The top brass at Apple just think they are above everyone else. Remember when Tim Cook lied about Apple not giving anyone special terms in the app store and that everyone gets the same deal. And then it came out Netflix was one that got special terms?
The sheer arrogance of Apple leaders is astounding. They think they are outright owed rent on anything that runs on an iPhone, iPad, etc. Apple thinks developers are nothing without Apple. Look at how snubbing developers has worked out for the Apple Vision Pro. It was already a niche device, but it's a ghost town.
Apple always has been like that, see The Cult of Mac book.
However, it appears being at the edge of bankruptcy, and having turned the ship around has made them paranoid of losing a single cent.
When Apple Store came out it was great.
I was a Nokia employee at the time, and 30% was a dream compared with what you would have to pay to phone operators, app listenings in magazines with SMS download codes, for Blackberry, Symbian, Windows CE, Pocket PC, Brew, J2ME,...
However we are now in different times, and acting as if the developers didn't have anything to do with it, it was all thanks to Apple's vision of the future, it is pure arrogance, and yes the Vision Pro was the first victim.
Here is another one, if they do really announce an UI revamp at WWDC 2025, I bet most will ignore it.
"In 2013 i met a very close friend of Steve Jobs and i remember saying "there's one thing i absolutely have to know, it's really important to me" he responds "okay what is it?"
I ask "what was all the money for?!" puzzled "what do you mean?" "Steve Jobs saved up like 200 billion dollars in cash at Apple, but what was it all for? what was the plan? was he going to buy AT&T? was he going to build his own telecom or make a giant spaceship? what was it for?"
And he looked at me with just the deepest and saddest eyes and spoke softly "there was no plan" "what??" "you see, Steve's previous company, NeXT, it ran out of money, so at with Apple he always wanted a pile of money on the side, just in case. and over years, the pile grew and grew and grew... and there was no plan..."
Totally believable. My grandmother lived though the great depression, wherein she was lucky to get an Orange at christmas. The last few decades of her life she basically was a food hoarder, pantries overflowing with canned goods, and a freezer where you never saw the back.
When I was a kid I did odd jobs, and one of the odd jobs was cleaning out a semi-hoarder’s house after he’d passed away (iirc he’d lived through the Great Depression). Not like you see on TV, with the heaps and heaps of garbage. Maybe like your grandmother, tons of… basically well organized supplies and stuff.
I dunno. Toilet paper, some canned goods, lighters, I guess that stuff all lasts decades if stored properly. Takes up a lot is space, though, and your descendants might have to pay some kid to throw it all away if you don’t use it up in time…
But, some folks wished they were toilet paper hoarders during the pandemic I guess. Wonder what the kids of 2060 will be throwing away as a result of our life-experiences.
> Wonder what the kids of 2060 will be throwing away as a result of our life-experiences.
EOL devices(tablets, phones, macbooks, thinkpads, hobby electronics boards, home lab equipments, hdd and ssd full of archive data, swag from conferences, outdated books on product and programming, smart watches etc).
And Microsoft had to invest in Apple, as a bankrupt Apple would have left them with effectively no defense against the antitrust investigation they were undergoing.
The jury's still out on this case. When historians look back a hundred years from now, will they consider it beneficial that Apple survived? Or will they see it as an unfortunate reprieve for a company that wrought unfathomable destruction upon our society via the creation of the smartphone and the attention economy that soon followed?
It's really hard to argue counterfactuals on this one. Perhaps the smartphone would have been built by Google anyway. I can't really imagine how, given the state of the mobile phone market at the time of the iPhone's release.
That is why I believe had Steve been alive the App Store would actually be something like 5-10% rather than 30%. They needed the money then, even in 2011 when he passed away. They really dont need it as much now.
Apple now has more money than they know what to do with it. They have spend close to $800 billion stock buy back in total by the end of this year.
They could have lowered the the margin of Mac and gained Market Shares. Which is something Steve said during NeXT era that Apple got greedy. Focusing too much on margin.
Alternative/complementary view: traditional software applications business is extremely high-risk high-return. It’s no accident that NeXT (and Microsoft in early days!) almost ran out of money. To balance the risk, you would want to compensate with extremely conservative balance sheet.
Michael Milken published a paper analyzing exactly this issue a while back.
The only way that differs "any corp" is that in most publicly corporations, you want to return that money to your shareholders - and they sit on it for the same reason. IE, this just says Jobs ran Apple as his personal fife. But since he made lots of money, no one cared.
