Apple’s worsening relations with developers

[hrpanjwani]

Apple is really playing with fire when it comes to developer relations. For a company that has historically been forward looking in abandoning old paradigms for new ones, the refusal to update outmoded App Store features and polices is a very bizarre form of seppuku. All it does is ensure that developers will be highly guarded about making apps for Apple’s next platform.

The Vision Pro is not much of a market for app developers to target right now and hence has very few apps but I have a feeling that even if it develops into a mass market product, there will be very few apps made for it. Not only will it be cost prohibitive to make apps for it but Apple burning bridges with developers is bound to create splash back, especially if the value proposition of app development is murky. People are used to expecting free apps and getting them to pay for apps is an uphill battle.

Apple really needs to find a better balance in dealing with developers before it loses all goodwill with them.

 

[Bonusround]

Do you say this as an Apple developer yourself, or from listening to the chatter of the Apple commentariat and/or Apple developers?

 

[hrpanjwani]

Do you say this as an Apple developer your, or from listening to the chatter of the Apple commentariat and/or Apple developers?

The latter.

 

[ant1pathy]

Developers are not a monolith.

The Apple commentariat must be complaining about something at all times. For all the sturm und drang about the App Store, you never really hear a peep about "so I'll go to this other platform that is better". I'm old enough to remember the slack-jaw disbelief at "you're saying I get to take home 70% and you'll handle all of the hosting and distribution?! I cannot sign up fast enough".

As both a consumer and general IT support person for my family, the App Store is an incredible blessing. I am A Smart Computer Person, and on my personal machines I have a huge flash of irritation when I have to do the "check all the programs one by one for updates" instead of one-stop-shop App Store route.

I find myself rolling my eyes at all of the developer bitching. I don't want a personal relationship with the developers of the software I use. I don't want them to have my email or have any method of contacting me besides their app (and if they're obnoxious with it in their app, I'll happily uninstall). How quickly they forget the bad old days. Dollars to donuts (although isn't that saying totally aged out...) that 3 months into the old way it would be a flood back to the App Store model.

 

[Bonusround]

I'm old enough to remember the slack-jaw disbelief at "you're saying I get to take home 70% and you'll handle all of the hosting and distribution?!

This

App stores for cellular devices existed before the iPhone. Each carrier ran their own store and often took a 60% cut. Yes, the developer kept only 40% of gross.

How would you like dealing with four different app stores, each with its own rules and requirements? How would you enjoy suffering the capricious Verizon, who took a curated, Nintendo-style approach that demanded 6-9 months of courting just to grant you the privilege of submitting your app to them? Care to haggle with the third-party testing firms these companies hired to approve or block your app? Want to guess why I know any of this?

Apple did the world a HUGE favor by breaking this system apart. It's one of several reasons why the Verizon-compatible iPhone arrived as late as it did.

Do I think Apple could lower its cut today? Yeah. Do I think they were wrong to start at 30%? No. Steam's cut begins at 30%, console storefronts take 30%. Retailers, back in the day of boxed software, marked up wholesale by half (thus taking a third). It was a completely legitimate starting place for Apple.

 

[cateye]

I'm going to make an observation here: The opening post is speaking directly to Apple's relationship to developers. Quickly, the conversation has become about the relationship of end users to developers and Apple's App Stores. I'd like to see if we can better focus on the former rather than the latter. And I think the starting point should be to define: What actually is "bad" about Apple's relationship to its developer community?

The answer probably isn't black and white: A developer can be both a champion for Apple and its platforms, and express exasperation at what the marriage looks like (see: literally any episode of the ATP podcast). Indeed, that unease has been core to Apple's relationship to its developers since long before the App Stores; since almost the beginning. It's turned "Apple is bad at developer relationships" into a meme. The OP's post sounds accurate without defining a single real problem we can point at and say: Yes, that. That's what Apple does wrong.

