I used to _love_ it, I would check weekly for new things, maybe there was some new shiny (often beautiful) program to do something really well. The experience was on the 'better than passable' side, nobodies favourite interface maybe, but certainly not terrible.
But I actually avoid the App Store these days, both on MacOS and my iPhone. I never really noticed but I just slowly stopped installing new applications from there (unless sent there by a company website in the case of iOS); this was around the time that Apple Music was being foisted down my throat. I'm not sure if there's a correlation there.
I always suspected there were dark patterns at play in the App Store though. Although every program is reviewed, probably only 2% or less of them become popular, and if you are popular, boy, are you popular. the design paradigm is self-fulfilling. ("most popular"/"highest grossing").
I used to do this too, and like you, I've now grown to really dislike it. My reason is different, though: the App Store app has _plummeted_ in quality. It's now so hard to use, I don't bother using it.
1. The UI is all over the place. Some UI controls cause pages to swipe up from the bottom. Some cause pages to swipe in from the right. Some cause modals. Whenever I click something, I have no idea what it's going to do. Here are some examples: https://grumpy.website/post/0RsaxCu3P
2. It's full of bugs. I have witnessed the App Store lose track of whether an app is bought or not, downloaded or not, or installing or not. Another example: https://grumpy.website/post/0SU9WNFXB
3. It makes the rest of my system worse. Every week or so, I get a message like "Fantastical cannot be updated because it is open". I didn't set it to update. I had no idea it was even updating. I just get an obnoxious dialog interrupting my work.
The App Store used to be like a shopping mall — I'd browse the shelves, see what was new, and maybe buy a small app I liked the look of once in a while. But now it's become so hard to browse, I don't bother paying. Everyone loses out.
1. Upon clicking the App Store icon and entering my apple ID and password I get a 500 error. No amount of restarting can fix it. After a quick search, one of the top 5 search results led to a cryptic command I had to enter at the Terminal to fix it. This actually happened with a previous MBP and I just never used the app store (pretty much a factory install of OSX on both machines).
2. Clicking the icon to download the app ("GET" I believe) started a loading spinner with no progress indicator. Given it was only a 38MB app, I waited around for a while. Then I took a shower and came back. Still the same loading spinner. Decided to reboot the machine and try again.
3. I searched for the same application clicked GET again and then it turned into a cloud icon. Clicking the cloud icon seemed to do absolutely nothing. At this point I asked my wife who told me I had already downloaded the app to my account and now I need to download it to my machine. EDIT: I just remembered I was seriously confused at this point. I clicked the cloud icon several times and given there was zero feedback I opened both Launchpad and the Applications directory in case it magically already installed.
4. The above explanation made no sense to me. I'm familiar with the concept given I've used every version of Android and I understand I can download previously downloaded things from my account (that I installed on old devices). But that's not how the series of events unfolded. Anyway, I clicked the cloud icon a second (or third?) time and it turned into an install icon and all was good.
Further evidence of the theory that Mac usability in 2019 is approaching where Linux was in 2000.
I did this exact same thing last week after upgrading to Catalina and getting the 1-2 app store apps I needed. I kept getting the cloud, I have no idea what the cloud means but it wasn't the down facing arrow I usually saw. So I kept clicking it. Turns out it HAD installed the app but never gave me an Open button. I stay far away from the app store if I can.
For #3, here’s how I’d explain it to someone who hasn’t used it before (you may know this already): your Apple ID is tied to the “purchases” you make across the App Store, iTunes Store, Books, etc., so that you can access what you’ve bought on a different machine. If you buy a paid app, it gets added to your Purchases list so that you can download it on another Mac without buying it again. This ties into Family Sharing so that up to five other people living in your household can use it too. Free apps also get added to the purchases for syncing purposes across all your devices. The cloud icon indicates that you’ve purchased an app and are eligible to download it for free.
TL;DR: you got a strange series of bugs that probably haven’t been seen by anyone else all together
At least on iOS the symbol is a cloud with an arrow pointing downward. Not on a Mac to check if the symbol is the same there.
