Loopy Pro: Create music, your way.

What is Loopy Pro? — Loopy Pro is a powerful, flexible, and intuitive live looper, sampler, clip launcher and DAW for iPhone and iPad. At its core, it allows you to record and layer sounds in real-time to create complex musical arrangements. But it doesn’t stop there—Loopy Pro offers advanced tools to customize your workflow, build dynamic performance setups, and create a seamless connection between instruments, effects, and external gear.

Use it for live looping, sequencing, arranging, mixing, and much more. Whether you're a live performer, a producer, or just experimenting with sound, Loopy Pro helps you take control of your creative process.

Download on the App Store

Loopy Pro is your all-in-one musical toolkit. Try it for free today.

Apple says apps that haven't been updated in two years will be "removed from sale"

12467…10

Comments

  • espiegel123espiegel123

    @wim said:

    @NeuM said:

    @cyberheater said:
    Hopefully will nudge Korg to update their apps to AUV3.

    That's another good example. Korg has been getting a free ride as far as I'm concerned. They should update their apps. No excuses.

    Why? As long as they continue to work, on what do you base the obligation to continue to update them? Because you paid once for an app, the developer is obligated to continue to add value to it indefinitely? Have you purchased any other goods or services that work that way?

    Any company is entitled to decide whether the return on investment for updating an app justifies the cost of doing so. They certainly are in a better position to determine that than you or I.

    Considering an app that works as "complete" is not the same as "abandoning" it.

    +1

    The notion that developers need to put additional work in to keep the apps available for sale even if they work well is terrible ESPECIALLY given the low return on time invested that most music apps receive. A number of developers I know have more or less abandoned iOS because the “pay a pittance, get free updates forever” model has proven to be unsustainable.

  • NeonSiliconNeonSilicon

    @NeuM said:

    @NeonSilicon said:

    @NeuM said:

    @NeonSilicon said:

    @NeuM said:

    @NeonSilicon said:

    Apple said:
    We are implementing an ongoing process of evaluating apps, removing apps that no longer function as intended, don’t follow current review guidelines, or are outdated.

    That wouldn't be so bad if the App Store review teams actually knew what they were doing. It's hard enough to deal with the normal review process when submitting an AU. The thought that they are going to be doing periodic retroactive reviews really doesn't make me want to submit anything new to the App Store at all.

    But you actually update your apps, so you’re exempt.

    Is it fair to Apple or customers to have thousands (or possibly hundreds of thousands) of questionable apps which haven’t been updated in years occupying space on the App Store, making searches less valuable and more difficult for customers?

    I mean, I see your point, but they’re also a business and they have to be able to set restrictions if the store is overloaded with old abandoned apps, right?

    There are numerous app acquisition companies which buy up and hoard dozens of apps in an attempt to scrape out the last bit of value from them, but since they’re not developers, they never update those apps. I’d like to see those bottom feeders driven off the App Store.

    What's an abandoned app? Like I said above, most of the code in iOS hasn't been touched in years to decades. Apple finally tossed some UI's on some of the builtin AU's that have been around since before iOS existed in the last year. Those were very useful tools that are used in all sorts of applications and they really didn't need any updating (except moving them to 64-bit when that happened). Would the reviewers on the App Store team send Apple a removal notice for those?

    From my point-of-view, if the software works, it doesn't violate any privacy terms, and the dev is paying Apple the $100 required to have things on the App Store, then it isn't abandoned.

    If the problem is that the App Store is a sucking pile of garbage to find quality software on -- and, it is -- then Apple needs to fix their search. I will give Apple some credit, at least if I do an actual search for an app by name, I can find it. This is miles ahead of Google and Amazon in the last year or so.

    Here’s the perfect example of an abandoned app. This used to be a great app, but the developers sold it to an app acquisition company (called “App Holdings”), which holds a dumpster load of old and abandoned apps. The app hasn’t been updated in SEVEN years. This is a DEAD APP and that company is holding dozens of dead apps. And there are a LOT of deadbeat companies like this one on the App Store (I imagine the problem is 10x worse on the Android store). This is garbage that should either be updated to work on the latest version of iOS or it should be axed once and for all.

    https://apps.apple.com/us/app/pearl-guitar/id681094559

    Sounds like you think Oracle should be forced to dump Solaris. Or, Computer Associates should be closed up by the govt. for selling old outdated B2B software that they just purchased from other companies.

    According to the App Store, that app looks like it is compatible with my M1 Mac and runs on the latest iPadOS. Why does it need to be updated? Some people may actually still like that app. Although, given that Apple gives away GB for free with its Smart Guitar, I'd guess that Apple probably kinda killed the interest in the app. Still, for anyone that might want the app, why should it be unavailable to them?

    The App Store clearly shows how long ago it's been since it was updated. If Apple added the order by update date I suggested above, you could make sure you never saw it in a search and wouldn't need to worry about. But, people who might actually want that app could still find it.

    And by the way, that app is NOT compatible with M1 computers.

    That is interesting. This is what it shows on my Intel iMac,

  • NeuMNeuM
    edited April 2022

    @NeonSilicon said:

    @NeuM said:

    @NeonSilicon said:

    @NeuM said:

    @NeonSilicon said:

    @NeuM said:

    @NeonSilicon said:

    Apple said:
    We are implementing an ongoing process of evaluating apps, removing apps that no longer function as intended, don’t follow current review guidelines, or are outdated.