So what are we talking about here: Is it MacOS developers, or those developing for the Walled Gardens (iOS, iPadOS, VisionOS, etc.)? If it's the latter, is it just about the App Store legal controversies, and therefore money, or are there other problems, like APIs, documentation, developer outreach, etc?

For that matter, declaring developer concerns null because Apple has created a construct that serve end users feels like a huge cop-out, and is only accurate if you feel the platform is more important than the software that runs on it. And maybe this is what's at the heart of this discontent: Apple's desire to closely control the relationship to what it feels, and what it has defined, are its users, not a developer's users.

Is any of this different than developers who work primarily on software for Windows, or Android developers, or developers in the open source community? If so, why is it different? And what should Apple do about it, versus what is "not their problem"?

 

[Bonusround]

FWIW, the OP was asked whether they are a developer. My post above was written entirely from the perspective of a mobile studio / developer. The end-user just sees a storefront and taps buy.

To the OP's point about Vision Pro development, this is more a question of where Apple's headset (and VR in general) sits in terms of a mass market. For developers working on custom enterprise apps with Vision Pro (and there are many), life is pretty good.

 

[educated_foo]

I don't want a personal relationship with the developers of the software I use.

Maybe it makes me weird, but I do. I can email them for support, they can email me about interesting new features, and we can both spam filter each other if things go off the rails.

 

[cateye]

How would you like dealing with four different app stores, each with its own rules and requirements? How would you enjoy suffering the capricious Verizon, who took a curated, Nintendo-style approach that demanded 6-9 months of courting just to grant you the privilege of submitting your app to them? Care to haggle with the third-party testing firms these companies hired to approve or block your app? Want to guess why I know any of this?

Apple did the world a HUGE favor by breaking this system apart. It's one of several reasons why the Verizon-compatible iPhone arrived as late as it did.

Apple consolidated many over-bearing, capricious systems for software distribution on mobile devices into one over-bearing, capricious system for software distribution on its mobile devices. "Better" is a relative construct.

Yes, to be fair, there are a lot of problems that are unsolvable without a benevolent dictator at the helm. Problems of end-user experience (to the extent that they are actual problems; I'm with educated_foo here, but I realize we're the outliers) in particular aren't going to be solved any other way, and that's one of the defining graces of Apple's App Store system.

I don't think either system necessarily works in the best interests of the developer, however.

 

[Bonusround]

Apple literally consolidated many broken, over-bearing, capricious systems for software distribution on mobile devices into one over-bearing, capricious system for software distribution on its mobile devices.

Does Apple have too much power over app distribution on its most popular platforms? Is the world better off with more open systems, overall, modulo valid security concerns? Yes. I sincerely hope Apple's newfound flexibilities in the EU are made global.

Better is a relative construct.

Sure. But let's debase ourselves on focus solely upon $$ for a moment. Developers have to eat. Keeping 70% of what your users pay vs. only 40%? That's pretty black & white. It's better in a relative sense, sure, but it's a lot better in an absolute sense, too.

 

[cateye]

Totally! No disagreement there. We can confidently say, if comparing against how mobile applications were sold and distributed before or how traditional boxed software was sold at retail, Apple's single-point-of-contact stores are definitely procedurally and probably financially a better deal for developers. Of course, that's going to be practically meaningful only for a developer who has experienced both systems, such as yourself, and not as meaningful for a developer who has only known the current system and is up against its unique limitations. Perspective being what it is, and all.

But let's not get hung up on that. I want to know if the presumed truism that Apple has "bad" developer relations exists beyond the thorny issue of how it runs its mobile App Stores. The MacOS App Store is purely opt-in, and clearly most developers choose not to because it's a bit of a ghost town given the massive wealth of software available for Macs. Yet the presumption is that even exclusively Mac developers, free to produce whatever they want and distribute it however they like, are unhappy with how Apple runs its house.