I don’t have Instagram but I imagine it’s a bit like the App Store. I’m waiting somewhere. I’m bored. I know, I’ll check for a shiny thing. Oh, no shiny thing. That was disappointing.
To compare, do you go to the internet regularly and check for new things? I don’t think this is the App Store’s fault. It’s not on Apple to constantly put new shiny useful software in the App Store — it’s on developers. And I’m not blaming developers. Making new shiny software is hard. There’s already a whole bunch of software. If you have a problem, chances are it’s already been addressed.
Constantly shiny + new ~== a good App Store.
(~== Not necessarily equal to. Did I just invent that?)
Instead of inventing new operators in your sentences, you can also just stick with plain English
I can't stand it. It's the linguistic equivalent to wearing a bowtie and pocket protector.
For (a good) instance of what I mean was Airmail. Standard mail on OSX was "good enough" but Airmail was just all around better (from a UX perspective) and the popularity of it made Apple turn their head.
Another was 1password; before 1password I was using the macOS keychain, but 1password is/was all around better.
Isn't that what this site is?
Yeah... in most programming languages it would be
shiny + new <> a good App Store
shiny + new != a good App Store
The ~= (single equals) is used to for equal to with a regular expression on right side
You could express it as "~□(shiny + new -> good app store)" which translates into "it is not necessary that shiny and new implies a good app store".
Edit: This implies there are a lot of great apps that don't get my money because they only sell on the app store. Looking at you Pixelmator.
You see the impact on a few things like Office and SCCM today. As the legacy windows platforms fade, it will become a thing in other areas. My guess is you’ll see more “fixed in Azure only” scenarios to drive demand for those products, and act as a sales funnel for complementary services.
It takes less time to test compatibility than it does to compile.
That sounds less like avoiding and more like not using. I think this is natural. When the App Store first came out, apple planted the idea in our head that we needed new ways to use our machines. But unless you are a new user, it’s likely you’ve hit an equilibrium where you know how you want to use the device.
I imagine there would be so much innovation and interesting content if these companies didn't have such a tight grip on their walled gardens. Politically sensitive, erotic content or just innovative apps that operate outside of the Apple curators is just never going to be available for users of this expensive hardware. I believe it should at the very least be optional like sideloading is on Android.
MacOS/iOS application stores are likely in the hundreds of thousands (if not millions) of applications, however I see the same 20 when I browse without using the search field.
Nice apps I liked were bought and monetized in EXTREMELY UNETHICAL ways.
For one example, I had an app called gas cubby, which let me locally - on the phone - keep track of all my vehicles. I could enter detailed information about each car such as year, make, model, vin, insurance policy, gas purchases, oil changes and the like. It would tell you gas mileage and remind you of upcoming maintenance.
One day, the app was updated and all my local data was uploaded to the cloud.
Another app, camscanner plus purchased by tencent basically did the same thing.
Apple gives you no control over what the apps do. You can argue the finer points, but:
- you cannot determine what apps are doing.
are they intercepting URLs browsed in safari, mail or imessage? (deep linking)
- you cannot determine when they are active.
are they waking up using some "backdoor" method such as notifications
- you can not prevent them from accessing the network.
this is the big one. You can't find out who they are talking to or prevent it.
Really it's a shame because one rule of economics is: with trust trade becomes unrestricted.
Here's one I found: you can't install a lot of applications unless you're on the latest-and-greatest OS version. This punishes people who are more conservative with upgrades, and don't want to jump to an OS before it's fully cooked. You'd think they could just offer to let you install the latest compatible version.
I can't install XCode from the App Store because I'm stuck on High Sierra, because my Macbook as a highly disruptive freeze-on-wake bug that manifests on every version of Mojave I've tried. I've never been able to figure it out, and Apple apparently only supports its laptops if they have no software installed on them.
If you have a product for sale through such a store front, the best way is to not play the game of getting to the front pages or at least to not rely on it. Instead, you get attempts to drive sales through product web pages that link to the stores.
BTW, all developers still have to submit their apps to Apple for "notarization" in Catalina, even if they don't distribute through macOS AppStore --it is partially enforced now and will be fully enforced in the next few weeks.
