cropr

mjtomlin said:

dipdog3 said:

Many VNC apps stream live video and send back commands. You could buy the Golden Gate Bridge using a VNC App without giving Apple a cut. How is this any different?

Seriously!?

If I were Apple I would start revoking developer accounts for developers who promise things they clearly know is against the rules. Sorry, but ANY developer who’s serious about developing for iOS WOULD HAVE READ the contract and UNDERSTOOD what is or isn’t possible. And getting your fan base worked up in a tizzy should be an immediate cancellation of your developer account.

The guidelines have been in place since day one, in fact they’ve become more relaxed since then. There’s no reason ANY developer should attempt to step beyond those rules and hope for the best. Unless they think they can rally their fan base and try to force it. As I said, in that case, cancel their developer account. 

Owing an app development company, I can only say that some rules are  interpreted differently by different approvers, so an app developer can never be 100% sure of what is allowed or not.  One of my approved apps, which was already 4 months in the App store, was rejected after a simple bug fix.

Kuyangkoh said:

rotateleftbyte said:

and the situation is reversed in Europe but no mention of that.
Here Samsung rules and Apple is a bit part player.

Who cares about Europe, somehow most of them can’t afford Iphone high end, now it’s been mentioned.....smile hahaha

mikethemartian said:

georgie01 said:

There are countless examples of people claiming science says some indisputable fact and then later science discovers it was wrong. This is as much a part of science as are the correct things it discovers. People so quickly forget this because they’re so desperate to believe in science, and completely forget ‘science’ is not fact but humanity’s attempt to study fact and therefore prone to continuous and unavoidable errors (some we may never discover).

I have no idea whether wireless frequencies are unhealthy, but I do know the more we change our environment the more likely it will be unhealthy to us. Structured radio waves designed to carry human information are not natural and we should at least be cautious and not make claims about the science behind it as if that means anything concrete.

Actually it is absolute science. It comes directly from Albert Einstein's explanation of the photoelectric effect for which he won the Nobel Prize in Physics. The visible light coming off a wax candle has a much higher chance of giving you cancer than the radio waves transmitted by a cell phone. Simply because the visible light photon is about 10,000 times as energetic as a radio wave photon. Have you ever heard of anyone worried about getting cancer from candles?

Owning an SW development company that develops non games apps, and I have a different view then most people here. All of my apps are connecting to a own developed cloud service and come in 3 versions: an iOS version, an Android version and a web app version, as requested by my customers.

rob53 said:

Apple hosts the servers and provides billing. It also checks apps to (hopefully) make sure they are abiding by the rules, which helps all users. Isn’t that worth 30%? If developers had to do all of this on their own (if App Store was open) I bet the vast majority would never even get more than a handful of downloads. 

Because I am providing a cloud service, I have a hosting platform available.  And I have a secure payment system available for the web app.  So I am doing these things already

zoetmb said:

IMO, the issue isn't the revenue split.   The issue is discoverability.  

Discoverability is indeed the  issue.  

wizard69 said:

This so called Developers Union apparently is populated by complete idiots.   Seriously they must not have any experience at all running a business, if they did they would understand some of the value Apple provides to each developer.   

sflocal said:
  
It would take at LEAST 30% if not more of one's resources to do it themselves.  Perhaps Apple will some day drop the rate, and if they do, great!  I personally think it's still a bargain considering what they do and in return getting access to millions of people in an easy way.  

That is exactly the issue.  A survey among my customers revealed that none of them downloaded my apps because they found it in the App store, and that is a major issue. I have to do the marketing myself at my own expense. 

Most of my apps only provide a slick user interface to the cloud service which contains the main value.  I don't get more paying customers because I offer an iOS version to access my valuable data

For the web app my costs are roughly 2.5% for the hosting and secure payment solution combined.  It could be that for other type of apps, the 30% cut is justified, but for my apps this is at least questionable. 

This is the reason that  I removed all billing rom the iOS and Android app,  Customers have to use the web app to pay for the content.  Once paid, the content is accessible on all platforms.   And the survey showed that they don't mind..  But of course such a scheme only works for one kind of apps.
 

tmay said:

dick applebaum said:

volcan said:

blastdoor said:

The rationale to stick with Intel in Macs is getting weaker. 

Probably getting close. Apple's A11 Bionic already has nearly twice as many transistors as the Intel quad core i7. Once they can get an X86 emulator to run Windows with minimal performance hit there should be no reason not to switch to ARM.

Isn't the X86 emulator a legal (licensing) issue rather than a tech issue?  If so, Apple is in a pretty good negotiating position:

• Macs are a small percent of the total computers that use Intel chips
• iDevices provide a very large percentage of mobile devices using modems -- potentially Intel modem chips

Is it possible that lower volumes of A11s could be used in MacBooks and iPads soon -- earlier than the expected new iPhones in the Fall-Winter?

At this point in time, I wonder how many MacBook users even care about Windows. Seems like it would be easy to bifurcate the line such that an ARM MacBook analog running iOS Plus (for lack of a better term) would be the way to go for both cost and performance reasons.

In my SW company we are using MBP for the development of Cloud applications.  All Cloud providers (Google, Amazon, Microsoft, Digital Ocean, ...) are only using Intel CPUs. For any cloud development Intel CPUs are a necessity.  The day that Apple would stop selling Intel based Macbooka is the day that I'll have to stop buying Macbooks.  But I don't think Apple would be that stupid