    That wouldn't be so bad if the App Store review teams actually knew what they were doing. It's hard enough to deal with the normal review process when submitting an AU. The thought that they are going to be doing periodic retroactive reviews really doesn't make me want to submit anything new to the App Store at all.

    But you actually update your apps, so you’re exempt.

    Is it fair to Apple or customers to have thousands (or possibly hundreds of thousands) of questionable apps which haven’t been updated in years occupying space on the App Store, making searches less valuable and more difficult for customers?

    I mean, I see your point, but they’re also a business and they have to be able to set restrictions if the store is overloaded with old abandoned apps, right?

    There are numerous app acquisition companies which buy up and hoard dozens of apps in an attempt to scrape out the last bit of value from them, but since they’re not developers, they never update those apps. I’d like to see those bottom feeders driven off the App Store.

    What's an abandoned app? Like I said above, most of the code in iOS hasn't been touched in years to decades. Apple finally tossed some UI's on some of the builtin AU's that have been around since before iOS existed in the last year. Those were very useful tools that are used in all sorts of applications and they really didn't need any updating (except moving them to 64-bit when that happened). Would the reviewers on the App Store team send Apple a removal notice for those?

    From my point-of-view, if the software works, it doesn't violate any privacy terms, and the dev is paying Apple the $100 required to have things on the App Store, then it isn't abandoned.

    If the problem is that the App Store is a sucking pile of garbage to find quality software on -- and, it is -- then Apple needs to fix their search. I will give Apple some credit, at least if I do an actual search for an app by name, I can find it. This is miles ahead of Google and Amazon in the last year or so.

    Here’s the perfect example of an abandoned app. This used to be a great app, but the developers sold it to an app acquisition company (called “App Holdings”), which holds a dumpster load of old and abandoned apps. The app hasn’t been updated in SEVEN years. This is a DEAD APP and that company is holding dozens of dead apps. And there are a LOT of deadbeat companies like this one on the App Store (I imagine the problem is 10x worse on the Android store). This is garbage that should either be updated to work on the latest version of iOS or it should be axed once and for all.

    https://apps.apple.com/us/app/pearl-guitar/id681094559

    Sounds like you think Oracle should be forced to dump Solaris. Or, Computer Associates should be closed up by the govt. for selling old outdated B2B software that they just purchased from other companies.

    According to the App Store, that app looks like it is compatible with my M1 Mac and runs on the latest iPadOS. Why does it need to be updated? Some people may actually still like that app. Although, given that Apple gives away GB for free with its Smart Guitar, I'd guess that Apple probably kinda killed the interest in the app. Still, for anyone that might want the app, why should it be unavailable to them?

    The App Store clearly shows how long ago it's been since it was updated. If Apple added the order by update date I suggested above, you could make sure you never saw it in a search and wouldn't need to worry about. But, people who might actually want that app could still find it.

    And by the way, that app is NOT compatible with M1 computers.

    That is interesting. This is what it shows on my Intel iMac,

    I have an M1 iMac running macOS 12.3.1. Clearly something isn't being evaluated accurately.

  • NeonSiliconNeonSilicon

    @NeuM said:

    @NeonSilicon said:

    @NeuM said:

    @NeonSilicon said:

    @NeuM said:

    @NeonSilicon said:

    @NeuM said:

    @NeonSilicon said:

    Apple said:
    We are implementing an ongoing process of evaluating apps, removing apps that no longer function as intended, don’t follow current review guidelines, or are outdated.

    That wouldn't be so bad if the App Store review teams actually knew what they were doing. It's hard enough to deal with the normal review process when submitting an AU. The thought that they are going to be doing periodic retroactive reviews really doesn't make me want to submit anything new to the App Store at all.

    But you actually update your apps, so you’re exempt.

    Is it fair to Apple or customers to have thousands (or possibly hundreds of thousands) of questionable apps which haven’t been updated in years occupying space on the App Store, making searches less valuable and more difficult for customers?

    I mean, I see your point, but they’re also a business and they have to be able to set restrictions if the store is overloaded with old abandoned apps, right?

    There are numerous app acquisition companies which buy up and hoard dozens of apps in an attempt to scrape out the last bit of value from them, but since they’re not developers, they never update those apps. I’d like to see those bottom feeders driven off the App Store.

    What's an abandoned app? Like I said above, most of the code in iOS hasn't been touched in years to decades. Apple finally tossed some UI's on some of the builtin AU's that have been around since before iOS existed in the last year. Those were very useful tools that are used in all sorts of applications and they really didn't need any updating (except moving them to 64-bit when that happened). Would the reviewers on the App Store team send Apple a removal notice for those?

    From my point-of-view, if the software works, it doesn't violate any privacy terms, and the dev is paying Apple the $100 required to have things on the App Store, then it isn't abandoned.

    If the problem is that the App Store is a sucking pile of garbage to find quality software on -- and, it is -- then Apple needs to fix their search. I will give Apple some credit, at least if I do an actual search for an app by name, I can find it. This is miles ahead of Google and Amazon in the last year or so.

    Here’s the perfect example of an abandoned app. This used to be a great app, but the developers sold it to an app acquisition company (called “App Holdings”), which holds a dumpster load of old and abandoned apps. The app hasn’t been updated in SEVEN years. This is a DEAD APP and that company is holding dozens of dead apps. And there are a LOT of deadbeat companies like this one on the App Store (I imagine the problem is 10x worse on the Android store). This is garbage that should either be updated to work on the latest version of iOS or it should be axed once and for all.

    https://apps.apple.com/us/app/pearl-guitar/id681094559

    Sounds like you think Oracle should be forced to dump Solaris. Or, Computer Associates should be closed up by the govt. for selling old outdated B2B software that they just purchased from other companies.