 

[Bonusround]

When I tune into the Apple commentariat, which is frequently populated by developers, the biggest voices and loudest complaints are about Tim Cook's relationship to and handling of the current US Administration. And Liquid Glass.

Back to the OP:

For a company that has historically been forward looking in abandoning old paradigms for new ones, the refusal to update outmoded App Store features and polices is a very bizarre form of seppuku. All it does is ensure that developers will be highly guarded about making apps for Apple’s next platform.

@hrpanjwani, in an effort to anchor the discussion, please give examples of the feature and policies you're thinking of, and whether you're more focussed on Mac or iOS/iPad, because their App Stores are very different in practice and impact.

 

[dspariI]

I don't personally work on custom enterprise apps for Vison Pro, but I do work adjacent to people that do some in-house VR development. What I've heard from them is that the hardware is the best, but the lack of OpenXR support was a hard roadblock for them. There doesn't even seem to be a third party implementation for it even now aside from some abandoned project on GitHub.

 

[ant1pathy]

The answer probably isn't black and white: A developer can be both a champion for Apple and its platforms, and express exasperation at what the marriage looks like (see: literally any episode of the ATP podcast). Indeed, that unease has been core to Apple's relationship to its developers since long before the App Stores; since almost the beginning. It's turned "Apple is bad at developer relationships" into a meme. The OP's post sounds accurate without defining a single real problem we can point at and say: Yes, that. That's what Apple does wrong.

When I tune into the Apple commentariat, which is frequently populated by developers, the biggest voices and loudest complaints are about Tim Cook's relationship to and handling of the current US Administration. And Liquid Glass.

I honestly think is not a small part about it. Things in the US, and the world, are in a bad place right now. And that discontent and concern and fear bleeds over into everything. What might have been a minor irritation blows up into something major because of unreleased pressure in another area.

 

[Northbynorth]

Apple have been a mixed blessing for developers.

In the 90s I was at a career crossroad and was temped to start develop shareware for Mac.
I signed on a developer program, Got loads of push to develop using Open Doc and QuickDraw GX. Tried my best to get into it. A year later no one talked about either of them, and I was not a Mac developer.

 

[Bonusround]

I honestly think is not a small part about it. Things in the US, and the world, are in a bad place right now. And that discontent and concern and fear bleeds over into everything. What might have been a minor irritation blows up into something major because of unreleased pressure in another area.

Well-observed and stated.

 

[wrylachlan]

Honestly I think AI radically changes the relationship between the developer and Apple. It is vastly speeding up the velocity with which organizations can make updates and push them out. That’s putting more pressure on the App Store review process and leading to slow downs. It’s also creating general uneasiness in the developer community around job security. When a marginally proficient person can vibe code a whole app and put it on the App Store, that doesn’t bode well for developers ability to monetize their knowledge. This of course has nothing to do with Apple specifically but it is another stressor on all developer relationships.

Also Apple was somewhat slow to embrace agentic coding and while they’re working to bolt it onto XCode there’s certainly the sense as an Xcode developer that others are using cooler tools than you are.

I don’t think any of these things are fatal, but it is a decently fraught time to be a developer.

 

[educated_foo]

It is vastly speeding up the velocity with which organizations can make updates and push them out. That’s putting more pressure on the App Store review process and leading to slow downs.

If you’re emitting slop that fast, I don’t want it anywhere near my computer.

 

[wrylachlan]

If you’re emitting slop that fast, I don’t want it anywhere near my computer.

Sorry, but you’re not paying attention. We’re way past “all it can do is slop”. I’d encourage you to take a look in the coding with AI thread in the programming forum.

Now that’s not to say that this technology isn’t also enabling some level of slop from developers who were already sloppy. Of course that’s true. But it’s also radically accelerating very good developers allowing them to release more good features faster. And we’re frankly still in the infancy here - I’d say that Opus is the first model that made this workflow meaningfully good.

If you haven’t used Opus I don’t think I can fully convey to you just how good a job it does.

