You're telling me Apple is unresponsive to support requests from their developer ecosystem? Really? Get out of town! I don't believe it.
Despite all of the rightful moaning of iOS developers, for some reason they continue to flock to the Apple platform. Apple will continue to treat their developers like second class citizens until there is a financial incentive to do otherwise. Right now, when one pissed off developer leaves or goes bankrupt because their app was yanked from the store or wasn't approved for some BS reason, 50 developers replace him.
The fact that so many of the comments replying to yours are quick to defend Apple says it all really.
Developers will put up with more crap than they should when platform religion gets in the way. Sure, there are arguments against switching platforms to Android or Windows, but most of these mean very little. Those that refuse to ditch iOS aren't doing so because they'll miss out on potential customers, it's because they like the idea of building apps for the most popular phone on the market, despite the crap they have to put up with.
It's the equivalent of dating a bitchy model. You could be a lot happier with the cute girl next door, but you'd rather put up with her shit just because you can say to your mates "I go out with a model".
That's a bit rich considering that the iOS app store is where developers can make money. I think that's a far, far more powerful motivating factor than "platform religion." The Blackberry had plenty of fervent followers and advocates: look where that got them.
Also, comparing Mac/iOS users to members of a religion is the oldest, saggiest, most lackluster thought-terminating-cliche in the book. Come off it already.
Are you from the US? If so, you can make money on the Android market quite easily. The idea that iOS is the only platform that can make money is a very dated idea, and one that never really had any merit in the first place.
There's a reason why the cliche exists, because it is true. The biggest truths in this world are the obvious ones, not the exciting ones. You pick a platform on perceived value and it's likely that your gut feeling (along with the crowd) will lead you to Apple.
If I'm wrong, then why aren't developers ditching Apple? Why is no one boycotting a platform that is happy to litigate, rather than innovate? Why are there so many weak money-related excuses to not developing for Android? It's because of personal belief, and it is your personal belief that iOS is better and will make you more money.
By that logic, we'd all set up shop in silicon valley, otherwise working would just be pointless...
We are building LiveLoop's mobile client for iOS, and not Android, for monetary reasons, and I feel that I can justify this easily.
First of all, the cost of developing for Android, for us, would be higher, because our code to render slides is somewhat resolution-dependent and iDevices come in fewer resolution variants than Android devices. One could make the claim that we should be doing everything in a completely resolution-adaptive way, but we haven't.
Second, developing for iPhone gives you the iPad for a negligible development cost, giving you access to the tablet market where Android does not have a meaningful presence yet. The great thing about the tablet market is that people spend more money on similar-functionality apps for iPad than for iPhone.
Third, the fact of the matter is that while you can make money on the Android market, the revenue economics of iOS apps are currently completely dominating Android. Both upfront and recurring revenue is higher on iOS. We don't have any qualms about leaving Android on the table today -- obviously, changes in any of these three premises, or huge growth in Android marketshare on tabloid and handheld, could change this.
...
Those that refuse to ditch iOS aren't doing so because they'll miss out on potential customers, it's because they like the idea of building apps for the most popular phone on the market, despite the crap they have to put up with.
...
Trying to assess peoples motivations is unlikely to be accurate or useful.
How else do we come to a meaningful conclusion when posed the question "why won't iOS app developers leave the platform if the conditions are so poor" if it's not from assessing the motivations of those that build them?
>>>Conditons are so poor<<<
is your interpretation. It does not take a mass delusion Stockholm syndrome sort of interpretation to figure out that a lot of developers get great satisfaction working on the platform. I'm sure to a person there are things they dislike and would change, but that doesn't mean they are being abused.
It's much easier when you accept that people have different opinions about just about everything and that those differing opinions don't always indicate a lack of reason or ulterior motive.
That's a poor argument when so many people express this opinion.
If any developers get satisfaction working on the platform it's because they like the platform; again a personal preference rather than a solid reason for believing Apple's development platforms are up to par with, say, Microsoft's .NET platform.
This could well be the most deluded comment I've seen yet on HN. And I am going to take a guess that you are either (a) not a developer or (b) have never made an app.
Because those that have understand that you do not put in the hundreds and hundreds of hours for nothing. You don't do out of some misguided dedication to Steve Jobs, Apple or because you want to be cool.
