go of the idea
that you 'll get significant income from the App Store._ Consider the few
megahits that happened (beer drinking app, fart app, Flappy Bird, etc) as
outliers and lottery ticket winnings. Sort of like the guy that sold 1-pixel-
per-dollar on a 1 megapixel billboard when the web first appeared.[1]

I believe the only realistic way to view the App Stores is to think of it as
an _adjunct function_ to something else that makes you money. In other words,
you just can't write a college study iOS app for $1.99 and expect income but
instead, you create a whole college assistance website and the iPhone app is
just one gateway to that functionality. It's the website that has subscribers
and generates the major revenue. It's sort of like the "enterprise" model.
American Airlines doesn't "sell" their iOS app; they sell plane tickets and
the $0.00 app is just their way for customers to conveniently generate
boarding passes, check gate times, etc.

That's the financial picture I've come to accept from the App Store and I
recommend programmers consider it to avoid heartache. There's no need to
complain about getting a "bigger piece of the pie" from the App Store because
there is no (predictable) pie of any significance to fight over. I put
predictable as a qualifier because I'm not dismissing that the megahits can
make a lot of money. You just can't depend on it.

[1][http://www.milliondollarhomepage.com/](http://www.milliondollarhomepage.com/)

EDITED to fix spelling errors.

~~~
FireBeyond
"Contrast with Apple. Steve Woz and Steve Jobs were burning the midnight oil
assembling the Apple I to sell to consumers. Steve Woz was a programmer but
the coding was incidental to making the Apple computer work. (E.g. his
triumphant story of programming the floppy disk controller to work correctly.)
They were selling end-user hardware and not a programmer's product like
Microsoft. In 2011, none the top 3 guys (Steve Jobs, Tim Cook, Jony Ive) were
programmers. Craig Federighi is an ex-programmer but Apple doesn't seem like
the company that would hand the reigns over to him if Tim Cook stepped down.
Craig is a powerful figure at Apple but obviously, he doesn't have the clout
that Bill Gates did at Microsoft. The way Apple originated in 1976 had a
ripple effect all the way to the present day in 2015. It guided their org
structure and attitudes towards 3rd-party developers. As a consequence, we
should expect blogs in 2015 complaining about their "hostility" towards
developers. It's just the way Apple has always been."

Right, realistically if Cook were to step down tomorrow you would have to
assume that Ive would get the call-up. I agree with your comments on
Federighi. Eddy Cue doesn't seem to give off the right vibe. Phil Schiller
doesn't really work - he's Marketing. Maybe the only other candidate would be
Dan Riccio, who I'm surprised we don't see more of, and has largely shunned
the limelight (or not been offered it) - VP of Hardware Engineering.

But very much so, while Visual Studio isn't without flaws, I think few could
realistically claim that it hasn't been "the" IDE of note.

~~~
madeofpalk
> You would have to assume that Ive would get the call-up

I would believe they would get a new CEO externally before they put/Ive
accepts CEO.

------
guelo
You're a sharecropper. It doesn't matter how much you pour your heart and soul
into someone else's platform it's still their platform. They don't owe you
anything, they care about one thing, maximizing their profits. People
sometimes appeal to the large corporation pleading that helping the
"ecosystem" will make more money for everybody. But this is not necessarily
true. There are many situations where screwing over the ecosystem in some way
maximizes the corporations' profits while hurting everyone else, and the
corporation will choose that route every time.

The only option is to stop being a sharecropper. We are incredibly lucky that
their is one open platform out there: the web. It is an amazing accident of
history that we ended up with the web as an open platform. And there are
corporations working hard to lock it down, like Facebook, Google, Twitter,
etc. But so far it's still open. If you don't want to be a sharecropper the
web is your only option.

~~~
AnthonyMouse
> We are incredibly lucky that their is one open platform out there: the web.

The web is great, but it isn't a full platform. You can't have a web-based
device driver, or VPN, or secure email, or ssh server. You can't replace your
web browser with a web-based web browser. There are things that are just not
possible on the web, but that people still need to be able to do. And the
people who make those things should not be sharecroppers either.

~~~
gkanai
There is a web-based mobile phone: Firefox OS.

~~~
AnthonyMouse
The large majority of Firefox OS is written in C and C++. The Linux kernel it
uses isn't web-based. Firefox itself isn't web-based.

Mozilla are good people, but it's _really obvious_ why they would want to
encourage people to make web apps instead of native apps. There is still a ton
of software that can't be web-based.

------
smackfu
This is the same Apple who has a published document saying:

"If your App is rejected, we have a Review Board that you can appeal to. If
you run to the press and trash us, it never helps."

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

When this company controls your livelihood, you are wise to take a very broad
view of what "trash us" means.

