Slashdot Mirror
Developers and the Fear of Apple
An anonymous reader writes: UI designer Eli Schiff has posted an article about the "climate of fear" surrounding Apple in the software development community. He points out how developers who express criticism in an informal setting often recant when their words are being recorded, and how even moderate public criticism is often prefaced by flattery and endorsements.
Beyond that, the industry has learned that they can't rely on Apple's walled garden to make a profit. The opaque app review process, the race to the bottom on pricing, and Apple's resistance to curation of the App Store are driving "independent app developers into larger organizations and venture-backed startups." Apple is also known to cut contact with developers if they release for Android first. The "climate of fear" even affects journalists, who face not only stonewalling from Apple after negative reporting, but also a brigade of Apple fans and even other journalists trying to paint them as anti-Apple.
Beyond that, the industry has learned that they can't rely on Apple's walled garden to make a profit. The opaque app review process, the race to the bottom on pricing, and Apple's resistance to curation of the App Store are driving "independent app developers into larger organizations and venture-backed startups." Apple is also known to cut contact with developers if they release for Android first. The "climate of fear" even affects journalists, who face not only stonewalling from Apple after negative reporting, but also a brigade of Apple fans and even other journalists trying to paint them as anti-Apple.
So what? Let them stonewall everyone, soon enough there won't be anyone left to talk about them.
And that can only be a good thing.
I'm pretty sure Apple doesn't give a crap about what 99% of developers do or say.
They are worth 700billion dollars. What would you consider a not dead company?
At least in the fourth article, the one posted. I read the first three and found them to be largely unconvincing. I think you can like the flat look or not, like Material Design (barely mentioned, but brought up a few times) or not, and that's cool. But one of the main thrusts of his argument in the first three articles was that the defense of these designs was riddled with 'artspeak', a nonsense language used to dissuade criticism. I don't dispute it; I like Material Design (Android user here) but having watched the Material Design sessions from I/O 2014, I definitely got annoyed at all the 'artspeak' going on from the lead guy at Google (Duarte I think his name is). What's funny is that what rubbed me the wrong way about him was how 'Apple-ish' he sounded, so go figure.
But back to the first three articles -- they seemed riddled with a different kind of 'artspeak'. Churlishing comparing the simplish people imagery from Google with Children's books and comparing Apple's design to the child who can paint like Pollock didn't feel particularly high-brow.
Still, the over-arching point that I felt was useful was that criticism is not well-received at Apple (or Google from the sounds of it). That's a point worth dwelling on, especially since Apple in particular has the reputation of having the 'zealots' come out in force whenever anyone says anything ill of Apple. It was quite interesting to hear in the fourth article that -- unless I misunderstood it? -- there's someone at Apple whose job is to rile up the crazies when they get wind of that kind of thing on the interwebz.
But ultimately, the discussion about the problems of the App Store is more interesting. The 'race to the bottom' is something anyone with half a brain can see, and anyone who's a developer looks at that and must feel some gnawing fear. Maybe I'm wrong, but I feel like we're all pushed to mobile (if you're not on mobile, you're out of touch!) and when I look at the market, it gives me the willies. I don't think the Google Play Store is doing any better in that regard either. Worse, I don't have the foggiest idea of how to correct the problem, not even one that would take Herculean effort from either company to employ.
Wood Shavings!
- Godai
As a developer, it is the performance that counts, so no Apple stuff. Easy as 1-2-3.
Apple users don't think like that. For them it's a status symbol and a sign that they're truly dedicated to the cult. They'll not only happily overpay for the latest version of whatever Apple is hocking, they'll STAND IN LINE FOR HOURS for the privilege. Most Apple users aren't making a logical decision, they're making an emotional one.
Apple isn't a technology company. They're a marketing company and religious cult that also happens to make technology.
The 'race to the bottom' is just utterly normal for any market with lots of competition. The only way to escape then is setting yourself apart enough to command higher prices instead of trying to undercut the cheapest offers and this in itself is a highly competitive field (as in: works only for a few apps, not for all).
Face it, apps are like cups of coffee: Either you sell just coffee and people will buy the cheapest one or you manage to add some (real or subjective) value to your cups of coffee so you can sell with better margins.
But yes, it's almost impossible to make a living from $0.99 apps.
Marco's comments, and other valid criticisms of Apple get taken way to seriously by the mainstream press and distort the intent and strength of the criticisms. Apple does many things right, they do some things wrong; in trying to correct behaviour you need to have it be correctible, not merely a bitch session of unaddressable issues without resolution.
If you criticize your child for making a poor decision you don't subsequently publish that criticism in national newspapers...
Why do Millennials tend to get so worked up about negativity? Why do they see it as a bad thing, even in cases when it's perfectly relevant and appropriate?
Negativity == Troll.
We have an overall climate where disagreeing, dissent, saying negative things, criticism and any other negative feedback is becoming wrong. One is immediately labeled a Troll, flamebait or some other nonsense if one doesn't toe the group think line.
I am not saying that one should take knee-jerk insults as valid criticisms or dissent (ex. Linux Sucks!) but when someone raises something valid but against the groupthink, it gets rejected and the author insulted. People are sensitive to that and when you are on a site that has moderation, going against the norm gets you negative karma. You are thrown out.