 

[ant1pathy]

In a world of AI driven development, it feels more appropriate than ever to have an App Store model with restricted APIs and one-location updates and easy uninstalls etc etc etc. Developers can rail against this all they want, but in the end consumer preference will win out. Looking at the EU, with the new open App Store thing. What's the market penetration? How has it been profit wise for developers? I haven't heard a peep about the floodgates of revenue (or even software opportunities) that it's unlocked.

 

[Bonusround]

A second to Opus, it can code. I haven't seen it wisely architect, but that's what we humans are still here for. For now.

 

[Mhorydyn]

But let's debase ourselves on focus solely upon $$ for a moment. Developers have to eat. Keeping 70% of what your users pay vs. only 40%? That's pretty black & white. It's better in a relative sense, sure, but it's a lot better in an absolute sense, too.

Just chiming in that it’s actually 85% now, if you make less than a million per year. The process to apply for the small business program is silly and annoying, but it works. It should be automatic, and it should be progressive instead of kicking you out of the program entirely if you earn a million plus one in a given year, for some examples of the annoyances.

 

[wrylachlan]

A second to Opus, it can code. I haven't seen it wisely architect, but that's what we humans are still here for. For now.

Ish. It reaaaaaallly helps to have long planning sessions and it really helps those long planning sessions to have some opinionated principles of software architecture in its context window while you’re planning. So yeah, I’m still the one saying “I think that we should decompose this object into two more focused objects” but with the right prompting Opus can get you very much into the right ballpark of good software architecture.

 

[Bonusround]

It reaaaaaallly helps to have long planning sessions and it really helps those long planning sessions to have some opinionated principles of software architecture in its context window while you’re planning.

Exactly.

 

[hrpanjwani]

in an effort to anchor the discussion, please give examples of the feature and policies you're thinking of, and whether you're more focussed on Mac or iOS/iPad, because their App Stores are very different in practice and impact.

My focus is more on iOS/iPadOS given that the only source of apps on these devices is the App Store.

I don’t think we need 3rd party app stores as that will probably lead to app fragmentation (epic apps only available on epics store) and more headaches for Apple in ensuring security and compliance, which is not good for users.

I am also fine with the 70/30 split. As others have said, this was a much better deal for developers than what they used to get from box stores. Apple invests significantly in infrastructure and deserves compensation for it.

That’s being said, the market today is very different from what it was a couple of decades ago. I think the current App Store policies don’t reflect this reality.

Apple should develop a method so that an app can be upgraded to a new version and allow developers to charge an upgrade fee. Right now, the only way to do this is to release a new app. This leads to the issue of either sunsetting the old app or providing support for multiple apps. This is how most of apps work on the Mac and it’s time that iOS/iPadOS apps started working this way too.

Additionally, ads within apps have become very obnoxious and psychologically manipulative. Apple needs to crack down on this behaviour to show that they still care about software quality.

The main change that I would like to see is in the app development fee. Given that the market has different types of developers (large,medium,indie) Apple should do away with the oversimplistic $100/year fee. Larger developers like FB and Netflix issue virtually fortnightly updates, thus demanding more of Apple’s time and resources. As such their fee should be proportionally higher, let’s say something like $50,000/year. Medium developers demand significantly less resources and should be charged something like $2000-5000/year. The $100/year feee can continue for indies.

Changing these fees as a new source of revenue also allows for the possibility of making the 70/30 split 80/20. There can also be different splits for different types of developers.

 

[hrpanjwani]

Developers are not a monolith.

The Apple commentariat must be complaining about something at all times. For all the sturm und drang about the App Store, you never really hear a peep about "so I'll go to this other platform that is better". I'm old enough to remember the slack-jaw disbelief at "you're saying I get to take home 70% and you'll handle all of the hosting and distribution?! I cannot sign up fast enough".

