I could see FracturedJson being great for a browser extension or preview extension in IDE, as in just for _viewing_ JSON in a formatted way, not formatting the source.
Maybe, but does that mean this app doesn't deserve to exist on user's computers if they so choose? Not sure why Apple has a say in that just because they have a massive advantage over every other dev on their platform.
Apple is known to like to exercise control and to keep their ecosystem closed (recall that Jobs was initially AGAINST the AppStore concept entirely, which was invented by someone else and now makes a ton of money for Apple).
Open systems with little control lead to a bazar like the various Linux distros with inconsistent-looking and buggy apps mixed with great apps - anything goes.
Imagine you are Apple and you want your AppStore to convey a professional and
safe look and feel, you probably don't want 60,000 converter or image viewer app but a variety of tools, maybe 5-10 per category max, or it will be hard for users to navigate and tiring to explore.
> recall that Jobs was initially AGAINST the AppStore concept entirely…
Jobs was initially against allowing third-party native apps on the iPhone, but not App Store as a distribution mechanism. Once he relented on inviting ISVs to the profit party, the iTunes Store model was never in question.
I guess my disconnect is that the computer that a person owns isn't the same as a store that Apple runs and can carefully curate that runs on that computer. Combining those into one thing strikes me as dangerous, with not much upside. Everything you described can be true while allowing the user to use their computer how they want, it just doesn't make Apple as much money.
Maybe I'm way out of touch, but does anyone over the 18 bother to hide their stash of pornography unless it's somehow illegal? I mean, be worried whether or not there's parental controls so the kids can't get to it, but to encrypt it?
>Intimate photos of your SO rather than generic porn
I file those under "never worth it to take the picture in the first place since it will eventually be exposed to the internet no matter how careful one is".
Apple must allow alternate payment modes without imposing a gatekeeper tax. It must be consistent without exceptions (i.e. not just Amazon). The issue is not the gratuitous fee, it is the lack of choice.
iOS is more ubiquitous than macOS yet more restrictive--it cannot last. This entitlement is so restrictive -- it just seems vindictive. Apple's market share and success means additional responsibility. The argument that it's their App Store and therefore they can do whatever they want is a dubious defence. They owe their loyal developers more than this.
I will risk an avalanche of downvotes and steel man Apple's argument. :)
Have you ever gotten stuck with a monthly fee for something that's hard to cancel? It's a real pain the butt, no?
But that never really happens on Apple devices, because Apple makes it incredibly easy to cancel subscriptions. You don't have to call anyone, you don't have to struggle with a bad website -- you just click cancel on your phone and it's done. And it's all in one place too -- no bank statement required.
They are also a check on other dark patterns, like silently increasing charges without a clear notification to customers. I don't even get spammed because Apple proxies my emails from app developers.
One of the main reasons I buy things from Apple (on my device) and Amazon (if it's a physical good) is so that I have a company I sorta trust to do the right thing if things go sideways (cancelations, returns, fraud, etc.).
Once every app developer is pushing me to enter my credit card on their website, that all goes out the window. Dark patterns common on the web and on Android will take over the iOS ecosystem too.
I also am going to take an unpopular opinion and say that Apple probably earns that fee. The fact that Android isn't that valuable to app developers proves that Apple's reputation and standards are what drives a lot of their app store revenue. App devs feel like they're providing all the value, but I suspect it's often not truly the case. I know this is an unpopular opinion amongst us devs.
I don't even know if I truly buy these arguments, but I thought it'd be more interesting here if there was at least one comment defending Apple.
Personally, Android's ecosystem has never been compelling because of Google. Even barring their unrelenting focus on gobbling more of your data, they can't even keep their services on. Their graveyard is massive.
How many times has their default messages app changed? It's nuts. Being an Android developer seems like an exercise in frustration. I'm sure it happens on iOS to some degree but I've seen people online brag about never buying an Android app; piracy is rampant.
> Personally, Android's ecosystem has never been compelling because of Google. Even barring their unrelenting focus on gobbling more of your data, they can't even keep their services on. Their graveyard is massive.
Who cares? If you're developing for Android, you don't need to care about Google killing off Stadia.
> How many times has their default messages app changed? It's nuts. Being an Android developer seems like an exercise in frustration.
Again, who cares? I'm using the same messaging apps that I was using 10 years ago.
And it's not like Apple is any better. It has standardized on iMessage, but you can't do anything with it as a developer. It might as well not exist for you.
> It has standardized on iMessage, but you can't do anything with it as a developer. It might as well not exist for you.