    According to the App Store, that app looks like it is compatible with my M1 Mac and runs on the latest iPadOS. Why does it need to be updated? Some people may actually still like that app. Although, given that Apple gives away GB for free with its Smart Guitar, I'd guess that Apple probably kinda killed the interest in the app. Still, for anyone that might want the app, why should it be unavailable to them?

    The App Store clearly shows how long ago it's been since it was updated. If Apple added the order by update date I suggested above, you could make sure you never saw it in a search and wouldn't need to worry about. But, people who might actually want that app could still find it.

    Why should Apple be required to do things which are antithetical to their business model? The short answer: They shouldn’t. They should regularly jettison things which conflict with their ability to move technology forward.

    They shouldn't be required to do anything. They should have been blocked from buying up all technology companies that would allow other companies to compete with them. Or maybe, patents should all be blocked as they are supposed to enable advancement and innovation in the market but they actually work to do the exact opposite. There's all sorts of political and economic arguments that we could have, but you and I both know that we are going to disagree on these points anyway.

    As a practical matter, my main thing is that the iPad could be so much more than Apple allows it to be. All they need to do is get out of the way. The other point is that Apple is actively driving me away from developing for iOS. I have three pretty much complete AU's that I could release, but I'm simply tired of dealing with Apple. Their campaign to turn users against third party devs and make end users suspicious of all the evil developers is beyond tiring.

    I don't see any of this in the same way you do and that's fine. I don't expect them to be right all the time, but they're more often right than wrong and the platforms they offer so outshine the alternatives that there really are no alternatives as far as I'm concerned.

    On the part that I've bolded we are definitely in agreement.

  • NeuMNeuM
    edited April 2022

    @NeonSilicon said:

    @NeuM said:

    @NeonSilicon said:

    @NeuM said:

    @NeonSilicon said:

    @NeuM said:

    @NeonSilicon said:

    @NeuM said:

    @NeonSilicon said:

    Apple said:
    We are implementing an ongoing process of evaluating apps, removing apps that no longer function as intended, don’t follow current review guidelines, or are outdated.

    That wouldn't be so bad if the App Store review teams actually knew what they were doing. It's hard enough to deal with the normal review process when submitting an AU. The thought that they are going to be doing periodic retroactive reviews really doesn't make me want to submit anything new to the App Store at all.

    But you actually update your apps, so you’re exempt.

    Is it fair to Apple or customers to have thousands (or possibly hundreds of thousands) of questionable apps which haven’t been updated in years occupying space on the App Store, making searches less valuable and more difficult for customers?

    I mean, I see your point, but they’re also a business and they have to be able to set restrictions if the store is overloaded with old abandoned apps, right?

    There are numerous app acquisition companies which buy up and hoard dozens of apps in an attempt to scrape out the last bit of value from them, but since they’re not developers, they never update those apps. I’d like to see those bottom feeders driven off the App Store.

    What's an abandoned app? Like I said above, most of the code in iOS hasn't been touched in years to decades. Apple finally tossed some UI's on some of the builtin AU's that have been around since before iOS existed in the last year. Those were very useful tools that are used in all sorts of applications and they really didn't need any updating (except moving them to 64-bit when that happened). Would the reviewers on the App Store team send Apple a removal notice for those?

    From my point-of-view, if the software works, it doesn't violate any privacy terms, and the dev is paying Apple the $100 required to have things on the App Store, then it isn't abandoned.

    If the problem is that the App Store is a sucking pile of garbage to find quality software on -- and, it is -- then Apple needs to fix their search. I will give Apple some credit, at least if I do an actual search for an app by name, I can find it. This is miles ahead of Google and Amazon in the last year or so.

    Here’s the perfect example of an abandoned app. This used to be a great app, but the developers sold it to an app acquisition company (called “App Holdings”), which holds a dumpster load of old and abandoned apps. The app hasn’t been updated in SEVEN years. This is a DEAD APP and that company is holding dozens of dead apps. And there are a LOT of deadbeat companies like this one on the App Store (I imagine the problem is 10x worse on the Android store). This is garbage that should either be updated to work on the latest version of iOS or it should be axed once and for all.

    https://apps.apple.com/us/app/pearl-guitar/id681094559

    Sounds like you think Oracle should be forced to dump Solaris. Or, Computer Associates should be closed up by the govt. for selling old outdated B2B software that they just purchased from other companies.

    According to the App Store, that app looks like it is compatible with my M1 Mac and runs on the latest iPadOS. Why does it need to be updated? Some people may actually still like that app. Although, given that Apple gives away GB for free with its Smart Guitar, I'd guess that Apple probably kinda killed the interest in the app. Still, for anyone that might want the app, why should it be unavailable to them?

    The App Store clearly shows how long ago it's been since it was updated. If Apple added the order by update date I suggested above, you could make sure you never saw it in a search and wouldn't need to worry about. But, people who might actually want that app could still find it.

    Why should Apple be required to do things which are antithetical to their business model? The short answer: They shouldn’t. They should regularly jettison things which conflict with their ability to move technology forward.

    They shouldn't be required to do anything. They should have been blocked from buying up all technology companies that would allow other companies to compete with them. Or maybe, patents should all be blocked as they are supposed to enable advancement and innovation in the market but they actually work to do the exact opposite. There's all sorts of political and economic arguments that we could have, but you and I both know that we are going to disagree on these points anyway.