Its just so cumbersome to manage apps on the iDevices themselves .. so I just stopped. I've got enough apps for everything I need (music-making, mostly). Sure, if someone recommends something amazing, I'll check it out - but for the most part I have reached the saturation point, and I really abhor going to the App Store, for any reason whatsoever.
I still have a much, much better user experience on my Ubuntu workstation, and now even on Windows with chocolatey. It feels so backwards and quaint to have to rely on Apple to review an app - much better to just have an open public repo and let the community deal with quality review. I'm yet to be bitten by a repo - I can't count the number of times I've had my life quality reduced to smithereens because I've had to pass multiple App Store reviews to get my apps out there, or found that an App I needed in order to do my work was no longer available because Apple changed something and broke it.
Repositories are simply a far superior technology.
" While we still updated our applications in time, Apple did not review them for the AppStore, and instead rejected them first for a crash (sigh!), and later for requiring UI changes, including showing a Save As panel for each generated file. Now this may not sound like much, this is a serious issue for a document scan application which easily generates hundreds of files in an hour, and thousands of files a day, with file names automatically generated, either thru counters, or advanced auto-id features, such as barcodes."
Even if Apple later took back the rejection I bet this was the last straw.
As a user, I'm glad Apple did that.
As a developer, the one thing that I do dislike about Apple, is the dismal state of their documentation on how to actually take advantage of all their platforms' features. I have to begrudgingly admit that their nemesis Microsoft has always been way ahead in that department.
> After releasing the Catalina Golden Master build to developers on October the 3rd, we immediately finished fixing any new crash and issue we could find over the weekend. In our opinion, leaving developer just four (4!) days over a weekend with a public release on October the 7th is not very professional. While we still updated our applications in time, Apple did not review them for the AppStore, and instead rejected them first for a crash (sigh!), [...]
Leaving such a small window between Apple getting its act together with the GM, and a hard deadline for third parties to get their act together, is rough.
That's exactly what the article and the quote above says there was:
> we immediately finished fixing any new crash or issue we could find over the weekend
NEW crashes or issues. In the GM. In four days.
> and later for requiring UI changes, including showing a Save As panel for each generated file.
So, Apple found a crash, and instead of completing the review (this assumes they could have, and benefit of the doubt here, they could have), they didn't. They found and issue, flagged it, and sent it back. This means the developer had to do work, resubmit, and then have another issue found. Rather than work through everything, the reviewer found one thing, dinged the app, and moved on.
As a user, that means Apple is delaying apps longer than need be. Sure, fixing the crash is good, but I can't imagine they couldn't have reviewed the other parts of the app and said, "Fix the crash and this other two areas and you are good to go." That would mean a shorter turn around time, and as a user, I get a better product sooner.
Yeah, the crash could have prevented them from completing the review.
> As a user, that means Apple is delaying apps longer than need be.
Meanwhile, according to another outrage, Apple is •not delaying releases enough* and rushing out buggy apps and operating systems.
At least in this case.
I'll keep using the actual word , thank you.
* since the 1970s when it first surfaced.
It was adopted in broadcasting circles to keep news readers from saying "lead" (as in the element) instead of "lead" (as in to follow).
Source: Journalism degree, communications degree, 20 years in broadcast news.
In fact your own link indicates that too.
Not calling you out or trying to be rude but it's:
"bury the lede"
I always thought it was "lead" too until someone corrected me a decade or so ago...
That is why most "big" software packages these days are either subscription based, or pay-per-update. We've all come to expect apps to get free updates, but it's not a sustainable business model.
I work in the video games industry and access to steam or other first parties (Sony/Microsoft) is 30%, no negotiations.
You could argue that first parties such as sony/microsoft have subtle costs involved such as printing of disks, but that's paid for before market by the publisher.
The thing you pay for is: content distribution (in the case of digital downloads such as steam), 'signing' and access to market.
Apples 30% would seem a lot more fair if it was possible to side load and install alternative app stores
In comparison apples offering is little more than "we have a huge captive audience on a proprietary system. Pay us or miss out on half of the market"
Microsoft used to boast that they made more money from Apple systems than Apple did. Google does that to Android device makers today.