Hey now, there are dozens of developers making apps for iMessage. Dozens!!
All kidding aside, there is actually quite some stuff you can do with iMessage, but other than the occasional runaway hit like Game Pigeon, not many devs are interested in pouring resources into it.
> Again, who cares? I'm using the same messaging apps that I was using 10 years ago.
One of my best friends who was using Allo. Or Duo. Or Hangouts. Or Meet. Or whatever. He really loved one of those apps and it got removed/changed/or something.
My point was that as a developer, I'd want to ensure users like the platform they're on enough to buy my app. This same friend? He moved to some launcher and just uses Discord and Element now. As I understand it, using a launcher prevents you from using the Google Play Store, so you're not buying apps.
> He moved to some launcher [...]. As I understand it, using a launcher prevents you from using the Google Play Store, so you're not buying apps.
I'm going to chalk it up to you not knowing about Android, but swapping launchers is basically changing your home menu, it doesn't affect Play Store access and you'll likely need it to buy the Pro version of certain launchers, the most common one being Nova Launcher Prime[0]. And if he did something more drastic, like changing to custom ROMs (akin to OS images), then Play Store access is up to him.
And honestly, I don't think Google free apps and services coming and going will impact app ownership numbers. Android being more popular in low income, developing countries (with big population numbers) will have a bigger impact overall.
It's not really any more funny than suggesting that Meta and Microsoft manipulate teenagers with dark patterns. But with Apple it's different, so I guess we won't be ready for that discussion until next time.
> Have you ever gotten stuck with a monthly fee for something that's hard to cancel? It's a real pain the butt, no?
Not at all, credit card charge-backs are easy. I don't need Apple at all.
In fact, Apple acting as the intermediary makes things worse, because if I wish to dispute/chargeback a payment with a particular app, I have to do that to Apple, which could have unrelated negative effects on my other purchases through them.
The problem with a chargeback is that it doesn’t actually cancel the service. You’re likely to see the same charge on your next month’s statement.
Now, as part of the chargeback process the merchant may cancel your subscription, but they’re also likely to ban you as a customer from ever using their services again.
> Now, as part of the chargeback process the merchant may cancel your subscription, but they’re also likely to ban you as a customer from ever using their services again.
If things have reached the point at which I'm doing a chargeback, I'm clearly not too concerned with, or interested in, remaining their customer.
> One of the main reasons I buy things from Apple (on my device) and Amazon (if it's a physical good)
You don't have a choice, from Apple. With Amazon you can buy your Purina and flip-flops off a third-party, but where else do you buy a calculator app for iPhone?
The problem with this steelman is that giving third-parties more options should change nothing for you. If you're ideologically opposed to anyone that doesn't use Apple's or Amazon's fulfillment system, it doesn't matter where the competitors are anyways. In a post-sideloading world you'd keep using Apple's App Store the same way millions of Android users never enable Developer Mode. Both sides get what they want.
There was a benefit to the consumer of the old no-sideloading world, specifically if it's possible to sideload an app then then companies can force you to do it.
"Hi, this is the company that owns your mortgage. You can now only pay through our app which you have to sideload because it's also a rootkit."
Why do consumers have the attitude "I will buy apple specifically to make you suffer through the apple app store approval process, and I don't give a shit if they take 30%?" The answer is 20 years of abominable behaviour by corporate app teams.
It's an interesting hypothetical, but not realistic in countries with loan regulation. Not to mention, NSO Group has shown us that you can install a rootkit using built-in iMessage and zero-click exploits. I don't think manually-installed malware would lower the current bar, especially considering how "dangerously" capable the phone and web browser already is. Arguing against anything that can be used against the user would see the phone, iPod and internet communicator removed from your iPhone.
> The answer is 20 years of abominable behaviour by corporate app teams.
I feel like you're not going to like my answer to "Why Apple is facing multinational antitrust scrutiny" then.
The courts specifically took this issue off the table. It sounds shocking and unfair, but if you read what they said they point out that this is a pretty standard practice among similar industries. The App Store isn’t just a payment processor. It’s giving you access to Apple IP (e.g., development tools, standard libraries, etc). Apple wrote libraries like SwiftUI and UIKit that are all proprietary code. That SDK saves you the effort of writing all that code yourself as the app developer.
The court from the start basically declared that this is what everyone else does. Epic themselves operate this way - check out the licensing model for Unreal Engine.
There was no antitrust issue being litigated here. We can all believe that there should be, but there isn’t, and this isn’t the right type of court for that issue.