As both a consumer and general IT support person for my family, the App Store is an incredible blessing. I am A Smart Computer Person, and on my personal machines I have a huge flash of irritation when I have to do the "check all the programs one by one for updates" instead of one-stop-shop App Store route.

I find myself rolling my eyes at all of the developer bitching. I don't want a personal relationship with the developers of the software I use. I don't want them to have my email or have any method of contacting me besides their app (and if they're obnoxious with it in their app, I'll happily uninstall). How quickly they forget the bad old days. Dollars to donuts (although isn't that saying totally aged out...) that 3 months into the old way it would be a flood back to the App Store model.

Yes the App Store is very good for users and I am not arguing for throwing out the baby with the bathwater. However, bureaucracy that does not appreciate this and only sees Apple as a juggernaut may very well end up passing laws that end up doing so. Hence it would be better for all if Apple proactively tried to make improvements on their own (I have outlined some improvements I would like to see in the post above this one, do share your views on them)

Also, regarding checking for updates one by one. I used to use Macupdater on my Mac's for this but now that they are defunct I have switched to CleanMyMac. Have you ever used either of these to manage updates on your mac?

 

[hrpanjwani]

In a world of AI driven development, it feels more appropriate than ever to have an App Store model with restricted APIs and one-location updates and easy uninstalls etc etc etc. Developers can rail against this all they want, but in the end consumer preference will win out. Looking at the EU, with the new open App Store thing. What's the market penetration? How has it been profit wise for developers? I haven't heard a peep about the floodgates of revenue (or even software opportunities) that it's unlocked.

Third party AppStore’s are generally going to be DOA. Unless companies do things like remove their offerings from Apples App Store and only have them on third party stores. A company like FB or Epic probably has enough of a loyal user base that they can probably succeed in trying to leave Apples App Store and making their apps available only on app stores that they own. This would not be good for users.

 

[hrpanjwani]

Maybe it makes me weird, but I do. I can email them for support, they can email me about interesting new features, and we can both spam filter each other if things go off the rails.

Yup, sometimes getting support from developers can be difficult. For example, there was this game I purchased called Tsuro that had pass and play, play with computer and online play. One fine day online play simply stopped working and there was no way to contact the developer to figure out why. A similar thing happed with a game called Sevn.

I have a radical solution to this problem. Apple should institute a purchase program for apps that risk becoming adandonware. Let’s say if a developer can’t make the economics of supporting an app work anymore, they should have an option for selling their app to Apple. I am not saying that Apple should buy all such apps, they can pick and choose.

This is a win win situation for all sides. The dev gets some money for their efforts, users get to keep using the app and Apple gets to build a library of apps. Maybe the apps that Apple acquires like this can become a part of Apple Arcade.

 

[hrpanjwani]

For developers working on custom enterprise apps with Vision Pro (and there are many), life is pretty good.

That’s interesting. Has there been a significantly higher purchase of Vision Pro’s by enterprises than by consumers? Any stats available on this?

 

[hrpanjwani]

When I tune into the Apple commentariat, which is frequently populated by developers, the biggest voices and loudest complaints are about Tim Cook's relationship to and handling of the current US Administration. And Liquid Glass.

Given what this admin has done to Anthropic, I think Cook’s handing of Trump has had to tread a fine line between protecting Apple and protecting his personal integrity. So far he seems to have chosen the former. Sad situation but unfortunately necessary too.

I have more of a problem with Cook being an over optimizer. He remains the master of earning the marginal dollar for Apple but that has necessitated giving less value to users over time. Removing earphones from iphone boxes was probably his worst move as I think it has directly led to the problem of people listening to content on their speakers in public.

 

[Bonusround]

Given what this admin has done to Anthropic, I think Cook’s handing of Trump has had to tread a fine line between protecting Apple and protecting his personal integrity. So far he seems to have chosen the former. Sad situation but unfortunately necessary too.

Hear, hear. This administration could completely devastate Apple's finances and stock with its extra-legal tariffs. The idiots lambasting Cook for smooching Trump's ass are completely out of touch.