~~~
serve_yay
It's worse than that - sometimes "trashing them" (i.e., writing a dryly-worded
blog post simply stating events that transpired with no hint of anger) is the
_only_ thing that helps.

~~~
matheweis
I did have success once with sending an e-mail to tcook@apple.com. I have read
that like Steve, he does read many of those external e-mails.

This was when the App Store review times had climbed to 28+ days. I never did
get a response, but shortly thereafter they started going down, and within a
few weeks were down to the 3-7 day range. I don't think they've gone
significantly over 7 days since.

~~~
WhitneyLand
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post_hoc_ergo_propter_hoc](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post_hoc_ergo_propter_hoc)

------
shimfish
While I agree with the basic thrust of the article (Apple is not your friend,
is often vindictive in response to criticism and could do more to help
developers), I always feel when reading App Store articles that there's quite
an odd underlying assumption, namely that Apple somehow owes all developers a
living and has it within its power to achieve this if only it wanted.

Please correct me if my history is wrong but I don't think being an
independent software developer has been anything but a high risk and/or low
profit endeavor. It's not like everything was just great for indies until
Apple came along and devalued software. On the contrary, I feel the App Store
has done more to level the playing field for indies than anything before it.

Discoverability is not a solved problem for any product or service apart from
massive advertising expenditure, which is why "big labels" come to exist. It's
not like Apple is holding back on a solution out of spite. Is it supposed to
routinely feature each of the million apps on the store?

In a short space of time, the App Store has become a mature market of too many
people chasing after too little money. This isn't some kind of outlier in
capitalism. It's an entirely predictable pattern of consolidation that we've
seen time and time again.

The only unusual thing is that the independent developers got invited the
party in the first place without having to worry about payment or delivery
infrastructure.

~~~
nothrabannosir
I don't think there is (always) this assumption. For example, the author in
this article tries to focus on the objective issues with the App Store, rather
than who owes whom what. Perhaps not perfectly, but, afai can see, he tries.

Sure, Apple being the gatekeeper, it's easy to take criticism of the App Store
as criticism of Apple. It's also easy to slip into criticizing Apple while
criticizing the App Store. Fundamentally, however, while similar, the two are
not the same. It depends on what conclusion you draw. Which is it: "Boo Apple,
fix your store," or "Boo developers, boycott iOS until they fix the store!"

However, boycotting becomes less realistic the longer the feedback loop gets.
I can stop buying some kind of milk brand tomorrow, and pick up the day after.
Deciding what platform to publish apps on is an entirely different ball game.
In that light, the unviability of any "free market" alternatives we as devs
have to combat Apple on this makes it look very much like a monopoly, and that
holds weight as an argument against Apple (not just against the App Store).

Yeah, they technically don't owe us anything, but no, the playing field is too
uneven for that to just be the end of the story.

~~~
shimfish
My point is that it seems entirely probable that there is no fix. What exactly
are you suggesting that Apple could do to level the playing field any more?

~~~
ChrisLTD
There are a lot of ideas out there (and in the article) Apple could implement.
Here's a few I remember off the top of my head:

* Improve App Store search results

* Remove the top lists and blunt the 'rich getting richer' effect the lists amplify

* Put their share of App sales on sliding scale, so you only start giving Apple the full 30% after you've reached $X in sales

~~~
shimfish
* Improve how? Isn't that the whole discussion?

* That will just amplify the effect of featured apps and then you lose all meaningful organic app discovery and a large chunk of the meritocracy of the store.

* Great but that will probably not make a huge difference.

~~~
ChrisLTD
1) Relevance to the search term seems too low. I just did a search for
"twitter" on the iPhone app store and six of the top 10 results had nothing to
do with Twitter.

2) Maybe you're right, I'd still like to see Apple try it.

3) It doesn't have to be a huge difference for it be worth doing. A lot of
little positive changes will add up.

------
Animats
There's a strange phenomenon if you make negative remarks about Apple on
forums such as HN or Slashdot. They tend to be voted up shortly after posting.
Then, about an hour later, a lot of downvotes come in. I've seen this several
times, with a consistent response delay of about an hour. After the downvotes
at one hour, more upvotes may come in; the downvote effort is a one-time
event.

Anyone else seeing this?