    As a practical matter, my main thing is that the iPad could be so much more than Apple allows it to be. All they need to do is get out of the way. The other point is that Apple is actively driving me away from developing for iOS. I have three pretty much complete AU's that I could release, but I'm simply tired of dealing with Apple. Their campaign to turn users against third party devs and make end users suspicious of all the evil developers is beyond tiring.

    I don't see any of this in the same way you do and that's fine. I don't expect them to be right all the time, but they're more often right than wrong and the platforms they offer so outshine the alternatives that there really are no alternatives as far as I'm concerned.

    On the part that I've bolded we are definitely in agreement.

    Yes, and the fact that Windows, Linux, Android, etc. are so inferior is not Apple's responsibility. ;)

  • NeonSiliconNeonSilicon

    @NeuM said:

    @NeonSilicon said:

    @NeuM said:

    @NeonSilicon said:

    @NeuM said:

    @NeonSilicon said:

    @NeuM said:

    @NeonSilicon said:

    @NeuM said:

    @NeonSilicon said:

    Apple said:
    We are implementing an ongoing process of evaluating apps, removing apps that no longer function as intended, don’t follow current review guidelines, or are outdated.

    That wouldn't be so bad if the App Store review teams actually knew what they were doing. It's hard enough to deal with the normal review process when submitting an AU. The thought that they are going to be doing periodic retroactive reviews really doesn't make me want to submit anything new to the App Store at all.

    But you actually update your apps, so you’re exempt.

    Is it fair to Apple or customers to have thousands (or possibly hundreds of thousands) of questionable apps which haven’t been updated in years occupying space on the App Store, making searches less valuable and more difficult for customers?

    I mean, I see your point, but they’re also a business and they have to be able to set restrictions if the store is overloaded with old abandoned apps, right?

    There are numerous app acquisition companies which buy up and hoard dozens of apps in an attempt to scrape out the last bit of value from them, but since they’re not developers, they never update those apps. I’d like to see those bottom feeders driven off the App Store.

    What's an abandoned app? Like I said above, most of the code in iOS hasn't been touched in years to decades. Apple finally tossed some UI's on some of the builtin AU's that have been around since before iOS existed in the last year. Those were very useful tools that are used in all sorts of applications and they really didn't need any updating (except moving them to 64-bit when that happened). Would the reviewers on the App Store team send Apple a removal notice for those?

    From my point-of-view, if the software works, it doesn't violate any privacy terms, and the dev is paying Apple the $100 required to have things on the App Store, then it isn't abandoned.

    If the problem is that the App Store is a sucking pile of garbage to find quality software on -- and, it is -- then Apple needs to fix their search. I will give Apple some credit, at least if I do an actual search for an app by name, I can find it. This is miles ahead of Google and Amazon in the last year or so.

    Here’s the perfect example of an abandoned app. This used to be a great app, but the developers sold it to an app acquisition company (called “App Holdings”), which holds a dumpster load of old and abandoned apps. The app hasn’t been updated in SEVEN years. This is a DEAD APP and that company is holding dozens of dead apps. And there are a LOT of deadbeat companies like this one on the App Store (I imagine the problem is 10x worse on the Android store). This is garbage that should either be updated to work on the latest version of iOS or it should be axed once and for all.

    https://apps.apple.com/us/app/pearl-guitar/id681094559

    Sounds like you think Oracle should be forced to dump Solaris. Or, Computer Associates should be closed up by the govt. for selling old outdated B2B software that they just purchased from other companies.

    According to the App Store, that app looks like it is compatible with my M1 Mac and runs on the latest iPadOS. Why does it need to be updated? Some people may actually still like that app. Although, given that Apple gives away GB for free with its Smart Guitar, I'd guess that Apple probably kinda killed the interest in the app. Still, for anyone that might want the app, why should it be unavailable to them?

    The App Store clearly shows how long ago it's been since it was updated. If Apple added the order by update date I suggested above, you could make sure you never saw it in a search and wouldn't need to worry about. But, people who might actually want that app could still find it.

    Why should Apple be required to do things which are antithetical to their business model? The short answer: They shouldn’t. They should regularly jettison things which conflict with their ability to move technology forward.

    They shouldn't be required to do anything. They should have been blocked from buying up all technology companies that would allow other companies to compete with them. Or maybe, patents should all be blocked as they are supposed to enable advancement and innovation in the market but they actually work to do the exact opposite. There's all sorts of political and economic arguments that we could have, but you and I both know that we are going to disagree on these points anyway.

    As a practical matter, my main thing is that the iPad could be so much more than Apple allows it to be. All they need to do is get out of the way. The other point is that Apple is actively driving me away from developing for iOS. I have three pretty much complete AU's that I could release, but I'm simply tired of dealing with Apple. Their campaign to turn users against third party devs and make end users suspicious of all the evil developers is beyond tiring.

    I don't see any of this in the same way you do and that's fine. I don't expect them to be right all the time, but they're more often right than wrong and the platforms they offer so outshine the alternatives that there really are no alternatives as far as I'm concerned.

    On the part that I've bolded we are definitely in agreement.

    Yes, and the fact that Windows, Linux, Android, etc. are so inferior is not Apple's responsibility. ;)

    I'd mostly agree. But the point that we no longer have any Amigas, Ataris, Suns, Apollos, DECs, Nokias, etc is Apple's, Microsoft's and Google's doing, at least partially. For example, Apple's purchase of P. A. Semi should never have been allowed. It should have been blocked just like Nvidia was blocked from purchasing ARM. These types of moves and things like Apple, Qualcomm, Google, etc. being able to buy up all the capacity of modern processor production makes it basically impossible for any new players to come into the market. To a degree, Android can suck as much as it does because Apple makes it so no one else can get the resources to compete with Google and their partners.