You do it because you have a family to feed, want to make some extra money (iOS is far more profitable) or just make people happy (iOS users are far less likely to pirate).
Personally I wouldn't develop for iOS because "I have a family to feed." Selling apps on the app store has to got to be one of the trickiest things developers for the platform have to put up with - as discoverability is part timing, part luck, and less marketing than most would prefer.
Also, if your app gets pulled, gets rejected, or you have trouble getting a new version out for whatever reason, the lack of straight-forward communication with Apple could be dangerous if you have other mouths depending on that income. My roommate worked for an iPhone game company and he and many other developers got laid off when one of their games got rejected.
I am a developer (web dev by day), and I have developed and published apps that are on the respective marketplaces for Android, Apple and Blackerry.
Regardless of my credentials, if you're relying on building apps to feed your family then I highly suggest that you find yourself a proper job before they starve. I've known enough people jump on the app bandwagon and drag themselves into the dirt.
>You're telling me Apple is unresponsive to support requests from their developer ecosystem? Really? GET OUT OF TOWN! I don't believe it.
This isn't something that is exclusive to Apple though this has always been an issue with them even regarding security issues with OS X.
>Despite all of the rightful moaning of iOS developers, for some reason they continue to flock to the Apple platform.
They develop for iOS because that is where the money is though this isn't the issue. It isn't as if the Android browser doesn't have its fair share of bugs.
>Apple will continue to treat their developers like second class citizens until there is a financial incentive to do otherwise.
You're right. Apple puts the interests of their customers first (not trying to be smug here). The developers come second. The only time you do hear complaints that go unanswered for devs it is usually only answered when there's a public (consumer) interest regarding it. A good example of this is Phil Schiller replying to customer's email about the Rogue Amoeba situation.
I'm certainly not defending Apple but this is a problem that has existed for as long as I've been interested in tech.
I did click on the link and did read the article though it lacked virtually any detail.
Of course Apple cares about money but they make their money by customers buying their hardware. They put their customers first because that is where they make their money.
As a counterpoint, Apple refuses to pay employees on commission because Jobs didn't want them upselling to consumers because there is a less chance of them being a returning customer.
It's the goal of every business to make money. It's how you go about it that tells the story.
what that article says is "Even if it Italy(and all UE) the law says the hardware provider must grant 2 years warranty, Apple does not care and gives only one, and asks for money if you want the second." Explain me how this is putting the customers before the money.
Apple shows a nice face to the public but then does only what it's needed to get more money. proved by both this article and how they treat developers.
If it wasn't for the developers that filled the appstore with content apple would be still years back. But apple doesn't care.
You're pointing to an article that was very short and provided no detail.
I had to go through the HN thread to see that it's more complicated than what you make it out to be but I also read a story by John Paczkowski regarding this:
I think you're trying to paint a picture from a certain perspective that doesn't contain the whole truth. I'm not saying that Apple isn't greedy as everyone else but I do believe your argument has flaws.
No but it is the universe where lots and lots of people were not aware that there was a way to get more software onto a phone or even a computer. People used to look at me like I had three heads when I told them about those other mobile application stores.
Unless you completely ignore Getjar, Handango, Pocketgear, many other repositories, and direct sales, mobile developers were not begging for crumbs from OEMs regardless of how many people knew you could put software on a computer. To be sure, the market was smaller, there were significantly less developers and less software available overall, but they all had options.
Which figures are you looking for in particular? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Application_store is a good place to start. Getjar and Handango/Pocketgear are some of the more recognizable names in the list.
> If it wasn't for the developers that filled the appstore with content apple would be still years back.
Plus, if it wasn't for jailbreakers and first Cydia not-native apps that Jobs hated and for a long time was against an idea of giving third-parties abilities to build so-called not-native apps, Apple would still not had their App Store and never grew to today's sizes.
Just take a look at the timeline: App Store was probably in the works when Jobs was still talking about web apps.
Thinking that Cydia forced Apple to reconsider its policy is very naive.