~~~
m3rc
I see it with pretty much any divisive opinion. People who don't share the
opinion in the original low score comment don't pay it any attention and don't
vote, but those who _do_ share that opinion upvote it in a sort of comradery
display. Then the comment gets higher up on the page, and the people who
disagree now see it as a sentiment that people are actually discussing, and
downvote it. In places like HN where the pro-Apple camp far outnumbers the
anti-Apple camp, that leads to the comment being downvoted into oblivion.

Additionally, on HN you have the added strange behavior of the downvote button
needing to be unlocked. Since the current prevailing attitude is very Apple-
fanboy-ish the people that choose to stay around long enough to actually get
the downvote tend to be those who agree with the pro-Apple sentiment, and
those who dislike Apple (or any popular thing) tend to leave or aren't active
enough to get their downvote button.

~~~
arrrg
Hihi, I have exactly the opposite impression of you re: views on Apple. In my
mind a clear and overwhelming majority on here dislikes Apple very much or is
at least very critical of Apple (even though they may still use their
products). A smaller group despises Apple absolutely and everything they do
and another smallish group really likes Apple.

How did we arrive at those opposite impressions of what’s going on here? I
clearly think that a majority on here really doesn’t like Apple. That’s the
prevailing attitude.

~~~
m3rc
Probably just different definitions of what constitutes dislike of Apple. I
don't know you but you probably have a lower bar than me for an anti-Apple
sentiment so see far more of it

------
JimmaDaRustla
I got banned from theverge.com for suggesting that celebrities' Apple ID
passwords may have been cracked by a brute force vulnerability with iCloud.

Permanent ban, no explanation, no e-mail. The fishiest part, someone (not
verge staff) replied to my comment saying "enjoy your ban".

I've been weirded out by the power and bias of Apple employees and/or fans
ever since.

~~~
akfanta
I don't know. Are you sure you didn't violate any other rules? The Verge might
be close to Apple, but I doubt you'd get banned just because of that.

~~~
JimmaDaRustla
I am/was a bit opinionated, but within reason. I never made threats or claimed
anything I said was fact.

It seemed like there were a team of people who were on news sites denying
comments like mine, probably just your average tech site commenters though.
Some people were adamant that brute forcing (algorithms and dictionaries)
would not be possibly and would take 20+ years to crack one password.

The real interesting thing to me was how it was permanent ban without warning
and without ability to be appealed.

------
pasta_2
I love that coders are all worried about their "craft" being devalued while
these are the very same people that will unironically tell music artists that
they should sell t-shirts and to do concerts.

Well my friends, like the music industry it's time to adapt. It's time to
start selling t-shirts.

~~~
matheweis
Not all of us feel that way... I've having such a rotten time finding the
digital music that I actually want that I'm quite ready to go back to CDs.

~~~
arrrg
That’s just you getting old, I think? Also, I’m not really sure what the
medium has to do with that.

~~~
matheweis
Nope, we're talking fairly modern things, I think. Film scores from 5-10-year
old blockbusters? Countless unavailable on streaming services, many
unavailable on iTunes/Amazon. Still can be found on CD no problem.

Not just audio either. It's 2015, where can I buy a legal digital download of
any episode of Star Wars? Nowhere.

------
sschueller
There are a few who have been banned[1] from Apple events etc. because of a
negative review of something Apple made.

[1] [http://www.computerbild.de/artikel/cb-News-Handy-Apple-
boyco...](http://www.computerbild.de/artikel/cb-News-Handy-Apple-boycotts-
COMPUTER-BILD-An-open-letter-to-Tim-Cook-10953399.html)

~~~
chrisper
I don't know if anything BILD is a valid source.

~~~
gress
No, but they did ban Gizmodo for buying a stolen prototype.