I’m a shareholder, and I would rather that money be used to grow stock price (since it is already at a business known for creating new products and markets).
If I get a dividend, I have to pay tax today. And then I just turn around and buy more stock with post tax income?
If I can sell the share at a higher price when I want the cash, then I can pay the tax whenever I want, possibly under more preferable terms.
This and the Cult of Mac book completely describe it. Leaders are people who can have emotional damage that they compensate for in their business decisions.
It is "easy" to understand why parents would lie to home invasion robbers about whether or not they had a safe in the house. Leaders of companies will readily lie if they believe that the survival of their company is at stake. The rational is "well someone might get mad that we lied but at least the company will still be here."
> However, it appears being at the edge of bankruptcy, and having turned the ship around has made them paranoid of losing a single cent.
That was more than 20 years ago, under a totally different market condition and Apple leadership. Back then, they needed developers to turn the ship around, now they think devs need them. They's a cash cow and act like assholes.
> Back then, they needed developers to turn the ship around, now they think devs need them.
No, that's the opposite of what actually happened with the iPhone. Back in 2007, Apple actually saw evidence from the customer buying frenzy that Apple didn't need 3rd-party devs to make iPhone a wild success. After the very desirable iPhones got into millions of customers hands, it was the 3rd-party devs that needed Apple more than Apple needed the 3rd-party ecosystem as I've mentioned before:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39291668
Maybe an alternate history would have had all the 3rd-party devs deliberately boycott Apple iOS and thus only create apps for Android in 2008. We now know that didn't happen so we'll never know if devs realistically had enough leverage back in 2008 to alter Apple's App Store commission structure and policies.
The iPhone was so desirable as a platform that new popular apps like Instagram and WhatsApp were released for Apple iPhones months before Android.
The OP isn't talking about iPhone devs, they're talking about a decade before that when Apple was called 'Apple Computer' and had mad a series of bad business choices (confusing product line up, allowing other companies to make Mac clones, etc).
Developers had started to abandon the Mac OS platform - or at least start making Windows versions of previously Mac-only software - and getting developer confidence back was one of the key things that kept the company alive to grow into the consumer electronics manufacturer that it is today.
OP's wording was somewhat confusing because they were talking about the later iPhone devs with, >", now they think devs need them" by comparing them to the 1997 Mac OS devs.
As though possibly implying that Apple incorrectly misjudged the later iPhone-era devs' leverage as if it's the opposition situation of "Apple is the one that needs the devs" and somehow Apple misunderstands that.
I was clarifying that Apple didn't misjudge the devs and they correctly predicted that devs would want access to millions of new iPhone customers. It isn't just "Apple thinks devs need them", it's more definitive in "Apple _knows_ that devs need them." The timeline of events reinforced in Apple's mind that it was "Apple's customers" more than the "dev's customers".
Seeing customers camp out overnight in front of Apple's stores for iPhones that didn't have any 3rd-party apps -- and still sell millions of them -- is why they're so arrogant. Apple concluded it was Apple's efforts alone that recruited those customers to their new platform and not the 3rd-party devs. (Apple itself created the first Youtube app instead of 3rd-party Google devs doing it.) The 2008 devs may have had a chance to flip that narrative by rejecting iOS and only create apps for Android and Windows Phones but they didn't do that and instead, went along with Apple's gatekeeping and 30% fees.
>Developers had started to abandon the Mac OS platform [...] and getting developer confidence back was one of the key things that kept the company alive to grow
Well, the 1997 dev confidence behavior for a Mac platform with only ~5% market share at that time wouldn't be relevant to Apple's attitude about iPhones because devs never abandoned the iPhone. iPhones were an instant hit with 100% market share of touchscreen smartphones until Android came out a year later.
>, we had plenty touch screen smartphones in Europe, between Nokia, Siemens-Ericson and PocketPC/Windows CE.
Those were older TFT resistive touchscreens and not the newer capacitive touchscreens that could detect multi-finger gestures like swipes and pinch-to-zoom. TFT touchscreens requiring finger pressure instead of finger swipes is not as intuitive a UI.
