> The harsh truth is that indie devs need access to Apple’s users, not the other way around.
This is simply not true.
Instagram was the project of indie developers. Likewise many of the big apps which exist on iOS. The vast majority of software on iOS is small niche tools which are either fun to use or useful tools.
Apple knows this and they know they need indie developers supporting their platform.
I realize there are a fair number of situations where it doesn't seem that way. But there are a lot of times such as this where it's more than clear they do.
> ... and frankly most indie developers can't shell out potentially several thousand dollars on OSX/iOS devices and licenses just to do some testing ...
Sounds like these so-called “indie devs” who cannot afford to build for iOS devices should not tackle projects/clients that require building for iOS. Or, if a client is in the mix, bill the client a large enough fee to cover the cost of testing on real devices. That’s not a problem Apple is responsible for solving.
I would never rely on developing, testing, and releasing an Android app on a simulator alone. I don’t want to buy a bunch of Android devices. So I don’t take on work that is meant for Android, or I hire people who can properly test on devices. Pretty simple—and it’s both my choice and a matter of professional responsibility and accountability to ship work I can stand behind.
Apple isn’t going to change any time soon. I’m so tired of the disingenuous moaning from “indie devs” who want to take on projects for and make money from iOS, but can’t be bothered to get over their own personal anti-Apple feelings to buy a device.
The ecosystem of Apple devices are hardware and software. The simulators and build tools are never enough. You wouldn’t ship an app for Apple Watch without testing it on a watch, would you? Or would you ship it relying only on having one friend with an Apple Watch test it? Sounds lazy and unprofessional—and if an indie dev can’t do the job right, they shouldn’t take on the job.
> the developers that help make their platform attractive
This is where you're wrong about Apple. To Apple, it's Apple that makes the platform attractive. Developers are a dime a dozen to them. Especially indie / small scale devs.
> Focusing on iPhone users and and not iPhone developers probably was/is the right thing to do.
Broadly speaking, I feel that we in the tech community tend to erroneously assume that what’s good for developers must also be good for users. That’s not necessarily true. Developers are ultimately just businesses looking to extract revenue from users —- we should expect the relationship between developers and users to be adversarial to a certain extent.
> What possible benefit could there be to helping people who are hostile to their platforms develop for them? If you want to develop for Apple platforms, you do so from Apple platforms.
That suggests you think every developer who wants to publish iOS apps should either do so from a Mac or they are automatically hostile towards Apple. That's the point I was touching.
I personally wouldn't call Apple's choices hostile and I don't think anyone is entitled to have cross-platform tools. But you made it clear you think I'm an "enemy" as long as I'm not on a Mac, and there would be zero benefits in allowing me to publish apps to my phone.
> Apple is just gatekeeping access to their API to developers who buy one of their otherwise unrelated products
I don't know how that's news for anyone, Apple has been doing this forever and they explicitly chase that goal as far as I know.
If you're saying "yeah, I want to support iOS/Sign in with Apple/AirDrop/Screenshare/Any other Apple feature" then you're entering the need of having more things to do with Apple. That's the cost of joining and leaving the ecosystem they created for themselves.
> the apps I write are really small, really secure, really fast, accessible, highly usable, use very few system resources, leverage the latest Apple tech, have almost no external dependencies, work extremely well, and I write them very, very quickly.
And they're only available for one proprietary platform [1], no? Excluding half of the user base for phones (in the US), and probably much more for personal computers, seems like a really bad business move in many cases. And depending on the type of application, it could be considered a different type of accessibility problem. It's depressing, but so often we have to compromise technical excellence and even user experience for economic reasons; in this case, using a cross-platform technology to develop a suckier app that can reach all host platforms is often the smart business move.
> App developers seem to stick with apple regardless of what they are being subjected to.
Because the alternatives aren’t preferable. The indies who have been exclusively using and developing for Apple platforms for years know that Windows and Linux aren’t better¹, just a different set of annoying trade offs. Apple platforms aren’t perfect, but they are the least bad option in that context. They also used to be better in many regards, which makes the situation frustrating due to the wasted potential.
¹ At a personal preference level. There’s no judgement either way, you do you and use whatever you like best.
> But the another thing (which is fascinating to me, given the audience of HN and the tone of the comments here) is that part of the purpose of the ecosystem lock-in is to get users to pay indy devs for software.
The group of indie devs is not a homogeneous group. For example, there exist "hacker-type" indie devs who love to write software that subverts Apple's rules and/or adds functionalities that Apple does not like or restricts.
Consider every app you use on the iPhone that is authored by Apple. Would you or its stakeholders still use it if you weren't forced to?
Mail? Calendar? Safari? Photos? Music? Fucking Messages? No, no, no, no, no, no.