And there's the double standard of feedback. A person making an initial claim, even with all the cites and data to back himself up, has to deal with the "you're an idiot" type of feedback with nothing to back it up - that is acceptable many times even here on Slashdot.
I also think social media and the web overall has made it too easy to take things out of context and distort a person's statements. So what happens, something that is perfectly valid in context gets trimmed down into a twitter post to be passed all over the World and the person who made the original statement is forever defending himself over something he never really said. Like criticizing the USA's Mid-East policy turns into "He hates America!" or in regards to Robert Reich and his work on income disparity, "He's a Communist!"
It's just getting to the point that having a rational discussion anywhere is becoming impossible and who really needs it.
Considering my macbook pro has outlasted the top of the line HP laptops I owned at only about 15% of a premium? Yeah, it's just all status.
Hate on Apple all you want to for whatever irrational reasons but Apple hardware is fantastic. That, in itself, makes it worth the price.
I'll diss Apple publicly anywhere, anytime. Their walled garden represents easily one of the top 3 threats to computing freedom, and if you're a developer they're nothing but bad news - a nasty middleman who will dictate what your app can do and take your money for the privilege of doing it. For developers, the app store is a microcosm of the American dream, they'll tell you that you can make it on merit, but only a tiny minority will, the rest will just tread water and only enrich Apple in the process.
For users, it's the worst of '90s computing powered by the latest technology - a store full of shitty shovelware that you have to pay for or be annoyed by ads or restricted by a "trial version." And now you can suffer the latest shovelware technologies such as "freemium" gaming and rampant privacy violation! But because it's on a tablet this time, they think it's OK for some reason...the dumb fucks.
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
"Performance" in that context is highly subjective. Apple stuff does what I want pretty much out of the box; Android phones don't. For some people, it will be the other way around. These days I have more money than time to dick around with devices, so I am willing to pay top euro for whatever device works best for me, even if it is overpriced (in terms of profit margin).
As a developer, I understand that the race to the bottom is even worse on the Play store, at least it was a while ago, perhaps the App Store has caught up by now.
If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
Yeah, way to paint hundreds of millions of people with a brush that is appropriate for maybe 500 people.
For every one person who stands in a line, there are 100 that think that guy is an idiot, but still prefer to use Apple products to the competition. But go on trying to paint the picture that everyone that uses their stuff is some zealot that kneels facing Cupertino five times a day. That grew old in the late 90s.
Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
Has learned?! A priori the walled garden was counter to everyone else's interests, bar none. You didn't have to to be a Nintendo developer to see they were teaching companies how to become the rest of the industry's enemies.
A walled garden always means "fuck you." It never means anything else than "fuck you." And if you buy into a walled garden, you're saying "fuck me."
You don't need experience with Apple on this; it's not something you need to learn. It's in your face before you start. If you need to learn it, then you're probably unable to learn it. I just don't think it's at all credible that any developer "learned" the walled garden was bad. It's too much like asking "will the gunshot to my skull harm me?"
Their walled garden represents easily one of the top 3 threats to computing freedom,
How do you figure? Not saying you are right or wrong but I'm not seeing a credible argument backing up this assertion.
and if you're a developer they're nothing but bad news - a nasty middleman who will dictate what your app can do and take your money for the privilege of doing it.
"Nasty middleman"? As if Apple provides no value here. Apple created the f-ing platform, both hardware and software as well as the distribution system. It is WILDLY successful and popular. If you don't like how they do it, go somewhere else. Android or Blackberry or Microsoft are all options. Whether you like it or not, Apple reviewing apps does keep malware and other shitty or problematic apps out of the ecosystem. Are there downsides to this? Absolutely. Is Apple sometimes unfair? No doubt about it. But let's not pretend that there is no benefit either. Apple has created something that a huge number of people value very highly and are willing to pay for. There is nothing wrong with being a middleman as long as you are providing value and Apple clearly does to a lot of people. Maybe you don't value what they are selling (and that's totally fine) but many others do.
For developers, the app store is a microcosm of the American dream, they'll tell you that you can make it on merit, but only a tiny minority will, the rest will just tread water and only enrich Apple in the process.
Let's be frank. 99.999% of the apps on the app store are crap (see Sturgeon's law) and do not deserve any of our money. Just because you put something out there doesn't mean it is automatically valuable to anyone else. If someone is delusional enough to think that developing a crappy piece of software entitles them to anything then I have no sympathy.
For users, it's the worst of '90s computing powered by the latest technology - a store full of shitty shovelware that you have to pay for or be annoyed by ads or restricted by a "trial version."
So every developer is supposed to live the dream and somehow be part of the 1% and they all develop undiscovered gems but you admit that most of the software is actually crap not worthy of purchase. So which is it? You're contradicting yourself. If the developers develop something worth buying, people tend to buy it. If they make shovelware then they deserve to lose money. Neither is Apple's fault or responsibility. Apple just makes both possibilities available. It's up to the developer to make something people will actually give a shit about.
They are valued at 700billion in the stock market. "What do I consider a bloated balloon??"
Must be the magic fairy dust foxconn spreads on the exact same parts and the competing PC.