That's why the audience at Macworld 2007 gasped in astonishment when Steve Jobs demonstrated gentle finger scrolling on a capacitive screen. Deep link to that demo:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VQKMoT-6XSg&t=16m05s
Keep in mind that MacWorld tradeshow attendees are technology geeks who are aware of the latest gadgets and phones. Many of those in the audience would already have the latest 2006 Palm Treo 680 in their pocket that had a TFT touchscreen. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treo_680)
The iPhone's touchscreen capabilities made that Palm phone's TFT touchscreen technology obsolete.
You can check the Europe news archives back in 2007 to see both the telecoms and customers there were also eagerly awaiting the iPhone. If Europe already had equivalent touchscreen smartphones with Nokia, Siemens-Ericsson etc, the iPhone would have been a non-event and flopped in sales.
Nokia/Blackberry/WindowsCE/Android/etc switched to capacitive touchscreens to compete with the iPhone.
Why didn't European devs collectively just ignore the Apple iPhone and instead, focus on Nokia Symbian OS? Devs did ignore platforms if they wanted to. E.g. the devs mostly ignored the Blackberry OS and Microsoft Windows CE Mobile.
>I could write a lengthy comment, however it appears it would be a waste of my time.
It won't be a waste of time if you correct something I wrote that was factually incorrect. I won't debate it.
>I even happened to be in Espoo, the tragic week of the burning platforms memo.
Was Stephen Elop's assessment of Nokia's fading market share by both consumers and developers in 2011 incorrect? What Nokia phone in 2007/2008 was compelling that people were not buying and the developers not adopting compared to Apple iPhone? What do you believe happened?
>In 2008, Apple's market share in the $300+ price range was 25 percent; by 2010 it escalated to 61 percent. They are enjoying a tremendous growth trajectory with a 78 percent earnings growth year over year in Q4 2010. Apple demonstrated that if designed well, consumers would buy a high-priced phone with a great experience and developers would build applications. They changed the game, and today, Apple owns the high-end range.
And then, there is Android. In about two years, Android created a platform that attracts application developers, service providers and hardware manufacturers. Android came in at the high-end, they are now winning the mid-range, and quickly they are going downstream to phones under €100. Google has become a gravitational force, drawing much of the industry's innovation to its core.
[...] While competitors poured flames on our market share, what happened at Nokia? We fell behind, we missed big trends, and we lost time. At that time, we thought we were making the right decisions; but, with the benefit of hindsight, we now find ourselves years behind.
The first iPhone shipped in 2007, and we still don't have a product that is close to their experience. Android came on the scene just over 2 years ago, and this week they took our leadership position in smartphone volumes. Unbelievable.
[...] At the midrange, we have Symbian. It has proven to be non-competitive in leading markets like North America. Additionally, Symbian is proving to be an increasingly difficult environment in which to develop to meet the continuously expanding consumer requirements, leading to slowness in product development and also creating a disadvantage when we seek to take advantage of new hardware platforms. As a result, if we continue like before, we will get further and further behind, while our competitors advance further and further ahead.
Honestly, I think they're less jealous of money than rep. A man like Jobs would rather die under torture than be laughed at, and even almost 15 years gone, we still see his mark.
I wouldn't blame them, Americans on the whole fall over themselves to defend Apple. Apple is the magic entity that figured out how to send full videos and pictures in text messages. Something a google android could never figure out. Apple phones didn't come bloated with garbage. You go to the apple store for help rather than the verizon store. You are above others when you have an iPhone.
Apple's external veneer is stellar, and the overwhelming majority of people don't know and don't care what it is holding up that veneer.
I want Apple to protect me from app developers. For me, it’s a feature not a bug.
I want them to prevent social media companies from tracking my device across my other apps.
I want them to integrate billing so I can easily cancel subscriptions or get refunds.
I want them to require Oauth that allows me to keep my email private from app developers.
These features make my customer experience better not worse. I’m sorry it sucks for app developers to make less money but for customers it’s mostly a good thing.
Being a hacker means having curiosity about the things around you, having the desire to be able to change and understand things.
On android, I wrote small toy apps for myself, I could build and self-sign an APK, I could poke at how the system worked and read all the source code I wanted.
Tragically, due to blue bubbles and group chats within my family, I was forced to switch to iOS, and I thought sure, it wouldn't be so bad...
No, it sucks for hackers, you can't build and sign apps from linux reliably, you need an apple account and to pay $100 even if you do have a macbook, the APIs are limited, you can't see the source code for the most of the kernel or platform, apple has a ton of APIs you're not allowed to use.
My firefox addons I developed for myself installed fine on android, but I can't even use those on iOS.