    My wife had a Windows phone before MS killed them. As much as I dislike Windows on the PC, I've gotta say that I really liked their phone OS. Some of it was definitely better than iOS. I can't figure out for anything why they killed it. If they hadn't been allowed to buy up Nokia and ruin them, we might still have some competition there too.

  • NeuMNeuM

    @NeonSilicon said:

    @NeuM said:

    @NeonSilicon said:

    @NeuM said:

    @NeonSilicon said:

    @NeuM said:

    @NeonSilicon said:

    @NeuM said:

    @NeonSilicon said:

    @NeuM said:

    @NeonSilicon said:

    Apple said:
    We are implementing an ongoing process of evaluating apps, removing apps that no longer function as intended, don’t follow current review guidelines, or are outdated.

    That wouldn't be so bad if the App Store review teams actually knew what they were doing. It's hard enough to deal with the normal review process when submitting an AU. The thought that they are going to be doing periodic retroactive reviews really doesn't make me want to submit anything new to the App Store at all.

    But you actually update your apps, so you’re exempt.

    Is it fair to Apple or customers to have thousands (or possibly hundreds of thousands) of questionable apps which haven’t been updated in years occupying space on the App Store, making searches less valuable and more difficult for customers?

    I mean, I see your point, but they’re also a business and they have to be able to set restrictions if the store is overloaded with old abandoned apps, right?

    There are numerous app acquisition companies which buy up and hoard dozens of apps in an attempt to scrape out the last bit of value from them, but since they’re not developers, they never update those apps. I’d like to see those bottom feeders driven off the App Store.

    What's an abandoned app? Like I said above, most of the code in iOS hasn't been touched in years to decades. Apple finally tossed some UI's on some of the builtin AU's that have been around since before iOS existed in the last year. Those were very useful tools that are used in all sorts of applications and they really didn't need any updating (except moving them to 64-bit when that happened). Would the reviewers on the App Store team send Apple a removal notice for those?

    From my point-of-view, if the software works, it doesn't violate any privacy terms, and the dev is paying Apple the $100 required to have things on the App Store, then it isn't abandoned.

    If the problem is that the App Store is a sucking pile of garbage to find quality software on -- and, it is -- then Apple needs to fix their search. I will give Apple some credit, at least if I do an actual search for an app by name, I can find it. This is miles ahead of Google and Amazon in the last year or so.

    Here’s the perfect example of an abandoned app. This used to be a great app, but the developers sold it to an app acquisition company (called “App Holdings”), which holds a dumpster load of old and abandoned apps. The app hasn’t been updated in SEVEN years. This is a DEAD APP and that company is holding dozens of dead apps. And there are a LOT of deadbeat companies like this one on the App Store (I imagine the problem is 10x worse on the Android store). This is garbage that should either be updated to work on the latest version of iOS or it should be axed once and for all.

    https://apps.apple.com/us/app/pearl-guitar/id681094559

    Sounds like you think Oracle should be forced to dump Solaris. Or, Computer Associates should be closed up by the govt. for selling old outdated B2B software that they just purchased from other companies.

    According to the App Store, that app looks like it is compatible with my M1 Mac and runs on the latest iPadOS. Why does it need to be updated? Some people may actually still like that app. Although, given that Apple gives away GB for free with its Smart Guitar, I'd guess that Apple probably kinda killed the interest in the app. Still, for anyone that might want the app, why should it be unavailable to them?

    The App Store clearly shows how long ago it's been since it was updated. If Apple added the order by update date I suggested above, you could make sure you never saw it in a search and wouldn't need to worry about. But, people who might actually want that app could still find it.

    Why should Apple be required to do things which are antithetical to their business model? The short answer: They shouldn’t. They should regularly jettison things which conflict with their ability to move technology forward.

    They shouldn't be required to do anything. They should have been blocked from buying up all technology companies that would allow other companies to compete with them. Or maybe, patents should all be blocked as they are supposed to enable advancement and innovation in the market but they actually work to do the exact opposite. There's all sorts of political and economic arguments that we could have, but you and I both know that we are going to disagree on these points anyway.

    As a practical matter, my main thing is that the iPad could be so much more than Apple allows it to be. All they need to do is get out of the way. The other point is that Apple is actively driving me away from developing for iOS. I have three pretty much complete AU's that I could release, but I'm simply tired of dealing with Apple. Their campaign to turn users against third party devs and make end users suspicious of all the evil developers is beyond tiring.

    I don't see any of this in the same way you do and that's fine. I don't expect them to be right all the time, but they're more often right than wrong and the platforms they offer so outshine the alternatives that there really are no alternatives as far as I'm concerned.

    On the part that I've bolded we are definitely in agreement.

    Yes, and the fact that Windows, Linux, Android, etc. are so inferior is not Apple's responsibility. ;)

    I'd mostly agree. But the point that we no longer have any Amigas, Ataris, Suns, Apollos, DECs, Nokias, etc is Apple's, Microsoft's and Google's doing, at least partially. For example, Apple's purchase of P. A. Semi should never have been allowed. It should have been blocked just like Nvidia was blocked from purchasing ARM. These types of moves and things like Apple, Qualcomm, Google, etc. being able to buy up all the capacity of modern processor production makes it basically impossible for any new players to come into the market. To a degree, Android can suck as much as it does because Apple makes it so no one else can get the resources to compete with Google and their partners.