If platform makers don’t extract rent, or compete with the developers they court, they will look for other sources of revenue to stay profitable. I would be aghast if Apple hardware came loaded with the kind of Junkware I recall from the years I bought Windows hardware.
The neglect of the mac app store feels of a piece with their utter neglect of the mac platform. They seem to be treating it as a runout.
What you're looking for is something like "free for owners of Apple hardware", which is true, but very different. You paid for it.
If Apple had done the right thing, they would have opted for Vulkan.
$99 a year actually, plus 30% of all sales.
Valve's influence has been immensely positive for Linux gaming but saying they created it is ridiculous. I was playing on Linux just fine before Steam was ported. Valve's contributions very much stand on top of the efforts of those that came before them.
Yeah, all 4 of them!
The number of available games has increased greatly but before S4L was released I already had a backlog of games to play.
Apple created THE smartphone. Every phone is an iPhone - Apple proved it and everyone else copied it. And Apple springboarded off their first-mover advantage into a platform that users really like, and keep coming back to.
We were already using Symbian, Psion and PocketPC based phones.
The first phone with hardware support for OpenGL ES was the Nokia N95 released in September 2006, one year before iPhone, with Asphalt as their show game.
I think what he meant by "Apple created THE smartphone" is that Apple created the first mass-market smartphone which was desired by regular consumers (rather than niche buyers).
Granted - Symbian was a thing back then, but can you buy a Symbian phone today? Consumers voted with their money, and they wanted iPhones, not Nokias.
Fast forward to 2019, Nokia is nothing more than a trademark - making generic Android phones on one hand, and cashing in on nostalgia with their feature phones on the other hand.
They created THE smartphone - the definitive item.
Apple successfully marketed a product which was tested by Nokia engineers and deemed to be inferior.
What part of 'consumers voted with their money' don't you understand?
To anyone who used this phone, smartphones were already a thing long before iPhone was introduced. Of course iPhone changed things a lot, though IMO many were for the worse (for example i really liked using the tiny joystick on my 6600 for playing games).
US was the only market where Nokia had troubles selling their Symbian/J2ME phones for example.
Should I start digging market shares figures of feature phones before iPhone came to be?
They really haven't.
> Should I start digging market shares figures of feature phones before iPhone came to be?
At this juncture, yes.
Incredible how iOS fanbase tries to rewrite history.
TL;DR: Look at how Nokia's revenue collaspsed post September 2007. Look at how Android and Nokia's decision to go all in on Windows Mobile accelerated it. Then tell me that the iOS fanbase is trying to rewrite history...
N95 was just one example of the millions of Symbian, J2ME and PocketPC/WindowsCE smartphones being shipped before iOS became reality.
Nokia's revenue only collapsed due to the way Elop drove the company to the ground as means to get the bonus on his contract. As the Finn press later discovered.
> N95 was just one example of the millions of Symbian, J2ME and PocketPC/WindowsCE smartphones being shipped before iOS became reality.
And none of them are around now. More to the point, all but a handful could be considered 'smart'. We could debate what smart is, but ultimately it's moot. Pre 2007, 'smart' devices were by and large business oriented, post September 2007, they started to become the norm; first with iOS, closely followed by Android. These facts are incontrovertible.
The point you are trying to make is utterly wrong. The original assertion was that Apple 'invented' the smartphone is equally wrong. However, Apple did play a significant role in defining what a smartphone is, Nokia and Symbian not so much. The proof? Where are they now?
> Nokia's revenue only collapsed due to the way Elop drove the company to the ground as means to get the bonus on his contract. As the Finn press later discovered.
Elop merely dealt the final blow. Nokia's sales declined post 2008 when they peaked with a global share of ~40%. Elop Joined late 2010...
Apparently everyone on Europe was a business person when using Nokia and Sony phones, go figure.
