marbiru

my take for one-on-one video calls is that they're hard because you have to constantly be attentive to the other person, and it seems rude to look away or do anything else, whereas in in-person conversations it's actually more possible to look in other directions and still be present. I'm not sure that applies for larger conferences, though.

>In fairness there is tons of scamware, and general garbage in the play store.

I've heard this from a few people here, but I'm not convinced that the $99 fee is the relevant differentiator -- Apple already has stricter requirements to get into the store (e.g. apps have to be "original" and can't duplicate functionality of an existing app), and it feels to me like for any particular form of scamware Apple can just ban it directly -- I'm not sure how the $99 per year fee helps, because if anything scammers/spammers are more effective at making money off their apps than most of us so should be more willing to swallow the fee. (Also I'm still annoyed that Apple is kicking out apps that have already paid the fee and been approved/authorised -- no matter what the relevant filter is those apps have already passed it)

thanks! I'm not a non-profit unfortunately, but hopefully that can be helpful for others.

A couple of people have made this Play Store spam-apps comparison but personally I feel like the more relevant differentiator is that Apple seems much more stringent on which apps it accepts (e.g. rejecting "duplicate apps" if someone else has filled the same niche already, which Play doesn't claim to do), rathe rather the $99 charge. That said, I never actually had an issue with spam apps in the Play store -- I'm sure they're out there but my experience as a user is that if I'm looking for X then the top three results are reasonable solutions to X and I'm going to pick one of them, and never get further down in the store. Has your experience been different?

hmm, ok, I take your point that the US share specifically doesn't really matter so long as Apple is pricing the developer account globally -- it definitely matters to me (in the sense that many of my users are American iPhone owners) but maybe not for the pricing analysis overall. My bad.

I still do think that Apple is employing monopolistic pricing on the app store, though -- they don't have a monopoly on the smartphone market, for sure, and indeed their smartphone prices are (certainly premium but still) constrained by the prices of other competing phones. Once a customer owns an iPhone, though, the Apple app store is the only way to reach them. And Apple's pricing for developer accounts seems to reflect that - I really don't believe $99 is the equilibrium price here, nor that policies like kicking apps out the store as soon as the developer stops paying would survive in a competitive market.

I'm absolutely not forced to publish my apps to Apple, and obviously I'm taking the option not to publish them there now. And please don't get me wrong, my apps are super trivial and nobody will actually miss them when they're gone. But it does seem sad to me that both me and my potential future users will lose out (in whatever small way) because of Apple's non-competitive developer account pricing, even when I would have been very happy to pay the fair market rate for a developer account.

To be honest my experience developing for Apple has been pretty unambiguously bad. For example, for (at least) 6 months there was a bug where users couldn't submit an App Store review unless they had a "sufficiently distinct username", but instead of notifying the user in any way to change their username the review just wouldn't submit. When I reported to Apple Support that multiple users had told me they were unable to submit reviews, Apple shunted me around from department to department and generally wasted a vast amount of my time with each department claiming it was another department's issue. To my knowledge this bug was never publicly disclosed, even though it affected every app on the store (and especially small apps that rely entirely on reviews to be noticed by new customers). And (at least in my interactions with them) Apple didn't seem to care. It sounds like your experience with them has been different, which is great, but I can't say I felt they were enabling me to build the best app I can.

Yeah, definitely, $10 a year I would pay without complaint.

also.. for the record, my main complaint is that they're kicking off apps that they've already approved if the developer doesn't continue to pay $99 every year. I don't see how that's justified by weeding out spammers or their target audience for developers or anything else.

> iOS has a 22% market share according to the first result on Google.

that's worldwide, in the U.S. they're at 45%. And it's not a traditional duopoly in that there's huge lock-in -- I can buy Coke one day and switch to Pepsi the next (or whatever), but once a customer is on a particular phone they're locked into that platform's app store. So, yeah, I think they're exercising monopolistic pricing when selling access to their app-store.

I'm not trying to be combative but... doesn't Google's one-time fee to make an account do that just as effectively? Or an annual $10 fee, or whatever?

Also, I don't want to sound hokey but... $99 might be low enough for your definition of a "serious developer" but it's not affordable for a hobbyist, a student or someone starting out in a low-income country, for example. I can make, host and distribute a website for $0 because nobody owns that ecosystem, and big companies like Github and Heroku think it's worth their while to offer free hosting and distribution to small developers -- I think Apple would do the same if they were in a competitive market, but they charge monopoly pricing because they're (currently) able to.

How does the annual fee weed out spammers exactly? Are there examples on Android of the kind of spam apps you're worried about?