    My wife had a Windows phone before MS killed them. As much as I dislike Windows on the PC, I've gotta say that I really liked their phone OS. Some of it was definitely better than iOS. I can't figure out for anything why they killed it. If they hadn't been allowed to buy up Nokia and ruin them, we might still have some competition there too.

    Why did the Windows phone die? Because it was a DOA platform. iPhone succeeded because they did their homework when they released it and they iterated on top of that. Windows brought little to the table and couldn’t get customers excited if their lives depended on it.

  • johnfromberkeleyjohnfromberkeley

    @tk32 said:
    Yes. As others have pointed out already, notice that the thread title states these outdated apps will only be "removed from sale" NOT "removed from store"

    So, what apps are old, still for sale, that we should buy in case we have been on the fence, and we have FOMO?

  • NeuMNeuM

    @johnfromberkeley said:

    @tk32 said:
    Yes. As others have pointed out already, notice that the thread title states these outdated apps will only be "removed from sale" NOT "removed from store"

    So, what apps are old, still for sale, that we should buy in case we have been on the fence, and we have FOMO?

    Aren’t you more interested in finding out if your favorite developers step up to this (admittedly mild) challenge and upgrade their offerings?

  • NeuMNeuM
    edited April 2022

    @espiegel123 said:

    @wim said:

    @NeuM said:

    @cyberheater said:
    Hopefully will nudge Korg to update their apps to AUV3.

    That's another good example. Korg has been getting a free ride as far as I'm concerned. They should update their apps. No excuses.

    Why? As long as they continue to work, on what do you base the obligation to continue to update them? Because you paid once for an app, the developer is obligated to continue to add value to it indefinitely? Have you purchased any other goods or services that work that way?

    Any company is entitled to decide whether the return on investment for updating an app justifies the cost of doing so. They certainly are in a better position to determine that than you or I.

    Considering an app that works as "complete" is not the same as "abandoning" it.

    +1

    The notion that developers need to put additional work in to keep the apps available for sale even if they work well is terrible ESPECIALLY given the low return on time invested that most music apps receive. A number of developers I know have more or less abandoned iOS because the “pay a pittance, get free updates forever” model has proven to be unsustainable.

    Any decision to sell once and offer free updates “forever” is theirs alone. As we’ve seen, the developer of the Mela apps has solved it by selling new versions every so often. Others have implemented tip jar options. There are MANY ways for developers to leverage their offerings, sell sound packs, offer bundles, subscriptions, etc.

  • espiegel123espiegel123

    @NeuM said:

    @espiegel123 said:

    @wim said:

    @NeuM said:

    @cyberheater said:
    Hopefully will nudge Korg to update their apps to AUV3.

    That's another good example. Korg has been getting a free ride as far as I'm concerned. They should update their apps. No excuses.

    Why? As long as they continue to work, on what do you base the obligation to continue to update them? Because you paid once for an app, the developer is obligated to continue to add value to it indefinitely? Have you purchased any other goods or services that work that way?

    Any company is entitled to decide whether the return on investment for updating an app justifies the cost of doing so. They certainly are in a better position to determine that than you or I.

    Considering an app that works as "complete" is not the same as "abandoning" it.

    +1

    The notion that developers need to put additional work in to keep the apps available for sale even if they work well is terrible ESPECIALLY given the low return on time invested that most music apps receive. A number of developers I know have more or less abandoned iOS because the “pay a pittance, get free updates forever” model has proven to be unsustainable.

    Any decision to sell once and offer free updates “forever” is theirs alone. As we’ve seen, the developer of the Mela apps has solved it by selling new versions every so often. Others have implemented tip jar options. There are MANY ways for developers to leverage their offerings, sell sound packs, offer bundles, subscriptions, etc.

    The point is: it should not be something a developer should be required to do. The profitability is already marginal. If an app works well, Apple shouldn't be strong-arming devs to put in more work for marginal payback.

  • wimwim

    @NeuM said:
    Why should Apple be required to do things which are antithetical to their business model? The short answer: They shouldn’t. They should regularly jettison things which conflict with their ability to move technology forward.

    Why should developers be required to do things which are antithetical to their business model? The short answer: They shouldn't. As long as their product continues to function they should not be forced to do things that cost them time and effort and might affect the ability of their software to function as intended.

    It's a two-sided business model - or should be. Why do you take such a one-sided approach toward Apple (who profits from every sale and collects revenue from the developer yearly whether the developer makes any money or not)?

    I don't understand your comment about conflicting with their ability to move technology forward. Just how does a functioning piece of software affect that in any way? App search results? Simple tuning of the search algorithm can easily address that. Storage space? Data storage is probably the most cost effective commodity on the planet, and gets cheaper and cheaper all the time. Humm ... let's see, how many apps could I store on my free iCloud allocation, or my $2.99 per month subscription? Even the most modest videos take up more space than several apps. I guess Youtube should start deleting videos that are more than two years old to keep their business model healthy.

  • el_boel_bo

    @espiegel123 said:
    The profitability is already marginal.

    But it really shouldn't be. And i think it's gonna be down to us, as consumers, to turn the situation around.

  • NeuMNeuM

    @wim said:

    @NeuM said:
    Why should Apple be required to do things which are antithetical to their business model? The short answer: They shouldn’t. They should regularly jettison things which conflict with their ability to move technology forward.