Starting with the basic things that everyone who invested in smartphones at the time wanted, i.e. email, going through hilariously high cost (the reason behind it known only to insiders - Apple was in full rent-seeking mode, and required a portion of your phone bill as payment for being able to use iPhone. Not joking, that's why there were special iPhone-only tarriffs), it lacked physical keyboard, copy&paste, and a bunch of other things. iPhone 2G was also slower at running iOS 1.0 "applications" than higher end Nokia symbian phones (that used the same webkit core in browser).
Symbian devices were well known, and were more commonly considered "smartphones", as "palmphones" generally only got interest from people who really needed the power (a bit of chicken&egg issue).
The first iPhone, sure, no arguments there. The whole point of the iPhone was to make smartphones more useable for non-professionals.
In 2007, the Nokia N95 cost $795 while the iPhone cost $600.
The reality in 2008 is that Apple forbid selling iPhone without contract, with contract requiring special extra Apple tax (we already had "unlimited data" for years by then). So you were paying whatever the telco asked you for the phone, then paid extra to Apple as long as you used the "iPhone tariff" (and you couldn't get it otherwise other than ebay).
Since at least in Poland majority bought the phone as part of the contract, the prices were wildly different. I can't find N95, but business oriented E51 cost me under $70. Without significant impact on monthly fees on the contract. And without paying Apple tax on my phone bill.
BTW, regarding visual voicemail... Little known thing about iOS 1-2 is that the network stack was broken and it wasn't capable of redirecting to voicemail like every other phone. Required special buggy software to get any voicemail for people running iPhones, and at least at Era GSM (present day T-Mobile Poland) it took 3 months from providing iPhone on sales and any voicemail working?
In some markets, iPhones were bundled with a contract because networks had bidding wars for exclusivity.
From the PoV of someone working at the network and having the luck to talk with some pretty high up there people... the exclusivity was only for order in which networks got the phone. As in, present-day T-Mobile Poland made a bid to be the first network to have it - but it didn't have any kind of long exclusivity and was soon followed by Orange and Plus (the other two "main" networks). All networks had special iPhone "plans" and the phone wasn't available outside of them, and the only technical difference was that said plans ultimately got the very buggy Visual Voicemail server attached and probably triggered workarounds for call handling bugs.
The Apple tax on the phone bill itself, and making it unavailable outside of contract, were all on Apple. (I think for some time using one outside of approved contract even required jailbreaking, but I can't be sure).
Possibly proving that iOS (and the hardware it runs on) was what consumers wanted in the mid-2000's and onward?
Symbian with Qt was already on the right path to win the hearts of many developers.
iOS and Android wiped the floor with Symbian and BB in terms of ease-of-use.
"..the inscrutable difficulty of navigating menus on Nokia's Symbian phones":
I worked at Nokia's R&D facility in Ruoholahti briefly in 2011, so I got inducted into the inner sanctum of history regarding the phones.
Symbian was designed for very anemic hardware, there were very tight constraints it's a marvel that the thing ran on what it did. The iPhones first CPU was at least an order of magnitude (and then double it again) more powerful than what Symbian was designed on.
the iPhone, famously did not meet any of the internal tests at Nokia, no drop test, battery life tests nor usability tests for blind people passed at all.
Basically from all avenues it looked dead on arrival.
However, it was obviously _not_ dead on arrival, and so Nokia started looking at things from a "UX first" perspective, the engineering culture was still around though, so, not a major "product" team or graphics design team to be found on the floors of the R&D facility.
But they started this effort _after_ the iPhone had launched, and these projects take a long time.
That's what Maemo was. And it was later merged with Intels efforts and named MeeGo. And everyone who used that system seemed to really enjoy it.
It was, indeed, killed in its crib by Elop. Although to be truly fair, the iPhone and Android were very incumbent at that point.
Symbian was considered obsolete or deprecated internally, not for lack of very intelligent design, but because people seemed to care for things other than that Nokia had believed people cared for.
So, Nokia saw it as an inferior product?
Perhaps this is a problem in engineer-led companies - thinking that the phone with the most megapixels in its camera, or most wifi bands is the best?
Technical brilliance counts for nothing if consumers don't want the product. See also Windows Phone, Betamax, etc
Apparently my comment got flagged, maybe it needed a link. I assumed everyone would get it. Oh well. (For reference: https://duckduckgo.com/?q=no+wireless+less+space+than+a+noma... )
Imagine if Nokia had continued investing in a linux phone, android wouldn't be what it is today.