Cydia certainly did not influence Apple's decision: Cydia itself was a reaction to an ecosystem being left behind by Installer, a program whose maintainer had disappeared. However, I actually am fairly certain that Installer did. The timeline actually works for this rather well, when you take into consideration how much of a rush-job the whole SDK was: they pretty much started designing a "for third parties" API--from scratch, leaving Apple's apps built to an entirely different set of UI classes--for 2.x
Meanwhile, the device setup really wasn't designed to run third-party apps, and we were actually able to watch as the software was ripped apart and rewritten to work around those problems. Had you actually been there, in the field, developing for the platform at the time, you might not consider the opinion so naive. I agree, however, that people oft fail to look at how long it takes to accomplish things like this, and somehow take the release date as the point of inception: but here we could actually watch the progress.
Regardless, it might be they had it "on the horizon" (although I'd even question that, after years of talking about this story with people at conferences), but the idea that it was going to happen at that point--sufficiently early and with sufficient unknowns that they actually slipped on their release dates (not thforties slips got much press)--for that first device.. to me that is far-fetched (but I sadly realize that most of my evidence is not transferable).
Still, making good products is a tactic, not a philosophy. Apple doesn't put the effort into making good products because they want to make people happy, they do it because that's what sells.
Any notion that Apple has altruistic motives is absurd. All companies exist for one reason: to make as much money as possible. Apple is no exception.
Apple is not offering the warranty mandated by the law, so when the device breaks, the customer has to buy a new one. If that is what you get for paying a premium price for the latest Apple product then I have to say no, thanks.
Apple is providing the warranty mandated by EU law, it's just that nobody in the EU seems to understand their own laws.
EU law mandates a two year warranty for only those defects present at time of sale. Within the first 6 months of sale, the burden of proof is on Apple to prove that the defect wasn't there at sale. After those 6 months are up, the burden of proof switches to the consumer to prove that it was there at sale.
Apple complies with this law.
Apple also provides a 1 year warranty from time of purchase for defects that develop after the time of sale. This, too, is perfectly in the law, and Applecare extends this post-sale defect coverage to two years.
tl;dr EU law involves two different kinds of warranties (covering present-at-sale and post-sale defects). You've confused them.
I live in France. Every single hardware device out there has one year warranty, with possibly optional paid extension from the reseller. Five second search example [0] shows "Garantie 1 an.". None of their manufacturer get any sort of bash, except Apple.
Apple is pretty well known for helping its customers even after the warranty period is up, from everything I've seen. Certainly not always, but enough so that they get more good press for it than most companies.
So, even if they are as evil and plotting as you claim, they seem to be confused on how to be efficient and effective in implementing their evil plan.
I would hope they are not doing this on purpose. However, then it has to be incompetence or lazyness. I heard some european VP was recently let go by Cook, so perhaps he is already taking care of it.
Anyway, there are some horror stories regarding the defective Nvidia GPUs where Apple denied repairs and said it was another problem - even though Nvidia fully paid the repair because it was their fault.
I've had two iPhones, a motherboard on a MacBook Pro (which I spilt coke on, and told them I did) and a replaced keyboard on the White MacBook that cracked all replaced out of the warranty period.
I thought Apple was over priced non-sense years ago, until I bought one thanks to a spending account from my employer. Now I find it hard to justify buying anything but.
Their mandate is to do whatever their prospectus says they are going to do.
As for maximizing shareholder value, I think they've done pretty well there. I don't care for their software that much, but in terms of running a publicly-traded corporation, they've done an excellent job.
No, the goal is to make money. If a business can make money without customers, then it's still a successful business. (Though it may be a racket). Making a business with lots of customers, but no money, at best is called a startup... ;)
Apple wants money. Apple makes nice product I want to buy.
Microsoft wants money. Microsoft makes a product that its customers (until recently, third party hardware manufacturers and enterprise IT) buy to put on their crappy products in the hope of selling them to me. To support their wafer thin margins, they rent out advertising space on the hardware they well.
Google wants money. Google gives goods and services away and convinces its customers (advertisers) that they will be able to sell its users stuff that they see advertised when they use their free product or service running on some crappy product someone else sells them.
Everyone is after money. It's called capitalism. When it works well it leads people to do things that make other people happier in pursuit of getting money.
Apple is making money because they're better at capitalism than these other guys. For as long as it's existed, Apple has believed that the way to make money is to create products people -- actual end-users -- want to own and use, and for a long time this was successful but not as successful as making PC manufacturers happy, or making advertisers happy. Right now, it's working very well for Apple, and once they stopped doing stupid random half-arsed things they started making ridiculous amounts of money.