    Why should developers be required to do things which are antithetical to their business model? The short answer: They shouldn't. As long as their product continues to function they should not be forced to do things that cost them time and effort and might affect the ability of their software to function as intended.

    It's a two-sided business model - or should be. Why do you take such a one-sided approach toward Apple (who profits from every sale and collects revenue from the developer yearly whether the developer makes any money or not)?

    I don't understand your comment about conflicting with their ability to move technology forward. Just how does a functioning piece of software affect that in any way? App search results? Simple tuning of the search algorithm can easily address that. Storage space? Data storage is probably the most cost effective commodity on the planet, and gets cheaper and cheaper all the time. Humm ... let's see, how many apps could I store on my free iCloud allocation, or my $2.99 per month subscription? Even the most modest videos take up more space than several apps. I guess Youtube should start deleting videos that are more than two years old to keep their business model healthy.

    If a developer’s business model is wholly dependent on Apple’s business model, then they need to play by Apple’s rules.

    Clearly luck plays a part in all of this, but a smart business owner leverages what they have available to them in order to succeed. Running one’s own business isn’t easy and success is never guaranteed.

  • wimwim
    edited April 2022

    @johnfromberkeley said:

    @tk32 said:
    Yes. As others have pointed out already, notice that the thread title states these outdated apps will only be "removed from sale" NOT "removed from store"

    So, what apps are old, still for sale, that we should buy in case we have been on the fence, and we have FOMO?

    iELECTRIBE
    Bebot!

  • wimwim

    @NeuM said:
    Why did the Windows phone die? Because it was a DOA platform. iPhone succeeded because they did their homework when they released it and they iterated on top of that. Windows brought little to the table and couldn’t get customers excited if their lives depended on it.

    I have to agree with you there.

  • NeuMNeuM

    Also, let me know how easy any of this is for Apple after you check out these stats: https://www.statista.com/statistics/268251/number-of-apps-in-the-itunes-app-store-since-2008/

  • NoiseHorseNoiseHorse

    This is a big threat to Bebot. Surely there must be some way somebody could update something like a different color tie or shoes???

  • wimwim
    edited April 2022

    @NeuM said:
    If a developer’s business model is wholly dependent on Apple’s business model, then they need to play by Apple’s rules.

    Of course, but that's not the point here. The point is whether or not Apple is being fair and whether or not what they are doing even makes sense. You seem to think that Apple is automatically right. If "might makes right" then I suppose you're correct. But if you take that out of the equation, I see no other way that it's either fair or even makes sense.

    Clearly luck plays a part in all of this, but a smart business owner leverages what they have available to them in order to succeed. Running one’s own business isn’t easy and success is never guaranteed.

    I not sure what that has to do with any of this, but ok.

  • el_boel_bo

    @NeonSilicon said:
    The point I was making is that it is very likely that there are no bugs in an app introduced by an OS update. If there are no bugs introduced, then why update it? If I test my software and don't see any issues or users never report a bug, then I'm not going to update the software. It isn't abandoned. It simply doesn't need fixing. I've had software run as intended for more than 15 years without a single bug fix.

    I guess I didn't realise that iOS was so iterative that these yearly updates passed by without any real hitch.

    I think there are going to be a lot of apps that are still hanging around in the depths of the appstore that users have moved on from, whether it be because of the deprecation of IAA or any other factors. So we have no idea of how many new customers are buying these apps and discovering issues that none of us will ever discover. Then the app gets refunded on grounds of not doing what it was advertised to do, and Apple decides enough is enough.

    Having read through the communications, I'll agree that the idea that new features are obligatory is a step too far, and just unnecessary, In that sense, I agree with the adage "if it ain't broke...". Of course, if we were to mine the various app threads, I'm sure we'd easily find the evidence to back up the notion that all apps could do with various feature-enhancements.

    Personally, I think the whole system is broken. And it's not just an Apple problem, nor is it solely the preserve of the mobile platforms. The same issues have existed for years on the desktop side of things.

  • wimwim

    @NeuM said:
    Also, let me know how easy any of this is for Apple after you check out these stats: https://www.statista.com/statistics/268251/number-of-apps-in-the-itunes-app-store-since-2008/

    I do not see your point. An unchanged app takes zero effort for Apple to continue to host/sell. The storage cost is absolutely negligible. I would argue that a non-updated app is far less effort and less cost to Apple than one that is updated regularly.

  • NeuMNeuM

    @el_bo said:
    @NeonSilicon said:
    The point I was making is that it is very likely that there are no bugs in an app introduced by an OS update. If there are no bugs introduced, then why update it? If I test my software and don't see any issues or users never report a bug, then I'm not going to update the software. It isn't abandoned. It simply doesn't need fixing. I've had software run as intended for more than 15 years without a single bug fix.

    I guess I didn't realise that iOS was so iterative that these yearly updates passed by without any real hitch.

    I think there are going to be a lot of apps that are still hanging around in the depths of the appstore that users have moved on from, whether it be because of the deprecation of IAA or any other factors. So we have no idea of how many new customers are buying these apps and discovering issues that none of us will ever discover. Then the app gets refunded on grounds of not doing what it was advertised to do, and Apple decides enough is enough.

    Having read through the communications, I'll agree that the idea that new features are obligatory is a step too far, and just unnecessary, In that sense, I agree with the adage "if it ain't broke...". Of course, if we were to mine the various app threads, I'm sure we'd easily find the evidence to back up the notion that all apps could do with various feature-enhancements.