~~~
austenallred
That's a little bit different than "censorship," don't you think?

~~~
gress
Did I say it was censorship? I think the original post is misguided, but it is
true that Apple withholds press access from outlets that do things it doesn't
like.

------
Futurebot
This story is a specific instance of a larger story, one as old as human power
structures. This can happen in any relationship where power is very
asymmetrical, and where the weaker party feels so dependent on being in the
good graces of the former. Websites fear making Google mad. Content creators
fear making Facebook mad. The press sometimes fear making politicians and
sponsors mad. It's perverse, because those with the most expertise are the
ones we need doing the critiquing, but fear or loss of access - to people, to
jobs, to inside information - and even the fear of social ostracism (you stop
getting invited to meetings, events, interviews, etc.) cause self-censorship
([http://ijbssnet.com/journals/Vol_5_No_3_March_2014/9.pdf](http://ijbssnet.com/journals/Vol_5_No_3_March_2014/9.pdf))

I think what this all really shows is that if you want to be able to have
controversial opinions about things _and_ be taken seriously, you need to
already be successful, and preferably wealthy, so that your livelihood depends
on nothing. Anonymity and pseudonymity can let you say whatever you want, but
that doesn't mean anyone will take you seriously. Bloomberg, Buffet, and Gates
can potentially say whatever they want (and Bloomberg certainly does); if you
can't bribe or starve someone, you probably also can't silence them.

------
Dotnaught
The commodification of software isn't just an issue for Apple developers. It
applies to all content, because there's so much competition for limited
attention and the tools to produce content are so widely accessible. Many
ebooks get released for free and $2.99 seems to be the upper limit for self-
published authors. Established software and literary brands can ask more. But
among those trying to get recognition, the price pressure is considerable. And
good luck getting people to pay for your music.

~~~
anon_adderlan
> It applies to all content, because there's so much competition for limited
> attention and the tools to produce content are so widely accessible.

What isn't widely accessible however are the tools needed to filter and find
the content a user _might_ like/need, which is now far more important to a
work's success than any other factor.

------
fumar
From the sidelines it is apparent that Apple uses apps (free ones or cheap
ones) to entice consumers with the idea of purchasing one device and having
access to free* compatible software. Similar to when you purchase a video game
console that is bundled with other games. Apple can sit on the sidelines while
developers create applications that cater to consumers ever changing needs.
Apple's job is to sell their products and communicate to the market that each
device comes bundled or has access to great free* applications. It is a great
strategy that allows them to position their hardware as forward thinking.

Why would they change their position to promote higher cost applications? I
don't see any reason, as this would change how consumers perceive their
devices. Would the average iOS user want to purchase every application on
their device or pay a higher cost then today?

I firmly believe that iOS devices have been successful because of the wide
range of applications created in the app store.

------
serve_yay
I know somebody who is close with one of the people mentioned in the article.
It's strange to me that people can even be so devoted to Apple to start with,
but beside that, it's terrible to see how Apple's callousness is
disillusioning even their most loyal developers. It's not a good situation,
and when I ask "but why?!", nobody has any answers. It just seems senseless.

------
gcb0
how times change. tomorrow i will have to put down my windows and Linux
laptops to get a sanctioned apple at work. despite my claims that i won't be
able to test touch screen interactions with it...

apple hardware is the new Microsoft outlook in the corporate world.

all i wanted was a sexy surface pro 3 :( how times have changed

~~~
integraton
Don't worry. There are still big parts of the world outside of the technology
industry that are held hostage by Microsoft and their devoted IT department
foot soldiers who refuse to acknowledge anything outside of the Microsoft
bubble.

~~~
gcb0
didn't get you point. you mean i have to choose a side on the holy wars of
fanboism? ...yeah, i rather not.

but if i must choose any hardware which i will dual boot linux anyway, i
rather not be stuck with a beige-box of the 21st century with glossy screen,
and instead get something, you know, innovative? maybe, be as bold as,
thinking differently. anyway. all that is moot since my CTO probably is
swimming in apple shares.

------
rebootthesystem
We had a product plan consisting of over twenty educational apps in various
segments. It took about a year to develop the framework for these apps based
on machine kearning technology. We then released one to the App Store to gain
some experience. And, based on that experience we decided to not spend another
dime builing iOS native apps. We switched to web-based and in same cases even
desktop native apps. And it was the right decision. Couldn't pay us enough to
even consider the App store again. Apple is a horrible host for your products.
You don't get to build a relationship with your customers. Apple controls your
very existence. If you are doing a game like Clash of Clans perhaps it makes
sense. Not sure it does for most other products. If Apple released stats on
the "distribution of wealth" on the app store most developers would run away
as fast as they could.

------
vinceguidry
I've learned to adopt the following attitude concerning software and hardware:
Use a device for things that the company making the device cares seriously
about.

My iPhone was absolutely fantastic at music playback. Apple takes a great deal
of pride in its relationship to the music community and it shows. Bluetooth
happens instantly. Songs sound great.