Don't misunderstand me. I am talking about access to the exact same first party APIs and integrations Apple's software has, and giving it to third party developers. The functionality is so painfully basic, but nonetheless gated, of course a third party would be able to author something better. Like you think Spotify wouldn't give you Siri compatibility? It's just not allowed to.
The App Store is just the crappiest of them all. I don't think people realize how fees and its absolutely horrible discovery is responsible for the shitty state of apps today. I have been in this business a long time, and have met a lot of people, and it is absolutely, 100% Apple's fault that App Store games suck, and Steam's don't. The device is as powerful as a Nintendo Switch nowadays!
> So your opinion is that Apple should invest finite resources in a company which isn't dedicating all their resources to building the best iOS app they can ?
I think the policy of only catering to shops that are 100% developing on the Apple platforms is a terrible strategic mistake, especially since they are now #2 in this market and fast losing market share.
Also, catering to exclusives doesn't guarantee that you only get great apps in your store. Actually, it guarantees nothing except for acrimony from developers and the feeling that Apple is a fickle partner that can slam the door on them at any time.
The best way to regain market share is not to accelerate insulation but to woo companies developing on Android back by convincing them that iOS is a superior platform to develop for. As it is, all they are doing is convincing more and more developers that in doubt, they should develop for Android first and iOS second.
I disagree. I mean, I know we're not the only target audience. But we're clearly an important one. They literally announce their new software releases at their developer's conference. macOS is also the only platform you can develop iOS apps on. So if nothing else, macOS has to be nice to developers for iOS's sake.
For me, the core things that makes macOS great for development haven't changed. All they've really done is make iOS and macOS work together more cohesively.
> It’s in Apple’s interests to foster a broad community of “Apple platform developers”. To inspire and encourage developers to rely on Apple’s platforms to build apps that are exclusive to those platforms. Apple benefits promotionally from such exclusivity, and users benefit from apps that are crafted to take advantage of native platform features.
As a user of multiple operating systems it saddens me that exclusivity is seen as a benefit. Often only the platform owner truly benefits. Any marginal benefit to users is usually eclipsed and in the long run only reinforces centralization of power and markets.
Developers do some pretty shitty things. Lots of us using Apple stuff came from more open ecosystems and are here at least partially because Apple restricts what developers do.
My video game console is very closed. My phone is fairly open. The controller on my weekend project is a Raspberry Pi - very open. It's not a question of zealotry really.
> Apple is extremely friendly to developers targeting the Apple ecosystem.
Yeah, I don't know where the hell you get that!
Do they offer emulators for non-Mac developers to target their ecosystem?
Do they make even simple development onerous if you are on a Mac and do target their system, but have the audacity to want to share the app with someone else not in the same room with you?
You want to make a free app for your business targeting our ecosystem? Pay us bitch! Also, while we're at it, pay us every year from now on! Whoa! You also want to put it on our store, pay some more you fucking pay-pig!
> Plus, unlike Android, they actually provide tons of tooling for game development and graphics programming on iOS.
... read, we are so locked into and starved for hardware options that it is easy to release a few libraries that will work for your app ... for now! Has your business not changed at all and your app doesn't need any special privileges ... but it has been more than a few years .. haha! Go fuck yourself, sincerely Apple!
> Google tells you to clone github repository from Vulkans shaderc.
Apple makes you get into a personal relationship with them. I am not sure that is much better!
> If Apple devoted their focus to products in proportion to their revenue, then they would be putting 12x as much effort into the iPhone than they would for the entire Mac lineup.
True. However, creators and developers (who, in my experience, almost always use a desktop) are important for the iOS platform. Someone has to write those native apps. Therefore it doesn't make sense to ignore them for too long.
> Apple, if you want developers to love your platform — and you should, because good developers are your lifeblood — and if you don’t want them to flee for other platforms — and you should be worried about that, because the web is everywhere and Microsoft is coming for you — then you need to take this seriously. Adopt the mentality that has served other frameworks and languages so well: If it isn’t documented, it isn’t done.
Apple has enough rabid supporters, they can lose the occasional developer to bad docs. Apple doesn't care or need to care. They are arrogant that way. Also, what other platforms? Android? A fair portion of iOS devs are also already Android devs.
Look, this is just going to fall on deaf ears. Apple isn't listening. Their machine is output only.
This is simply not true.
Instagram was the project of indie developers. Likewise many of the big apps which exist on iOS. The vast majority of software on iOS is small niche tools which are either fun to use or useful tools.
Apple knows this and they know they need indie developers supporting their platform.
I realize there are a fair number of situations where it doesn't seem that way. But there are a lot of times such as this where it's more than clear they do.
reply