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.
Haven't had the same experience; as a developer, we found apple to be particularly powerful, robust, and reliable versus the PCs we had prior. Then again, I'm pretty upset with Yosemite, and it's been years, so maybe the environment on the other side of that coin has changed in the interim.
I'm pretty sure Apple doesn't give a crap about what 99% of developers do or say.
The article says,
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?
Typical Hacker News discussion is a great example of this. If anyone isn't gushingly positive about somebody else's work, even when this work is total crap, they'll be torn a new one and likely downvoted. They'll be labeled as "detractors" or as being "disingenuous", and basically shunned.
It's like Millennials can't handle any sort of criticism, even when it's completely correct and deserved.
Why are Millennials so often so thin-skinned?
It sounds like you're talking about Apple hardware rather than Apple as an organisation...given that the article is about the latter, you're kind of comparing apples with oranges (no pun intended....oh, OK, maybe just a bit intentional)
They are worth 700billion dollars. What would you consider a not dead company?
Yep, yep, sorry... Apple (as an organization) has consistently delivered hardware that we could count on, met or surpassed our needs (and alternative vendors), etc... then again, we haven't had any trouble with them when delivering apps for googleplay and ios side by side (re, the article), but they're not centric to our organization's offerings just yet, either.
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
But... has Netcraft confirmed it?
Linux is for people who don't mind RTFM.
I could buy Apple being more robust or more reliable (because it's probably WinDOS we're talking about here) but the idea of the PC being less powerful just sounds like you swimming in the kool-aid.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
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...
And every time antitrust laws and Apple are mentionned, the regulators will look down at their iphone/ipad, think "No....we can't hurt my PRECIOUS!!" and look the other way.
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.
Yep, yep, sorry... Apple (as an organization) has consistently delivered hardware that we could count on, met or surpassed our needs (and alternative vendors)
Devils Advocate here, look what Apple did by gutting the hardware specs of the latest release of the Mac Mini. In addition they had slowly been morphing their hardware into something that is pure commodity - no user changeable RAM, Flash etc so you have to pay the full Apple price for those items when you buy the complete system, and you are limited by what they offer on the Apple store. As a result their hardware offerings are becoming less desirable every year to the point that I am considering that my next apple computer will be a hackintosh.
And I say that with 2 Apple computers, an iPad, an iPod touch and an iPod nano on my desk (and a Mac Mini in the other room)
I am Slashdot. Are you Slashdot as well?
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.
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.
IMO this is an example of exclusive dealing arrangements and restricting free trade.
15 USC Code 1 Trusts..
Every contract, combination in the form of trust or otherwise, or conspiracy, in restraint of trade or commerce among the several States, or with foreign nations, is declared to be illegal. Every person who shall make any contract or engage in any combination or conspiracy hereby declared to be illegal shall be deemed guilty of a felony, and, on conviction thereof, shall be punished by fine not exceeding $100,000,000 if a corporation, or, if any other person, $1,000,000, or by imprisonment not exceeding 10 years, or by both said punishments, in the discretion of the court.
From that, $100 mil is a slap on the wrist, wait, a mosquito bite for Apple.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/we...
Exclusive dealing agreements require a retailer or distributor to purchase exclusively from the manufacturer. These arrangements make it difficult for new sellers to enter the market and find prospective buyers, thus depressing competition. However, because companies widely-use requirements contracts, which essentially are exclusive dealing agreements, for purposes that promote competition, exclusive dealing arrangements only face rule of reason scrutiny..
Section 2 makes illegal a firm's refusal to deal with another firm if the refusing firm refuses for the purpose of trying to monopolize the market. Meanwhile, section 1 prohibits a group from refusing to deal with a particular firm. A group refusal to deal is known as a group boycott. Because of seemingly contradictory Supreme Court decisions over the years, the question of whether group boycotts are subject to the rule of reason or a per se rule has been left murky.