When I switched to a Nexus 5 last year, the difference in software quality was
immediate and jarring. I can't put my car in reverse any more until my music
starts playing because I don't know whether it actually will. Sometimes
getting it going requires a simple hitting of play on the player. Sometimes I
have to go into the settings menu, force a shutdown of Google Play Services,
turn off the Bluetooth, turn it back on, then finally re-select Bluetooth
playback in my car so it'll re-connect. Occasionally the Music app will
incompletely break, the only fix I've found is rebooting the phone.

Even the music sounds off. For the first few seconds, I get this weird wobble
in the pitch. It crackles and stutters.

Software is hard. Managing software development even harder. You have to focus
your limited resources somewhere, if you don't, you get Google software, which
is OK when you look at it in aggregate, but horrible if you're looking for a
refined experience in something important. The music player wasn't given
priority over other stuff, and the resource management isn't great, so the
Music app sucks. I'd go so far as to call it dogshit, Google oughta be ashamed
of themselves.

Apple is opinionated, and its opinions tend to be pretty good. A device
streamlined around a few critical functions that are in use all the time is
all I really need. I make calls, I listen to music, I read books. That's all I
_really_ need from my phone. The App store is similarly opinionated. You need
to have a certain kind of business and buy into Apple's philosophy if you
really want to do well with it. The more I used my iPhone when I had it, the
more I started to understand the issues Apple faces when providing a mobile
platform and why that philosophy and opinionated-ness exists.

I'm really glad Apple has found a way to ignore the noise from developers that
don't understand those challenges. Apple is a design company, they focus all
their resources around providing a consistent, gorgeous, and useful
experience, that has to come at the expense of the hacker mentality that
exists in software developers. The ones that do well understand Apple's design
mentality, and Apple helps them out by featuring their products.

~~~
JimDabell
> The more I used my iPhone when I had it, the more I started to understand
> the issues Apple faces when providing a mobile platform and why that
> philosophy and opinionated-ness exists.

> I'm really glad Apple has found a way to ignore the noise from developers
> that don't understand those challenges.

To mangle a Churchill quote, the best argument in favour of a curated App
Store is a five-minute conversation with the average app entrepreneur.

Especially in the early days, there were no end of clients asking for user-
hostile and abusive behaviour. "Apple won't allow that" was an oft-repeated
phrase that won a lot of battles for end-users. It certainly has its down-
sides as well, but it really does protect end-users from incredibly shitty
experiences.

~~~
anon_adderlan
> Especially in the early days, there were no end of clients asking for user-
> hostile and abusive behaviour.

Sadly true, and still true when it comes to the world of desktop adware.

The problem is when you sandbox hostile apps, you also end up sandboxing a lot
of potential functionality which now becomes impossible. For example, I need
call recording for my work, but the only mobile platform that still supports
that is Android, but only on specific devices, with specific Android versions,
and even then you may still need to root the device to get it working.

I'm sure there's a middle ground here, but it's going to take some effort to
get there.

------
m_eiman
How could anything Apple could possibly do be something that would give all
the million(s?) apps their "fair share" of App store front page time be
useful, when there are just too many apps in there? It's a bit like expecting
Google to divide traffic to all existing sites because it isn't fair that
Facebook gets so much traffic.