Yes, the iPhone is the better smartphone than Symbian-based phones. But it wasn't the first, despite the market share today.
+ Linux on phone
+ True multi-tasking with live tiles.
+ Full web browser.
+ Turn by turn on device voice navigation. Cannot stress how significant this was.
+ uncluttered swipe gestures to control the apps/windows.
+ amazing build.
- non replaceable battery.
You couldn't copy and paste text on an iPhone.
The camera was worse than any contemporary mid range camera phone.
Copy and paste didn’t work, but it didn’t work on any phone at the time. A few attempted it (eg, win mobile, blackberry) but it really sucked.
The camera was quite good and the ability to finally save and share photos and video was revolutionary at the time. I always thought it was funny how much it sucked at the time to try to store and send photos from my BlackJack or Blackberry.
In fact, the iPhone 3GS and iPod Touch (2nd Gen) did not support multi-tasking either, even with iOS4. Apple noted performance issues.
Jail broken apps had multitasking like screen sharing, WiFi hot spotting and lots of other stuff.
It’s a big deal for an OS that doesn’t have multitasking vs doesn’t allow app developers to use.
It took Android phones many many years to even approach feeling as responsive and smooth and indicative of whether input has actually registered as the original iPhone, just scrolling through stuff and navigating around the OS.
Tech at the time didn't even try on that front.
Featureless yes, but it could do enough to almost right away replace my iPod, Palm, and Nokia. One device instead of three was just too good to pass up.
Even the camera megapixel craze was being led by nokia. You're conflating the current dominance of the iphone for the past. At the time, the best thing about it was the finger only touch screen operation. To the best of my memory, others still needed to fall back to a stylus. Finger usage was a whackamole operation with Nseries and blackerry I used then
The simple act of making a call was so much easier and efficient, even though it lacked cut and paste.
Comparing it to feature phones is really curious because they were completely different markets. I don’t think it’s very useful in describing the iPhone’s success to point out individuals features that were also available in various existing phones.
Is your claim that the iOS store cut is 30% because Steam was 30%? Kind of an odd argument given that the iOS store was heavily focused on "apps" initially, and still sort of is, even if games ended up being a big moneymaker.
The 30% is now coming out of a different sort of product than it did at store launch, too. Lots and lots of F2P stuff with in-app purchases, subscriptions, etc. Even if 30% was justified for single-purchase apps, does it make sense to continue giving them an ongoing 30% of all revenue when IAPs and subscriptions are literally not using any Apple infrastructure if they're things like 'unlocking premium features in the app you already have' or 'getting premium support'?
> Your claim that steam/sony/microsoft all charge 30% no negotiations is dated if not completely inaccurate
I get the general impression that you're either in a much better bargaining position than I am, or you're not in the industry.
I still make AAA games, the latest of which came out this year I can tell you concretely that we pay 30% of every purchase to the first party.
(except on PC, because we sell on uPlay and the Epic store, which has lower fees -- one of steams conditions is that you cant offer the game cheaper elsewhere, so we could never apply discounts on uplay)
> we know for a fact Valve offers a lower cut to big studios now
Valve has been openly hostile to my publisher for many years, perhaps this is the problem? Frequently unlisting our games. We as a publisher do not officially respond to these things because they have better customer relations and a higher sentiment than we do, we would lose a PR battle, so we accept it and move on. This happens in negotiations too.
> I would be shocked if the Playstation or XBox business wings were unwilling to negotiate a cut down in order to land a big, million-selling title
They have almost all the power in those negotiations. The only bargaining power we have is if we have a very strongly rated title that we threaten to make exclusive. But in those cases we would lose more from _not_ selling on the platform than we would make back in the first-party cut. So it's lose-lose.
30% applies to in-game consumables too, anything processed by them as a payment provider.
What games company do you work for? :)
So at least for usability it should not be any different than normal.
If you have other specific complaints about uPlay then I'd be happy to hear them and feed them back to the team, since we're actually located in the same studio.