You weren't forced to do anything. You submitted to peer pressure, and that was a decision that, along with millions of others making that same decision, led to the current state. The very state that you're now complaining about.
Government intervention, or legal system intervention is one way in which millions are collectively deciding to move away from the current state. In theory at least.
It's true, I like my Granny phone. And you can choose a hacker phone if you want!
I personally do my hacking on Mac, Linux, and on my RasberryPis, in my secure home and behind a firewall. But I don't want a hacker-friendly phone holding my passwords, credit cards, social media, email, photos, GPS ___location, cameras, microphones, etc., with a persistent cellular connection to the internet and at constant risk of being left in a taxi or cafe. I would never put the effort into locking everything down, and I'd probably fuck it up if I tried anyway.
> I want them to prevent social media companies from tracking my device across my other apps.
Apple is the one who implements the advertising ID companies use to track you. And preventing that tracking is a os-level feature, not a thing they review out of app.
> I want them to require Oauth that allows me to keep my email private from app developers.
No phone can really give you that. Even if the OS were better, the wireless chipsets themselves are black boxes that do their own thing giving you zero insight or control into what how or why. There's plenty of room for improvement, but ultimately they'll always be insecure and untrustworthy by design.
If privacy or security protections are opt-out, Facebook, et al. will try to use any leverage they can to push their users to opt out. There's real value in a platform that doesn't give Facebook, et al. that opportunity. There are also obvious downsides; it's a tradeoff that might not be right for you but definitely isn't one-sided.
Requires, no but in all regards it’s a great deal for app developers. You write code they do everything else. You want options? They exist (Windows/Android) but are all shitified minefields of commercial ads and poor design choices that I only use when required. Is Apple perfect? No far from it. When I buy and use their products though I feel more like the customer than the product. It’s a tool built for me not their advertisers.
App devs hate "paying" the 30% cut, but often aren't smart enough to realize that they make more on iOS than Android specifically because it's a high-trust environment and people trust that Apple has their back.
There's a reason most of us app devs make most of our money on Apple devices.
And it is the same cut that console companies take from developers. And then when we point this out, people respond with some bullshit that consoles are not "general purpose computers"...
Consoles are trivially avoidable. Family group chats that require a blue-bubble-capable phone, grandmothers that only know how to use facetime, those are actually important.
I can't get into my coworking space without a door unlock app on my phone.
On the other hand, exactly 0 times in my life have I ever been told "yeah, you need to own an xbox to go to the dentist's office".
Phones are indeed in a different class from game consoles and should be held to a higher standard.
But yes, also, game consoles should allow you to develop your own programs and side-load them.
The app is free for users, but the coworking space pays the app's company a considerable fee to manage access to the doors and audit logs and such, so it's not that it's subsidized by brainrot games.
Free apps on iOS should be subsidized by, I don't know, the purchase price of the phone and the $100 yearly developer fee I'd think.
> Honestly this system isn't half bad, it's essentially a tax on idleness that funds a bunch of virtuous activity.
The system isn't funding "virtuous activity", the system is a for-profit system for the benefit of the richest company on the planet.
> the coworking space pays the app's company a considerable fee to manage access to the doors and audit logs and such, so it's not that it's subsidized by brainrot games.
I think you're well aware that these fees don't go toward the iOS SDK licensing/infra/staffing/security/distribution costs of the app and the App Store. That's what is being subsidized by the brainrot games.
Furthermore, there's nothing stopping that app maker from bypassing the app store and simply making a webapp, so this argument that you need an iphone to open the door is really moot. It's not the smartphone makers' fault that the door company's customers demand this product.
> Furthermore, there's nothing stopping that app maker from bypassing the app store and simply making a webapp, so this argument that you need an iphone to open the door is really moot
The door opener uses NFC, and iOS does not allow webapps to use NFC, only app-store apps: https://caniuse.com/webnfc
Apple has consistently made the experience of using webapps worse, including making installing them so convoluted that most users continue to not even know they exist.
> Family group chats that require a blue-bubble-capable phone
This is a social walled garden they've built over years and has been solidified by users choosing it over and over again. Are they exploiting our brain's capacities regarding social pressure to extract profit? Sure, but so does every fast food company, social media company, marketing company, etc.
I think it's interesting that you phrase it as "require" regarding a group chat made by your family members. Apple doesn't require this, your family members chose Apple when they purchased their phones.