I have more of a problem with Cook being an over optimizer. He remains the master of earning the marginal dollar for Apple but that has necessitated giving less value to users over time. Removing earphones from iphone boxes was probably his worst move as I think it has directly led to the problem of people listening to content on their speakers in public.

Heh, that's the first time I've read that take on earbuds – nice. Removing them as default pack-ins is, ostensibly, a gesture against e-waste. But Apple should have figured a way to supply these accessories to new buyers of iPhones on a one-time basis, at significant discount. Those who care enough can take them up. Win-win, no?

That’s interesting. Has there been a significantly higher purchase of Vision Pro’s by enterprises than by consumers? Any stats available on this?

No numbers, just anecdata from friends and others I follow. Supporting evidence: Apple's addition of enterprise-friendly features to Vision OS.

Apple should develop a method so that an app can be upgraded to a new version and allow developers to charge an upgrade fee. Right now, the only way to do this is to release a new app. This leads to the issue of either sunsetting the old app or providing support for multiple apps. This is how most of apps work on the Mac and it’s time that iOS/iPadOS apps started working this way too.

Yeah, I hear you. I think an upgrade fee feels better to users because it's familiar from the past and offers an element of control. For developers the subscription model is superior in many ways, most significantly: 1) regular, recurring revenue to the dev, and 2) promotes sane development via gradual feature/work accretion. Upgrade models encourage the holding-back or 'bundling' of feature work into big releases, which is not a good pattern for software development.

Let's recognize: Apple already enforces a silent upgrade model upon developers. Their OS/platform train keeps barreling ahead. Keeping your apps on-board that moving train can represent a significant effort for devs, and this all happens on Apple's schedule. Users have come to expect forward compatibility from their apps... now just try extracting an 'upgrade fee' from users for making the app they already paid for run on their new iPhone.

It took me a while to come around to it, but the more a platform operates like a living and evolving service, the better the subscription model fits long-term.

 

[hrpanjwani]

Heh, that's the first time I've read that take on earbuds – nice. Removing them as default pack-ins is, ostensibly, a gesture against e-waste. But Apple should have figured a way to supply these accessories to new buyers of iPhones on a one-time basis, at significant discount. Those who care enough can take them up. Win-win, no?

I think the e-waste reason is something of a fig leaf. Removing things from the box made it significantly smaller and allowed Apple to transport more of them on the same flight, improving their logistics. Apple wins and users lose.

Apple could have done what you say and provide cheaper accessories with purchase but Cook does not think that way. He is in too much love with the marginal dollar that he can earn for Apple.

It took me a while to come around to it, but the more a platform operates like a living and evolving service, the better the subscription model fits long-term.

Yup, the subscription model is here to stay and makes a lot of sense for many apps and services. But not for all of them. Hence having an upgrade mechanism in place can extract more value for all involved. It works perfectly on the Mac and should work similarly on iOS/iPadOS.

 

[japtor]

As far as upgrades vs subs, there's a kind of hybrid way I've seen some devs do. Well probably more than one way of doing it, but for the ones I'm thinking of the purchase gives you updates and support for X time period. You own and can run the app indefinitely like a standard purchase, but can only get updates up to the end of the support period.

I'm not sure if that's possible through the App Store, but it does remind me of another approach I've seen there. Something where feature sets are single purchase, but they'll occasionally add new feature sets as a form of purchasable upgrades in a sense.

 

[educated_foo]

Upgrade models encourage the holding-back or 'bundling' of feature work into big releases, which is not a good pattern for software development.

Software gavage is cruelty IMHO. I’d rather buy software that has some features and a support policy (ie bug fixes), and then decide at some later date if I want different features. “Force everyone to use whatever passed our tests last night” is just user hostility.