Technically, the court granted Epic’s wish, Apple is now giving you the freedom to choose a different payment processor and deducting the market rate cost of doing so. The only bit left to resolve is whether Epic’s argument that Apple’s compliance is not in good faith sticks.
This argument has been repeatedly made over the past 24 hours with a lot of emotion but little justification.
The judge forced Apple to unbundle their payments. Apple's solution to that is probably overly restrictive. And I suspect that you're right that 27% is too large a cut to survive.
With both of those points granted, though, your argument seems to be that Apple should be obliged to host, distribute, and market apps (including the burden of moderation and malware prevention) for free. That any commission is too much of a commission.
Can I ask you to elaborate on why you believe that Apple should be singled out and mandated to perform a service for free?
> And I suspect that you're right that 27% is too large a cut to survive.
I don’t see that being killed soon. The 3% for payment processors is a lot higher than the 0,2% or 0,3% limits for debet/credit card payments within the EU (https://eur-lex.europa.eu/EN/legal-content/summary/fees-for-..., and AFAIK no payment processor decided to leave the EU market because they couldn’t earn money anymore.
There also is ‘prior art’ for that 3%/27% split in the case of dating apps in the Netherlands, where the Dutch regulator declared that OK (https://techcrunch.com/2022/06/13/apple-dutch-dating-apps-pa...). AFAIK, there hasn’t been further action on that front.
I don’t see how it’s irrelevant. The EU has said what they find reasonable for payment processing, and AFAIK nobody walked away, and Apple ‘gives’ more.
Also, PayPal is more than a payment processor. It also is a broker (and, effectively, also a shop).
They don't have to perform that service if they allow other app stores or people install apps like they can on macos. The app store is more for Apple than it is for devs
>your argument seems to be that Apple should be obliged to host, distribute, and market apps (including the burden of moderation and malware prevention) for free.
OR, you know, let me use an alternate store that has the policies I approve of.
Nothing nonsensical about developers wanting better treatment or a better deal from a company asking for 30% of their gross margin.
Insofar that Walmart extracts margin out of its small suppliers, we don't see a lot of third parties sitting on the sidelines telling suppliers trying to negotiate better contracts that they need to shut up, pay up and that the third parties are "on Walmarts side".
To the extent that small suppliers wish to negotiate better contracts or apply pressure to a behemoth company for a better deal, I say 'have at it'.
Apple allows developers to distribute their apps on MacOS “for free”, so I’m not sure why asking for similar treatment on iOS is considered such a bizarre, insane request.
And iOS isn’t a platform that you could. Everyone who bought it knows that. If side loading is important to you, get an Android phone or maybe a niche OS phone.
Of course you could. Apple would simply have to enable it. The fact that you can't download an app through Safari on iOS is simply an arbitrary decision by Apple.
> If side loading is important to you, get an Android phone or maybe a niche OS phone.
This has little to do with individual user preference about side loading. This is about developers who want to get their apps into customers' hands. While I'm sure a lot of developers and companies would be tickled pink to not have to develop mobile apps, its their customers who expect those apps and a very significant number, if not a majority of those customers, are iOS users. So while we can say it is a choice to develop iOS apps, it is, for all intents and purposes, a competitive requirement for many developers.
So even if a customer is already aware of you, already aware of your app, even if you have no need for Apple to distribute, market or host your app, you are required to have them do so and pay Apple's 15% or 30% fees on everything between you and that customer, in perpetuity, just because that customer is forced to use Apple's app store to locate and download your app.
It's worth noting the contrast between that situation, which is the source of most of the derision over Apple's fees, and a situation where a developer is producing a mass-market iOS game from scratch, in which the app store listing is actually an asset, in which they DO rely on Apple's distribution, in which they DO rely on Apple's marketing, etc. yet they get away with paying $99/yr, which Apple apparently considers adequate compensation for the above services they provide, and Apple doesn't touch any of their ad revenue, regardless of how successful that app is.
Even putting aside the completely unnecessary and arbitrary walled garden, that inconsistency in Apple's taxation of developers is worthy of criticism.
They have loyal devs and a monetizable ecosystem for devs exactly because they have their policies in place. Apple doesn’t cut corners with short term thinking like your comment.
Sad day. Heroku has had security incidents, serious outages, and contrary to rest of industry eliminated any free/growth tiers w/o serious platform improvements.
Sad Day. Heroku has had security incidents, serious outages, and contrary to rest of industry eliminated any free/growth tiers w/o serious platform improvements. Was a long term paying customer. Bye bye
reply