Practically every other chat ecosystem I've used has worked fine from android or ios, or for the most part my desktop computer. Signal, XMPP, Facebook Messenger, Telegram, Twitter DMs, Google Chat, all of these work _fine_ from every general computing device I own (iPhone, android, linux).
Somehow it's only iMessage which doesn't have an android or desktop or web app, despite Apple having more money than every other messenger app I mentioned.
> your family members chose Apple when they purchased their phones.
Apple chooses the default and integrates it into the OS more deeply than any third-party app can be integrated. It's not a free choice... and then Apple also refuses to provide open access to this ecosystem to other devices.
I know other people have sometimes said that it's an anti-spam measure to tie the iMessage account to an apple ID which is associated with a purchase. I'd be fine making an apple ID and paying up to $300 to get iMessage access for it if that would allow me to not use iOS and still communicate with my family (via an officially supported / recognized android + linux iMessage app).
When my iPhone finally breaks (and may it be soon), I am planning to get a mac mini server and install https://bluebubbles.app/ to solve this.
I am mildly worried that apple will eventually ban me for that, as they did with beeper (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39156308), and also not thrilled about the increased electric bill that'd entail.
> Apple chooses the default and integrates it into the OS more deeply than any third-party app can be integrated
And this is well known by everyone, and your family still chose Apple (in fact, I'm fairly certain this is why most people choose Apple - they want everything to "just work"). Apple has no obligation to provide any "ecosystem".
At the end of the day there isn't some mass hypnosis at work here. People choose Apple en masse because it works for them. Nothing stops Apple users from making an SMS (now RCS) group chat, either, nor from you and your family hosting a group chat on any other app on the App Store.
Not in gamedev myself but have friends who are, and while it can be argued the 30% (I think they're also around 15% or 20% under X amount actually, so it affects smaller games less) Steam takes hurts, it also comes with a lot of benefits to the publishers. Global CDN and delivery network, all the steam social/community features, all the Steam APIs for multiplayer, cloud saves, achievement framework, hell even the steam community market. Steam handles a lot for you, whereas with Apple it's little more than a tax on just existing within their storefront.
Sure, they handle the CDN/Delivery part just like Steam (and Steam has to deal with assets that can easily surpass 100GB, mind), but beyond that? You're forced to buy Apple's hardware, and forced into paying them for access to their app store, while making it literally impossible (until recently) to sideload apps. Many games that are on Steam are also available from alternate storefronts like GOG, and Steam doesn't care if you link to those or mention them, and in fact many of Valves competitors have killed off their own equivalent apps because it's hard to beat Steam's quality (which is hilarious, cause Steam has so much room to grow and become better IMO).
As to the state of the consoles, I'm not entirely sure as I haven't had one since the PS2, but IMO if they're anything like Apple, then yes we should open them up in the exact same way Apple should be opened up
Have you ever used a PC or laptop? I bet you have at least a computer and the fact that you can download and install software without an intermediary doesn't make you lose any of the things mentioned above.
Every attempt at providing the general public with an "informed consent" escape hatch to security or privacy features ends degrading to either consent fatigue or "misinformed consent" dark patterns.
The rent-seeking is fundamentally a separate issue from the paternalism. Lots of the anti-Apple lobbying and PR is drawing attention to the 30% fees, but for many of those companies, they care much more about winning the freedom to spy on their users or engage in other predatory or abusive business practices.
But aside from that, you cannot simply point people at the approach that led to Windows UAC and GDPR cookie consent banners and consider the problem adequately solved.
So you'd prefer that instead of the (rare) UAC prompt, Windows should simply refuse to do what the user asks, unless they pony up for a developer license?
No, but I think it's incredibly naive and shortsighted to suggest that we should impose a legal requirement that any platform adopt such an obviously imperfect approach. Your memories of Windows Vista may have faded, but UAC prompts were certainly not rare when UAC first showed up, and they're still common enough to cause consent fatigue and undermine their effectiveness as a security measure.
And they also tie you into systems you don't control. That power can be wielded against you when you least expect it. When you trade security for freedom, you deserve neither.
So it's okay to leave your macbook wide open to all of the things you described? Because Apple doesn't force any of that on their macbooks. So are you really that safe?
The problem is that other apps advertise on Facebook, and in order to attribute new installations to the ads (to find out how effective they are), they had to add the Facebook SDK in those other apps. Then when the social media-avoiding users ran those other apps, they ran Facebook code on their device without knowing and still got tracked.