Unfortunately uPlay does drive a significant amount of business value, handling things like entitlements so that each game doesn't have to re-implement them and allowing us to handle things like distribution of "other" types of clients, like development versions of the games for review, or debug enabled versions of games for debugging. It also allows for A/B testing of various features.
As recently as 2017 there was consensus among ubisoft upper management that the perception of uPlay was bad, so more focus has been put on the user aspects, so in theory it should be much better now than it was, because before it was very business focused.
But, as everything, people are happy to help if they can, nobody wants to make an awful system.
Unless the problem is that you have to have a second launcher? that's usually peoples primary complaint. (and in those cases uPlay tries to hide itself and stay out of the way)
> Unless the problem is that you have to have a second launcher?
That's a big part of it. I have enough crapware that insists on constantly running on my PC (a lot of it direct from MS these days, sigh).
PS: Oh yeah, and it wants me to sign up for an account too. Hooray! I don't have enough of accounts spread all over the goddamned place already.
Given what I mentioned from the parent (Valve arbitrarily pulling down all our games), how do you think I can convince the business to make ourselves more vulnerable to such behaviour?
The functionality should be optional and the parts you need could be a library which integrate within the game.
I don't have enough information to know what "arbitrarily" means here. From what I can tell, Valve is pretty damned reluctant to remove things from the store, which makes me really curious why they would "arbitrarily" remove such popular AAA titles.
Regardless, I can tell you that things like uPlay are hugely annoying and whatever excuses your company has for why it exists don't really change that.
Frankly I don't even like having to use the Steam launcher, but seeing as they pretty much single handedly built the market they are now the defacto standard in I've reluctantly accepted it. Ubisoft's wares simply do not appeal to me enough to overcome my distaste in the same way.
That sits above Steam's launcher, so I launch the game via Steam, then Uplays pop up (slowly, then updates), I dig up my contact details from an old post-it, then the game launch! I think it makes sense for Ubisoft to have their launcher, but in the case of games sold through Steam, its mandatory use detract from the game. And on Steam, games that have been pulled from the store are still in the game library of buyers, so it's not an argument.
I commend you for offering to receive feedback.
I also understand that Uplay is a good business idea.
The issue was being _forced_ to use it in addition to Steam and having to create an account, since apparently at the time (2015?) the account linking didn't exist. I don't think it makes a lot of sense to have to launch two launcher just to play a game (perhaps it has changed since last time though).
As far as subscriptions, the answer is simple - don’t allow subscriptions through the App Store. Netflix, Spotify, Linux Academy, AT&T Now, Sling, etc force you to pay for subscriptions outside of the App Store. You can subscribe to Hulu in the App Store but not Hulu Live.
As far as the 30%, all of the rumors are that none of the big players like Netflix (before they stopped allowing in app subscriptions), Hulu, or HBO ever paid more than 15%.
They’re using Apple’s account, pricing, payment, and licensing infrastructure
In case of Sony/Nintendo you pay togt access to their closed hw and ecosystem (for much less than 30% by the way). In case of apple you pay to be included in a catalogue but you can also sell directly to customers.
How about Nintendo?
Apple also drops subscription costs from the second year on to 15% which is coming back to reality. I personally find the subscription model way more sustainable & less user hostile than the paid versioning upgrade model, the grand majority of the industry is also in agreement there. So there’s a lot of bad smells from this developer that they just want to run a shoddy business and not that there’s a big problem with Apple.
this never happens, if you JUST upload your app to the store and think it will take off coz it has good features then good luck.
In reality you have to upload and then pay some app advertisement agency to feed your app to the multiple tech blogs to inorganically promote it.
App store is full of inorganically promoted trash nowadays
Stripe charging 3-4% or less per transaction _doesn't_ include fraud insulation??
> download bandwidth
So does a free / $20 CloudFlare account.
uhhh.. hosting and bandwidth for potentially millions of downloads and updates and your videos and screenshots?
Covering user refunds?
A reviews and feedback system?
Showing you in user searches?
The Editor's Choice and Featured Apps lottery?
Invitations to develop for yet-to-be announced platforms?