 

[hrpanjwani]

As far as upgrades vs subs, there's a kind of hybrid way I've seen some devs do. Well probably more than one way of doing it, but for the ones I'm thinking of the purchase gives you updates and support for X time period. You own and can run the app indefinitely like a standard purchase, but can only get updates up to the end of the support period.

I'm not sure if that's possible through the App Store, but it does remind me of another approach I've seen there. Something where feature sets are single purchase, but they'll occasionally add new feature sets as a form of purchasable upgrades in a sense.

Isn’t this something that istat menus does on the mac?

 

[MacFan4]

Software gavage is cruelty IMHO. I’d rather buy software that has some features and a support policy (ie bug fixes), and then decide at some later date if I want different features. “Force everyone to use whatever passed our tests last night” is just user hostility.

100% agree. The last thing I want is constantly changing new bugs and new features that can't be disabled. Apple should be more disciplined about making sure operating system updates do not break existing apps. Developers should not have to run on a treadmill just to keep existing apps working on new operating system releases.

 

[wrylachlan]

Software gavage is cruelty IMHO. I’d rather buy software that has some features and a support policy (ie bug fixes), and then decide at some later date if I want different features. “Force everyone to use whatever passed our tests last night” is just user hostility.

I think you’ve got this exactly backwards. Software systems are intricate many-layered things. When you try to add multiple features concurrently, they tend to interact with each other creating a large bug surface. It’s MUCH easier to release 10 features sequentially each one with a full testing suite for how that one feature interacts with the existing code base at the time.

Additionally, every software has bugs - it’s a fact of life of any sufficiently large code base. When you discover a bug you need to fix it in every version of your software still in use that has it. But when you fix a bug it can sometimes break other features as an unintended side effect. So you then need to test your bug fix against every version of your software still in use.

So if you actually care about software quality then subscription is the system for you. Features come out one at a time and can be fully tested in isolation. And bug fixes only ever have to be tested against the current version putting all the wood behind one arrow.

 

[dspariI]

The problem with subscriptions is that the normalization of them has had awful effects. The best case is as you describe, but things rarely get to that level even for an app that's otherwise okay. One that actively irritates me is Halide. It does offer a purchase of $60 which is way too high for what you actually get, the monthly subscription is outright predatory ($10), and there's so little development over time that the yearly subscription also feels a little scammy.

 

[educated_foo]

I understand how a version treadmill with automated tests is cheaper for software companies: they only have to maintain one version, and can force it upon users whenever the tests pass. But I’m also old enough to remember when software came in boxes and cost real money. Developers had to care a lot more about what they shipped, and had to make a compelling case for users to pay for a new version.

Would Mac OS Tahoe exist if Apple had significant human QA, or users had to pay $100 to switch to it? My guess is “no,” and that adoption is mostly driven by users beaten into accepting the default of automatic updates, not deciding “hell yeah, I want that!”

 

[wrylachlan]

I understand how a version treadmill with automated tests is cheaper for software companies: they only have to maintain one version, and can force it upon users whenever the tests pass. But I’m also old enough to remember when software came in boxes and cost real money. Developers had to care a lot more about what they shipped, and had to make a compelling case for users to pay for a new version.

Would Mac OS Tahoe exist if Apple had significant human QA, or users had to pay $100 to switch to it? My guess is “no,” and that adoption is mostly driven by users beaten into accepting the default of automatic updates, not deciding “hell yeah, I want that!”

This makes no sense to me. On the one hand Tahoe is exactly the kind of “bundle a bunch of features into one update” software development that is hard to test. It’s a great example of why you don’t want bundled updates! (Yes I know OSes are a bit different than third party software but most of the principles still hold.)

And of course not all software has enough runway to support a subscription system - no one is subscribing to a timer app. If you’re offering your software via subscription and you run out of meaningful features to add, people will jump to a competitor that is not a subscription. Put another way - those apps whose next update would have sold well in an infrequent update world are better off with subscription. Those apps whose next update would not have sold well deserve to have their lunch eaten by competitors.