This is what Apple’s ATT was designed to prevent. If app developers want to do that now, they need to ask the user for permission. The more Apple’s control over the platform is rolled back, the more stuff like this happens.
As a user, I don’t want to be using, say, a recipe app and be secretly tracked by Facebook in the background.
Not magic although it seems like it. Pixel perfect graphics and smooth video go a long way even if you’re not a graphic designer. Silicon Graphics had this figured out.
> Americans on the whole fall over themselves to defend Apple.
What does it have to do with nationality? I've seen Apple fanboys from all countries. Sure, Apple's market share in the US relative to other phone manufacturers is high, but that's mostly due to the "trust" Americans have in US-based companies (you can argue this trust is misplaced).
> Look at how snubbing developers has worked out for the Apple Vision Pro.
I think it's mostly the lack of users. Apple snubs mobile developers all the time, but since they gate access to a large chunk of well-paying customers, developers are ready to jump through any hoops.
If there were millions of Apple Vision Pro users I'm sure the developers would have followed, but it's of course a chicken and egg situation considering Vision Pro lack of content.
It's not really a chicken and egg situation, it's more of a cost problem. It still costs $3500. Even if the next version is a third of the price it will still cost three times more than the competition.
And if I'm buying it as a devkit I'm sure my accountant and I will find a way to write that off, anyway. $3500 isn't quite pocket change, but it is close enough to petty cash. But why do that if there's no users? And even the day-one diehards among my colleagues stopped wanting to be seen in them before long.
I think it isn't really chicken-egg, is what I'm saying. Devs were so hot to target iPhone from day one that the first or second major OS update added an entire infrastructure to make that possible. There was so much interest it made Apple back down! For the Vision Pro they had that on day one and it wasn't nearly enough to sell the thing to devs, because again, nothing did nearly enough to sell the thing to users.
What made the early apps great and viral on iPhone were the indie developers. The ones making flashlight and farting sound boards. They paved the way, and for them $3500 is a lot of money.
Who cares if it’s pocket change for google or meta, nobody wants another Facebook app.
$3500 doesn't matter at all for developers. It matters for users. If there are a billion users, devs will pay $3500 for access no problem. But you can't get a billion users for a $3500 product unless it's at least as useful as a car.
This is the best way to sum it up. The diehard Apple fans still defend it, with handwaved promises that the future will bring a cheaper one, but in this economy I don't think Apple can do it. The price people will bear is proportional to the current usefulness, and the usefulness is proportional to third-party dev interest. The irony is that of all companies, Apple would be the most capable financially of loss-leadering it into existence with their cash hoard, but they're so stingy that the idea of a loss leader offends them to the core.
But imagine for a moment an alternate reality where they at least moderately tried to keep the cost down, and then further subsidized it, selling the headsets for $599 and made developer terms wildly attractive (like, your first 20 million in revenue having a 5% fee instead of 30%). It would cost Apple billions, but they pissed away more on the car idea with nothing to show for it. This could have launched a category, instead I predict a future more like Apple TV hardware where it's niche due to being 4x the price of what most people want to pay for the category.
> Apple would be the most capable financially of loss-leadering it into existence with their cash hoard, but they're so stingy that the idea of a loss leader offends them to the core.
Or they tried that, saw it's a tiny garbage market segment attended solely by photographer types who enjoy spending $10k to complain of being unsatisfied and a few others far less savory, and sensibly exited. Just like they explored FSD in concept and said no thanks, this will never work, let the morons throw their bad money after our good.
I don't know why it surprises people that a cash-rich, culturally insular company, with the world's premier brand in affordable luxury technology of genuine quality, should behave in accord with its own precepts rather than theirs. I've always found it more useful to learn about what I see in front of me, than distract my eyes with some fantasy of my own preference, and remain a fool. (For example, Apple is dogshit at wearables, always has been, always will be. You wear one because everyone wears one, although of course I have better, but they're awful!) But as I think I said nearby, I tried VR already and it sucks. I guess some folks need longer to catch on.
Sure. And those early indie devs paid, inflation adjusted, iirc around $500-1000 for the hardware they developed against to put those indie flashlight fart noise apps on the then nascent App Store, because that's what an iPhone cost.