I just don't see how it isn't the developers' job to raise interest in their
work.

~~~
ryanbrunner
You probably can't give totally equally billing to every app out there, but
there's a big gap between that and "just show top lists and featured". The
Play Store, for instance, does a pretty good job of recommending me stuff
that's not chart-topping based on my ratings and downloads.

------
anon_adderlan
I have no idea if I should fear Apple. Then again, I have no idea if what I
say affects my relationship with Apple. But assumptions emerge in this
information vacuum, and because my relationship with Apple is the only
'legitimate' way I have of getting my Apps on a user's iOS device, I have to
be concerned with this.

No wonder conclusions like this emerge. And while it may have cost more money
to market software in the 'bad' old days, you could still _give it away for
free_ , which is NOT possible on iOS or Windows Phone, and even Android
requires extra hoops which many users are not savvy enough to jump through.

So Fear of Apple makes sense if you _think_ they can hurt your bottom line.
And given that Apple (or at least Steve Jobs) has been a very spiteful in the
past, I think it's more than warranted. And just because it's better now
(which it is) doesn't mean we shouldn't continue to push to make it even
better.

------
dognotdog
Indie developers have often been at the whim of Apple, throughout its history.
But prior to the iPhone, Apple was small, as was the developer 'community' (a
more apt moniker then, than now). Apple did control the platform, but not the
sales channel. A few evangelists and engineers were enough to sustain a dialog
with the developer community. And indie software then consisted of mostly
unique applications, often brilliant and unique to the platform, and it was
important for the platform to have those apps.

With the introduction of the iPhone, this all changed. It was (is) a gold
rush. The number of developers grew from a few thousand to a few hundred
thousand. At first, the Mac developers profited from the uptick in Mac
popularity, and some could place iOS apps early in the iOS App Store,
leveraging their familiarity with OS X and Objective C. But the sheer number
of new developers meant that the dialog almost completely broke down.

The App Store is a walled garden, but not only in the usual sense. It's also a
wall between Apple and the developers, and the image of a horde of zombie like
bazaar salesmen trying to scale it is quite apt to describe the situation.
Developers are no longer rewarded for making the best or most beatiful apps.
Be fast, be loud, be a winner. A little slip, and you're back to the bottom of
the pile, or with a bit of bad luck, out of the game.

Apple is in a position of power, and they seemingly no longer have to care
about some small indie dev's app, it's now no more than a drop in the bucket
of the App Store ecosystem. So they don't expend any more effort on developer
relations than absolutely necessary to keep the bucket overflowing. It make
business sense. At least in the short term.

Apple is now in a working mode like any other corp which has become too large
for its own good. The shareholders are mostly in it for the money, so they
have no qualms about milking the company for short term gains. There is no
longer a man at the helm of the company who had a vision and was willing to
fight for it, and wasn't just looking to make a quick buck. Tim Cook is doing
the best job he can, no doubt, but he is in a completely different position
than Steve Jobs was. The tyranny of money is arguably worse than the tyranny
of Steve Jobs could ever have been. Not that his presence would fix most
problems, but he was seemingly the only one capable of bypassing Apple's
corporate machinery to make things happen.

So it's not surprising that developers are frustrated. The decline in software
quality is undeniable. The App Store process is a running joke. The App Store
UI is absolutely horrible. It simply doesn't scale to the hundreds of
thousands of apps it now contains. And for the less scrupulous, it is still
too easy to game, more to the harm of other developers, than their own gain,
too.

Those in prominent positions in the App Store will do their best to stay in
Apple's graces while it lasts, and this is Apple's current version of the
Reality Distortion Field. The developers don't fear the company itself, but
are continually on such thin ice that they fear putting their foot down too
forcefully.

[Good god, what a rant. Despite all the frustration, I seem to be caught in
the RDF as well.]

~~~
thelambentonion
On the App Store's UI:

For consumers using the App Store, the discovery process has been a huge pain
point for as long as I can remember. Saying that the App Store doesn't scale
to the >1 million apps it now contains is, in my opinion, overly generous. It
failed to scale to much smaller libraries than the one it currently has. I can
only imagine the frustration this causes developers actually trying to use it
to sell software.

Content discovery is a very difficult problem to solve, and I don't think
Apple's going to be able to solve it internally. Instead, I think they should
focus on creating tools that make the App Store more open to sharing and
discovery among communities.

A very simplistic example: I want the App Store to support user-generated
'playlists' of applications, kind of like Spotify. Users could package up a
group of applications that appeals to them and share it online. It would be a
small improvement, since people can already post lists of links to individual
apps in the store, but it would make the process of finding/sharing new games,
workflows, etc. much more organic.

------
dools
I experimented one afternoon with developing for Apple, then figured it wasn't
for me for precisely these reasons:

[http://www.workingsoftware.com.au/page/PickDrop_NOT_availabl...](http://www.workingsoftware.com.au/page/PickDrop_NOT_available_on_the_Mac_App_store)

------
litso
Apps behave the same way that other kinds of media does online:

1\. sell for rock bottom prices 2\. become a hit or don't 3\. their popularity
if any is short lived and highest when they debut

It may be the case that Apple is fine with this phenomenon, but its a pretty
big leap to say they are creating it.

------
lips
When I first saw the app store, my initial reaction was that this was the
K-martization of software. Numerous low cost products, difficult to
distinguish (publishing of specs in differing orders makes direct comparison
difficult), leveraging audience for supplier allegiance, and both cost &
product range over consumer. Apple managed to add in true vertical
integration, and it was pretty obvious it was going to work out well for them,
but with side effects.

