Rayz2016

sflocal said:

Peza said:

sflocal said:

dysamoria said:

I’m absolutely with the developer here, on this issue.

And I’m firmly in the Apple camp.  Apple is the one doing all the work obtaining and keeping its large base of customers willing to pay for apps.  If 30% is too high given what Apple does they’re more than happy to go to the Android camp, where they probably make zero money.

70% of something is better than 100% of nothing.

whiners.

I bet you own Apple shares. Never on the side of the customer, and this developer never stated they don’t want to give Apple its cut, their complaint is clearly over Apple forcing them to take money from the apps customers, basically here’s a free trial, enter all your payment details and we will charge you if you don’t cancel, it’s a dirty trick purely designed to milk money from the customer, putting the giant corporation Frits and foremost and the customer a very far behind lonely second. 

It’s not only an anti competitive move but very clearly anti consumer and I’d argue in come countries potentially illegal. I’m glad the developer stood up to Apple on this one.

As a developer myself, I remember easily the years of boxed software and the difficulty of actually making money in that market.  Factor in overhead, marketing, distribution, and everything else associated with selling independently, a 30% cut to access that market is chump change.

Apple created this market that developers have access to.  Not the other way around.

keep whining.

When we were developing for the PalmPilot and Windows Mobile, the cut was 70% to the app store. When Apple said they were charging 30% I thought it was mistake in the news article.

Amazon still charges up to 70% of the cover price for selling an eBook, and no one has to check that.

DAalseth said:

Because Windows Everywhere worked SOOOOO well for Microsoft
/s
No. Just no.

Mmmm.

They have now got a common hardware architecture.
They have  scaleable app framework that runs on that architecture.
They have SwiftUI which will allow them to scale UIs with little effort.

The reason everyone fails when they try to do this is because they try to run the same apps at different screen sizes. I think they're looking at a dual boot/hybrid setup that will use the Universal Binary packages to carry multiple versions of the same app.

On the phone, it'll run the IOS version. When you plug it into the slot on your iMac terminal, it'll launch MacOS with the full MacOS version of the same app. The file formats are common.

I read a tweet the other day. One of the developers at the WWDC noted that if you run an iOS app on MacOS 11, it will be automatically replaced by the full MacOS version when the developer makes it available. I think Apple is very interested in making stuff as common as possible without compromising the simplicity of iOS and the versatility of MacOS. The way to do that begins with having a common architecture that can run both.

You can inspect an URL by putting your finger on it and waiting. You’ll get a popup with the details. 

I suppose you could run Windows in the Cloud

https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/azure/virtual-desktop/overview

Well here's a quiet change:

https://www.apple.com/newsroom/2020/06/apple-reveals-new-developer-technologies-to-foster-the-next-generation-of-apps/

Additionally, two changes are coming to the app review process and will be implemented this summer. First, developers will not only be able to appeal decisions about whether an app violates a given guideline of the App Store Review Guidelines, but will also have a mechanism to challenge the guideline itself. Second, for apps that are already on the App Store, bug fixes will no longer be delayed over guideline violations except for those related to legal issues. Developers will instead be able to address the issue in their next submission.