$3500 is, as I said, pretty close to petty cash even for a sole-owner LLC that needs taking at all seriously, and I would front that sum without a second thought out of my own personal pocket if I thought VR had legs, the same way I've put about $9k toward inference-capable hardware in the last two years because AI obviously does have legs. It's an investment in my career, or at least toward the optionality of continuing a career in software in a post-AI world, assuming I don't decide to go be an attorney or something instead.
I appreciate not everyone can drop a sum like that, like that. I can and I'm not ashamed of it. Why should I be, when it's exactly what I've worked the last 21 years straight to earn?
I think the issue is less the cost to developers and more the cost to users. Were there more users, no doubt a larger number of indie developers would be able to justify the expense. Without those users--or at least a reliable promise of those users in the near future--it's tough to justify even dipping your toes into it. It's a chicken and egg problem that's fundamentally tied to cost as well as hardware limitations. Discomfort from the bulk and weight was my biggest sticking point even before the price, for example.
Plus, the hardware is just the initial starting point. Your initial outlay will quickly be eclipsed by the dev hours spent working on Vision versions of your app(s), and that's when the opportunity costs become particularly noticeable. Time spent on a Vision app that may have no real market for years is time you could be spending adding features, testing changes, fixing bugs, marketing, etc. Skipping on Vision Pro is really a no-brainer for most indie developers, at least for the foreseeable future.
Yes. That was my original point, just above the head of the branch where you responded. Could I have been more concise or more clear? Serious question, I am mildly retooling my prose style of late.
Ah, sorry about that. Any lack of clarity is on me; I had walked away for a bit before responding and ended up flattening the branch in my head by the time I started typing. You're fine :).
The price isn't as much of a problem for developer adoption, it's a problem for user adoption. Users aren't buying the Apple Vision Pro because it's $3500. Developers aren't writing apps for the Apple Vision Pro because it has no users.
You didn't really talk about users at all. The only part of your comment about users is "But why do that if there's no users?". There can be many reasons why there are no users, price being just one of them.
That's fair. The implication was all in the comparison with week-1 campsites for iPhones versus day-1 yawns for Vision Pro, but it's smeared across two paragraphs and should have been hoisted and made explicit. Thanks for the review!
Why the downvotes about an anecdote about the owner of (actually a couple of) software companies? She gives talks, in those talks she says she makes more money off iOS apps than other platforms. You can probably find a few of those talks on Youtube.
What killed the Vision Pro is the complete lack of support for the two main things people use VR for. Productivity is a distant third behind the likes of VR Chat and pornography. If Apple managed to capture only 1% of VR Chat's monthly userbase, they would've tripled their pathetic sales numbers.
Apple tried to focus on productivity and some light entertainment and didn't even throw the other two a bone by supporting a PC link feature. Particularly they didn't make a physical link possible - Wifi is not reliable/high bandwidth enough for most people, so those third party solutions aren't cutting it.
Apple users are mostly locked out of the existing PC VR ecosystem - Apple didn't have to rely on developers writing dedicated apps.
I bought the AVP for one thing only - long haul flights. It makes the experience completely and utterly different, and it's less than the cost of a business seat.
From the perspective of a UK flyer, $3500 for a return ticket over the Atlantic in business class looks fairly cheap. Last time i checked (with one-month advance), I was quoted 4500+ GBP.
Regardless, you don't throw away your headset after a flight, obviously, so even if the ticket were half the price you'd still come out ahead after two or three trips.
This said, headsets like AVP improve the flying experience but don't magically solve it: they are still too heavy and uncomfortable to wear for more than 1-2 hours. That's why I'm betting on the more lightweight (and cheaper) sunglass-like products to actually win that market.
It's not like there's much reason to care about comforts on short flights. Anyone can tolerate economy for an hour and you'd probably not get out your VR headset for a short hop either.
> Trust me, porn on the Vision Pro is plentiful and industry-leading.
VR pornography is quite massive in Japan for instance. Huge in fact. The Vision Pro doesn't even have a DMM.com/Fanza app for that.
I don't think most users would even consider getting a device that doesn't allow them to view their existing catalog of purchases, pornography and not.
Again, this could've been solved by simply supporting PCVR.
> VRChat, I agree, should absolutely be there and unrestricted. It wont be though. It isn't uncensored on Oculus either.
I don't think the VR Chat app on Oculus is very popular. Most users are just going to run it via PCVR for better performance, feature support, etc.
That's because they are above everyone else. Tell me — do you think this executive or any other higher-up at Apple will face any real consequences because of this?