Is Apple doing something illegal w.r.t. warranties in Italy? Who knows? (a) It's the register. (b) There's no telling if the warranty Apple is obliged to provide in Italy in any way resembles AppleCare.
In general, Apple seems to handle "defects in manufacturing" very generously everywhere the world over. AppleCare covers you against all kinds of stuff that you'd be very lucky to get covered by warranty anywhere else. And if this Italian warranty policy is so all-pervasive, why do Apple's customers need to be told about it?
"America is a vast conspiracy to make you happy." John Updike
Not true at all. Please read through their stance on requirement of antivirus on the machine in response to flashback Trojan [1]. Instead of arguing against or for Antivirus, they are blaming windows.
"
Do I need anti-virus software?
Ah! The loaded question. That's up to you. To date, all of the Mac anti-virus software still checks primarily for Windows viruses. The anti-virus companies have literally stopped counting how many Windows viruses there are. The Flashback trojan didn't even qualify to be called a virus. Still, all Windows users run anti-virus software. The only growth opportunities for them are Macintosh and Android. Expect a hard sell. Nothing sells better than fear. My advice? Be fearless!"
For hacker news audience ,who can take care of their own security, antivirus may just be snake oil but for clueless end user it is a big help.
As far as I can tell, that post you're quoting was written by a user totally unaffiliated with Apple. It's a pretty enormous stretch to call this "their stance on requirement of antivirus".
I put up with developing for iOS because it is the only mobile platform that can do low-latency audio on every device. There isn't always a philosophical choice involved.
It's no secret that third party developers fall pretty low on Apple's list of priorities. I get the sense that Apple's priorities are 1) balancing user interests with Apple's bottom line, 2) satisfying the interests of carrier partners, and finally 3) serving the needs of third party developers.
This doesn't mean that fixing this bug in Mobile Safari should be expected to be unimportant to Apple, since it affects one of their top priorities, the users. It would rather seem to be an indication of either a sub-optimal process for dealing with bug reports, or an issue with the author's submission, which given his liberal use of strong language, doesn't seem to be out of the realm of possibility to me.
You only have to take a look at the WWDC videos and the vast array of well documented APIs provided to know that Apple does care about developers and treats them.
So Apple doesn't have an open bug tracking system. Big deal. It's rare to see a company that does.
I don't understand how the WWDC example nullifies my claim that developers fall below users, their own bottom line and carrier partners in priority for Apple.
>Despite all of the rightful moaning of iOS developers, for some reason they continue to flock to the Apple platform.
Yes, strange, I wonder why that is, they must be irrational or something, unlike us sane guys.
It's not like there are money to be made there, or that is the most successful mobile app ecosystem in sales volume, returns and customer base. Or that it has a nice platform overall, despite having the occasional 2 year old unfixed bug...
That said I've seen 2 and 5 year old unfixed bugs in open source software too. Come to think of it, Webkit, which powers Mobile Safari, is open source itself. Why not go and submit a patch there?
Because WebKit is a rendering engine, not a UI. The Safari UI wrapper is responsible for receiving those touch events and properly notifying the rest of the browser code.
Much of this code actually is in WebKit, but Apple's form of WebKit is not open-source. Apple carefully redacts code that would provide other mobile device platforms any help against Apple's usability features, and multi-touch is one of these defended systems.
Really, as WebKit is under a BSD license, Apple can thereby leach off other developer's work without having to contribute back. They have to make a token effort at releasing their modifications to WebCore (a part of WebKit that is under LGPL), but even there they release
binary object files for anything remotely related to the mobile UI.
(Aside: this is possible, as LGPL does let you static ally link against closed-source code as long as you provide the half-compiled binaries required to re-link a complete binary with modifications to the LGPL parts made by third parties.)
2 - 3 weeks seems to be the norm. That's pretty frustrating if you consider that people's income depends on that. And that developers pay $100 + 30% share for this.
Despite all of the rightful moaning of iOS developers, for some reason they continue to flock to the Apple platform. Apple will continue to treat their developers like second class citizens until there is a financial incentive to do otherwise. Right now, when one pissed off developer leaves or goes bankrupt because their app was yanked from the store or wasn't approved for some BS reason, 50 developers replace him.