I hate it as a consumer (I don't code), and I hate it all the more because I
know why my options & buying experience are being impacted by their business
model, given that I do know developers, and have been buying software since
the late 80s.

------
pmontra
There is only one sure way to make money as an app developer, iOS or Android:
getting paid to develop for customers that will publish those apps on the
stores. And there is only one sure way for those customers to be profitable:
give the apps away for free and make money with the service people access with
those apps. In the software world think Trello, Slack. Other services, think
Uber. If you want to make money through the store, by selling your app, it's
very hard because of all the reasons discussed in the other posts here.

------
tempodox
The app store is a PITA for both developers and users, both on iOS and OS X.

What keeps me in the appleversum is mostly lock-in and inertia. There were
times once when I genuinely thought the Apple platform was actually the best
solution for my needs. Now, they torture me more with every OS X & iOS
release. I do OS updates solely to avoid planned obsolescence. I never thought
I would say that: I will gladly jump ship at the first feasible opportunity,
and heave a massive sigh of relief.

------
wishiknew
Thanks to the author for the quality of the article (could have been a tad
shorter but I'm nit-picking) and for the Steinbeck quote!

------
tripzilch
> "Perhaps though Ivanovic should have known better than to publicly promote
> his Android-first launch. This was tantamount to badmouthing Apple in the
> press."

What. No, it's not. Sure Apple can _try_ and "hide" behind that, but that
doesn't change it's a totally unreasonable interpretation of "run to the press
and thrash us".

------
jsz0
These developers are very naive if they are unaware confidentiality / non-
defimation clauses are part of most B2B agreements. As a general rule yes you
should fear breaking contracts. Bad things might happen.

------
drcube
I'm not going to pay $10 for an app I can't transfer to another device. As
long as our phones are disposable so too are our apps. And I don't pay top
dollar for garbage.

~~~
djrogers
Wait, what??? iOS apps aren't hardware locked you know...

~~~
drcube
Do they run on Android? Windows? Linux? My point is that they're locked to an
ecosystem I'll never be able to leave if I heavily invest in. I minimize app
purchases for this reason. I don't want my digital life to be tied to a
particular company or brand, and I run free software as much as possible
because of this.

------
smoyer
I love my rMBP ... It's the best laptop I've ever run Linux on!

------
MarkG509
No one has mentioned that recently IBM has become an app developer for Apple.

------
gress
This piece ignores the obvious. These people aren't afraid of their own
criticisms of Apple. They are afraid that their criticisms will be magnified
and distorted by the press and used as the basis of hit-pieces, and that
_this_ will reflect badly on them.

This isn't fear of Apple. It's legitimate fear of what the press will do with
what they say.

~~~
skc
Doesn't wash.

Trick question, why is it that they are not afraid about what the press will
do with their snarky comments on say, Google, Microsoft, Samsung or Android?

~~~
comex
For some of the more notable bloggers, because everyone knows they're on Team
Apple. They aren't just people who have a lot of Apple products, they're
people who have significantly bought into Apple's worldview and culture. Since
tech punditry as a whole is very tribal, trashing the other teams regularly is
par for the course, but trashing your own team is seen as a betrayal, an
extraordinary event, a reaction to the company's own betrayal of the pundit's
heightened trust. The latter is newsworthy, the former is not.

(While this mentality is strong in Apple-land, it certainly has its place
among Google partisans as well, among others...)

~~~
pauloday
Reminds me of this[1] LessWrong post. It's not unique to tech, it's
(unfortunately) part of our tribalistic instinct:

> Arguments are soldiers. Once you know which side you're on, you must support
> all arguments of that side, and attack all arguments that appear to favor
> the enemy side; otherwise it's like stabbing your soldiers in the
> back—providing aid and comfort to the enemy.

[1]:
[http://lesswrong.com/lw/gw/politics_is_the_mindkiller/](http://lesswrong.com/lw/gw/politics_is_the_mindkiller/)

~~~
comex
I think it's telling that the two things John Gruber blogs about are tech -
and sports, where fans are expected to pick a team and be loyal to it. At
least in the latter arena, most people treat the tribalism as just for fun!

Which is why I read Daring Fireball. I do like Apple in general, but I also
just find it fun to be on a team, and try not to take it too seriously.

~~~
gress
Otherwise known as an ad hominem argument.

