upvote
I do disagree. They've funded macOS R&D for decades without charging developers anything. Why should iOS be any different?
reply
It's not against the law to create a better and more profitable business.
reply
It's not, it just means when they say they "need to", they lie.
reply
It should be against the law to create they kind of business they have, though
reply
Why? Android has 72% of the market in 2025. As an individual company Apple has 20% of the market. Samsung has 19%.

Just don't buy an iphone and move on with your life.

reply
Google is also listening though. They are slowly introducing similar restrictions after seeing what absurdity Apple gets away with as "compliance" of needing to also allow anyone to offer software for iOS. Our mistake is thinking it's fine that apple believers get vendor lock-in because there is still Google and Android lets you run whatever code you want. Yeah, until it doesn't
reply
I still wish to sell to users of iOS.

Apple has conveniently, for them, set themselves up as an unwanted middleman.

This is only possible for them to do because they make billions per quarter and I’m a struggling solo developer.

I can’t believe people are defending apple.

reply
Companies can't simply do that.

In fact, you will have a guarantee of failure if e.g. your messaging app doesn't support iOS

reply
go ahead and make the law then. until then it isn't
reply
Better business for a specific company doesn't mean better markets for consumers and other participants, and we make laws to ensure the latter even if it's at the expense of the former.
reply
They charged for the operating system. The first MacOS X was $130.
reply
I think the point is that they didn't charge developers anything specifically to be developers or sell apps. They just needed the same hardware and software as everybody else, which, yes, they probably had to buy.
reply
[flagged]
reply
> The developer program fee.

And the cost of the device sold to end users. And possibly other service fees such as iCloud subscriptions. These are avenues for Apple to earn money to invest in R&D.

reply
And they act like there's no motivation for R&D unless they're making this rent. I'd say if the R&D makes their devices better then they'll sell more of them and gain marketshare. They don't need the rents to justify that.
reply
Would you rather pay an exorbitant developer program fee upfront before you know your apps will make any money?

The nominal developer program fee is not designed to be Apple's profit generator. It's to keep spammers out.

reply
> It's to keep spammers out.

Doesn't seem to be working. Have you seen the App Store? You can buy 'antivirus' apps with $79.99 weekly subscriptions. On a sandboxed platform where you can't "scan" anything but yourself.

Also -- it's not that hard to make $143 in scam sales, which will pay for that $99 account.

I actually would rather the developer program fee was $2,000 if it meant it actually was harder for scammers to get in. Of course, it should be free to make apps for my own phone, and to distribute it to those in my family group.

reply
Yeah the app store really has turned into a wasteland of shit.

I don't think a $2000 fee would change that. People scamming with the $79 weekly subscription for junk make a lot more than that in the blink of an eye.

reply
there would be 100x that many spam apps if it wasn't gated by a fee, esp nowadays
reply
Of course it's to make profit
reply
My point is rather, why couldn't they just simplify and make the developer program fee tiered. So indie devs pay $99, and huge businesses pay more.
reply
No customer would buy Apple's products, which they sell with large profit margins, if Apple would not invest in its operating system and maintain a way for developers to distribute apps.

Therefore I would challenge the idea that it is fair for developers to pay Apple a 15/26% commission for the privilege of distributing apps.

If developers were one single business that Apple has to deal with to get third party apps made for their phone, they would be paying us a commission instead of the other way around.

reply
Imagine if Apple and Google and etc, didn't vendor lock-in.

Imagine we could run what we wanted. Imagine that we could use whatever payment system we wanted.

Imagine if apple wanted you to use Apple app X, it would need to compete and make it amazing, not just lock you in. Same with payment systems.

Imagine if you could replace the battery of your old phone, and use it for as long as you wished. Without Apple forcing upgrades through their usual tactics.

Apple tells me that it won't even accept applications that target pre-13 soon. And then pre-15 next year.

I hate them.

The fact that this is our current state of tech, tells me that all of the politicians are bought, and that the tech sector has rotten.

reply
deleted
reply
And you could, should, argue they make it up by charging such a high commission.
reply