In the absolute worst case the company will pay a fine in the order of tens of millions and the whole thing will go away. And the executive in question will get a fat bonus and promotion for his loyalty.
Well they've been getting away with it for years seemingly without any real consequences. Why should we assume corporations behave morally when there are no sanctions?
> Look at how snubbing developers has worked out for the Apple Vision Pro
I really don't think Apple's dev policies has had anything to do with this. The issue is the price - it's simply inaccessible to the vast majority of consumers, even many moderately high income consumers due to its value being somewhat unproven.
> The sheer arrogance of American leaders is astounding.
there, fixed it... the top brass at USG also behave this way, they're following the leader (or more likely the other way around, USG behaving like a private interest corporation)
It's been under a month since Apple's lawyer took over the NLRB and immediately made a bunch of lawsuits over union suppression, employee rights and widespread employee harassment go away.
I'm hoping this judge's ruling will actually be enforced by the executive branch, but I'm not holding my breath. I wonder if there are any mechanisms that allow state law enforcement to enforce federal judicial orders.
if it’s anything like wells fargo 8 million fine for opening up bank accounts in peoples names without their knowledge... after a 1 million donation to trump’s inauguration the fine will go down to 150,000 dollars.
>Look at how snubbing developers has worked out for the Apple Vision Pro. It was already a niche device, but it's a ghost town.
This isn’t really about that. The reality is that the AVP costs $3500,- and realistically, how many users are there? It’s much more likely that developers will begin building for VisionOS once Apple releases a more affordable device.
This is the reality of development when you don't have support from developers - they will follow the money.
Contrast this with early iPhone app development where people were turning out in droves EXCITED to build something.
Apple has lost the trust and enthusiasm of the developer community by making their lives harder and harder over time. Of course they aren't going to lift a finger now unless it will make them money. The same wouldn't be true if Apple provided them the support to get excited about a new platform.
> The reality is that the AVP costs $3500,- and realistically, how many users are there?
This is exactly what everyone said about the original Macintosh, which cost $7,695 in 2025 dollars. The prediction value of the price of this AVP model is close to zero.
Does Apple have the willingness to sell a hypothetical future device for cheap enough to appeal to the mass market without the third-party developers who have thus far completely ignored it? Just on what comes with it alone. Nothing but a web browser and a bunch of iPad apps. It's expensive hardware, and admittedly much of the appeal is said to come from the amazing high resolution and perfect motion input. That puts a floor on the BOM. And Apple hasn't sold a loss leader in checks watch ever? Certainly not in the past 25 years.
And remember, you need more than us on HN to spark enthusiasm amongst developers of the calibre they need. Think AAA game studios, major sports leagues to produce premium courtside experiences, etc. The only way forward I see for Apple Vision (Pro) is if they put their money to work.
They can pick:
1. Subsidize it down to upper-middle-class impulse buy/middle class splurge, so about $600-800. This is still a stretch because even at that price it's hard to justify as-is today, but iPhone Pro Max and AirPods Pro sell and they don't do that much more than what you can get for half the price.
2. Back up a truck full of cash to NBA and/or NFL for courtside/sidelines experiences at every game.
3. Back up a truck of cash to the biggest names in gaming to nab full exclusives, and make sure those games are so good even diehard Apple haters can't resist it.
Anything besides those 3, in my view, will not launch this platform.
Unfortunately their arrogance isn't false bravado. iPhones brand is extremely strong. Funny aside I know many women who won't date men who's text come up in green bubbles... thats branding.
I believe you -- though it's not surprising in the USA. Apple absolutely dominates the US market. I'd estimate of the top 75% of incomes Apple has at least an 80% market share. I live in a high-income area and the only Androids I ever see are carried by my house cleaners. And among young people it's only more intense because teens are so obsessed with brand cachet (as they always have been).
Now, on HN we know some people, though plenty wealthy enough to afford Apple, are choosing Android for function. But I doubt most of the public even thinks about that choice through that lens. Green bubble is the same as arriving to pick up your date in a 2002 Civic. It projects "I'm probably broke." Statistically. In the US only.
The sheer arrogance of Apple leaders is astounding. They think they are outright owed rent on anything that runs on an iPhone, iPad, etc. Apple thinks developers are nothing without Apple. Look at how snubbing developers has worked out for the Apple Vision Pro. It was already a niche device, but it's a ghost town.