Giving your users peace of mind that your app is sandboxed and cannot indulge in hanky panky?
I'd happily host my own apps and pay the hosting/bandwidth than pay the $99 a year for Apple Developer Account + 30% of all sales.
But Apple won't let me, if I want my app to run on iOS I have no choice BUT to use their bandwidth.
How about numbers?
I think this really depends on implementation. Paying for bugfixes? No, thanks. Paying for a major version bump like new ms office where you don't really need to upgrade and will be supported anyway? Sure.
Windows 10 will likely support your apps for at least a decade. There's choice.
(I'm using Mac for work. I'm likely migrating to another system instead of Catalina)
If you are growing your market, you can make your app a flat charge. If you are maintaining and and expanding an app for an existing user base, subscription is a better way to go (and something Apple does support well).
Dealing with all that in many cases takes more resources than introducing new features, but, just like you, people expect free compatibility updates.
The deprecation cycle is a decade or more, and in every case there's a paved migration path (GC->ARC, QTKit->AV Foundation, WebView is trickier but for good technical reasons). This strategy and timeframe seems eminently responsible.
Apple's recent kowtow to China and blocking apps China doesn't like is a great example.
If an app spams you just uninstall it...
If Apple kills an app you love there's nothing you can do...
As a user, I want Apple to lock down the system and make things hard for developers.
As a developer, I empathize with my perspective as a user and build products that take this into account.
For example - https://seclists.org/oss-sec/2019/q1/119
Nor are manual reviews by Apple staff...
I never liked MacOS; Macintosh's charm, which was its UI, went away when I got my Amiga.
I also never liked the iPhone, because a) it's terribly overpriced, b) I don't want a walled garden.
I survived all these years in the raw PC market with no one holding my hand. I don't need a walled garden.
Of course, that's my strictly personal preference.
The web is, or at least was in part, a democracy. Apple is clearly a dictatorship.
Trust doesn't really come into it. You trust your user data to 3rd parties every single day using apps that very publicly compromise you like FB, Google etc. So to say that you trust your relationship with Apple doesn't mean squat. Sure Apple is good at preventing people from breaking into your iPhones, but it's not good at stopping Facebook from selling your data to 3rd parties which you talk about. Your security is already compromised.
In the days even before the web we had many programs from independent 3rd parties that have now turned into household names today.
I refuse to believe that Apple's incredibly convoluted App store is the way forward. I ultimately believe Apple will fail here and have to make major changes, indeed I hope it does.
Horrible analogy - the App Store is not "life" it's business. We deal with demanding, undemocratic platforms in business all the time.
The way forward is the open web. I support that and there's room for both.
People don’t give up any freedom when they choose Apple products.
It’s a feature of a democracy that you can decide to contract any third parties you like to carry out professional services - such as verifying software quality, or protecting the privacy of your data.
Anyone who doesn’t like Apple’s services can simply buy Android, which explicitly offers openness as a differentiator.
The comparison between a managed software store and an authoritarian regime makes no sense at all precisely because you can leave.
The software company behind the original posting has chosen to leave.
Presumably you have chosen to leave or never enter.
The only authoritarians in this scenario are the people who wish to use government power to deny others the right to choose the service Apple provides.
This holds for any kind of store, from supermarkets to Amazon.
A balance has to be struck somewhere. Developers increasingly do not like where Apple is placing the balance (generally on the side of 'go screw yourself, time to rework your app for our latest guideline and API changes, also buy some new hardware to run the latest xcode')
This doesn’t seem all that onerous. If you’re stuck on a Mac that’s a decade old for some reason all it’ll take to be able to develop again is picking up a $150-$200 Mac mini or iMac on eBay/Craigslist.
You stance also implies that there's no way Apple could allow sideloading in a safe way (real sideloading not their 7 day and/or paid cert crap). I already need to contact Apples servers to unlock my phone, I would be fine if I had to unlock my device with Apple to allow sideloading. And since this is becoming more of a free market and free speech issue, I hope lawmakers will fix this problem.
I don't see any reason why one would trust Apple more than a random third party dev. To me they are one and the same.