Apple with it's walled garden can certainly dictate who's allowed in but I think there could be legal grounds for challenging that in court. Sure Apple can say "we're protecting our customers" but at the same time they're restricting competition and free access to markets, namely the app store.
Harrison's Postulate - "For every action there is an equal and opposite criticism"
I find a number of facts to be in basic conflict in the report. Most developers can't make a living through the app store, yet they are afraid of Apple for some reason - even though they cannot make a living. First the App store makes it fairly simple for every tom, dick and harry to write an app and put it on the store shelves. They don't need to package it, they don't need to setup their own web-sales site.... The problem is that you have a bunch of app developers that think if they write some small app that a trail of customers will beat a path to them and buy it, they think that any stupid app will make money. A lot of small apps will drive down prices for those apps, the smaller the easier to make the app the more competition. I remember 30 years ago that there were many substantive applications to do some basic functionality... word processing. I don't know how many different ones were created, but there were quite a lot. I know my father had 9 installed on his Windows computer just to compare them himself (head of an institution) to see which ones were any good. Most of those companies went bankrupt quickly - even though there was substantive (much much more than most apps in the store) development put into them. Unfortunately the current generation seems to think they are somehow privileged and if they write something they should be able to make a living at it... it is not the way the world works. You have to compete, you have to invest time developing an app that you are passionate about, you have to risk losing time/money on the venture. You have to market your own app outside of the store, and you have to differentiate your product from all others. If you are really lucky and you do all those things correctly, then maybe you can be one of the few that can turn it into a viable business. What it strikes me is that there are a lot of cry babies out there that either have not invested enough or have enough skills to make a go of it. Apple does not owe you anything -- it is up to you to market it. You have to approach it like Apple would which means you have to differentiate your product and worth more to people to buy it than the other products -- even if the other products are lower priced. All the app store did was give you a place where someone can enter the credit card and buy it.... Apple does not owe you anything. As far as developers being afraid... guess what.... it is not that much different than normal business.... When I do business I don't go out of my way to stab companies that I am working with -- it is just not good business. I usually approach it with two faces.... one for when I am dealing directly - where I am more honest and then one that is a public face where I don't air any dirty laundry because it is not good business.
More likely, they'll look at Apple's market share numbers (You know, the same numbers that, in other posts, you lot would be citing to show that Android is completely dominating and Apple is obviously doomed... or even "beleaguered".). And seeing that Apple has no monopoly, they'll shrug and move on.
Imagine all the people...
Do your homework before building a hackintosh. I've built several over the past five years, and Apple is quietly making them less compatible, at the moment by restricting iMessage and Facetime to machines with legitimate serial numbers. For my next machine, still a few years down the road, I'll save up the extra dollars and buy the one I want from Apple, properly outfitted from the start.
Might appear "remarkably consistent" in the graph you posted, but only because their market share is so small compared to Android. They fell from 20% in 1212 to 15% in 2013, 2014. Which is a 20% decline, and not what a normal person would call consistent. It only appears small on the graph due to the fact that Android has over 80% of the market, and 5% is minuscule compared to that.
Now tell me what machine beats a 15" Retina MacBook Pro.
I could buy Apple being more robust or more reliable (because it's probably WinDOS we're talking about here) but the idea of the PC being less powerful just sounds like you swimming in the kool-aid.
As someone who did tech support for Macs many years ago, I cant buy them being more robust or reliable.
And this was back in the early 00's where suggesting a Mac had a problem meant Apple sent hired goons to your office. You didn't complain that it took two weeks to get a PSU for an Imac... because it was just better (TM).
Pretty much anything you can get from a Mac these days can be gotten from another manufacturer for less money... Except the wank factor of course.
Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
When I was shopping for a new laptop as my development machine last year, I bought an Apple MacBook Pro because it was about the same price as high-end PCs. Then I installed Ubuntu with rEFInd. I rarely use the OSX boot. It's made well, and dang it, everywhere I go all the kool kidz have Macs, but few of them are running Linux. My last two laptops were HPs that fell apart, they looked like they were in a demolition derby.