    Personally, I think the whole system is broken. And it's not just an Apple problem, nor is it solely the preserve of the mobile platforms. The same issues have existed for years on the desktop side of things.

    I think there is a general lack of appreciation and understanding of what’s going on here from Apple’s side of the equation.

    None of this is free for Apple to offer and run. The massive trove of free apps on the App Store represents a net burden for them, but by offering these apps they create a more varied store for customers to choose from. Those profitable big hit apps help pay for the others. As I understand it, the App Store is a profit generator now. That’s good for everyone. At minimum, devs need to make sure their apps are in compliance with the latest versions of iOS.

  • espiegel123espiegel123

    @el_bo said:

    @espiegel123 said:
    The profitability is already marginal.

    But it really shouldn't be. And i think it's gonna be down to us, as consumers, to turn the situation around.

    It is simply the case that it isn't very profitable -- even for a lot of apps that you think are so well-regarded they must be profitable. This has been well-documented for years. There were some developers that wrote some excellent white papers in the early years of the App Store demonstrating why the "buy once for a low price and get updates forever" model was going to be a problem -- and they were written in early days when the chances of reaping a big reward for your development efforts was ironically higher than it is now -- even though app prices were even lower.

    Even though this has been discussed a lot on this forum (and a couple of developers shared stats), it seems like most people here assume that these apps are a lot more profitable than they are. The model essentially is geared towards app churn that kind of benefits typical users (lots of cheap new apps) but makes it hard for developers to be profitable or have predictable income for many types of apps. It is geared towards subscriptions and IAP churn.

  • NeuMNeuM

    @wim said:

    @NeuM said:
    Also, let me know how easy any of this is for Apple after you check out these stats: https://www.statista.com/statistics/268251/number-of-apps-in-the-itunes-app-store-since-2008/

    I do not see your point. An unchanged app takes zero effort for Apple to continue to host/sell. The storage cost is absolutely negligible. I would argue that a non-updated app is far less effort and less cost to Apple than one that is updated regularly.

    You think there’s no cost associated with serving up 180 billion app downloads? Are you for real?

  • wimwim
    edited April 2022

    @NeuM said:

    @wim said:

    @NeuM said:
    Also, let me know how easy any of this is for Apple after you check out these stats: https://www.statista.com/statistics/268251/number-of-apps-in-the-itunes-app-store-since-2008/

    I do not see your point. An unchanged app takes zero effort for Apple to continue to host/sell. The storage cost is absolutely negligible. I would argue that a non-updated app is far less effort and less cost to Apple than one that is updated regularly.

    You think there’s no cost associated with serving up 180 billion app downloads? Are you for real?

    I didn't say no cost. I said negligible cost for the specific class of apps we're discussing here: apps that haven't been updated for two years but still operate. Keep in mind that a developer pays $99 per year just to keep their account active. If you think the hosting cost for a few unchanged apps could possibly even come close to that then I don't know what to tell you.

    Sorry, I can't follow your logic. For paid apps, every one of those 180 billion app downloads generates revenue for Apple. For free apps the cost is more than covered by the yearly developer fee. What I'm saying is an unchanged app - free or not - is less cost and trouble for Apple to continue to host. I don't see it as fair to the developer and I don't see the justification for Apple to do it.

    Doesn't matter. It's up to them. But that doesn't mean they shouldn't be called out for being heavy handed for no apparent reason.

  • NeuMNeuM
    edited April 2022

    @wim said:

    @NeuM said:

    @wim said:

    @NeuM said:
    Also, let me know how easy any of this is for Apple after you check out these stats: https://www.statista.com/statistics/268251/number-of-apps-in-the-itunes-app-store-since-2008/

    I do not see your point. An unchanged app takes zero effort for Apple to continue to host/sell. The storage cost is absolutely negligible. I would argue that a non-updated app is far less effort and less cost to Apple than one that is updated regularly.

    You think there’s no cost associated with serving up 180 billion app downloads? Are you for real?

    I didn't say no cost. I said negligible cost for the specific class of apps we're discussing here: apps that haven't been updated for two years but still operate. Keep in mind that a developer pays $99 per year just to keep their account active. If you think the hosting cost for a few unchanged apps could possibly even come close to that then I don't know what to tell you.

    Sorry, I can't follow your logic. For paid apps, every one of those 180 billion app downloads generates revenue for Apple. For free apps the cost is more than covered by the yearly developer fee. What I'm saying is an unchanged app - free or not - is less cost and trouble for Apple to continue to host. I don't see it as fair to the developer and I don't see the justification for Apple to do it.

    Doesn't matter. It's up to them. But that doesn't mean they shouldn't be called out for being heavy handed for no apparent reason.

    "For paid apps, every one of those 180 billion app downloads generates revenue for Apple."

    How about the refunds? Think there aren't a significant number of those? Remember we're talking billions of downloads.

    And how many free apps are there, versus paid ones? I believe my linked information provided that.

    And do you know how much it costs Apple annually on the backend to keep all of this humming? Of course we don’t. They don’t report that. And how much did it cost Apple to develop all of this? Untold billions.

  • KrupaKrupa

    You don’t get to be the company with the most net revenue in the world without breaking a few eggs…

    https://www.statista.com/statistics/269857/most-profitable-companies-worldwide/

  • espiegel123espiegel123

    @NeuM said:

    @wim said:

    @NeuM said:

    @wim said:

    @NeuM said:
    Also, let me know how easy any of this is for Apple after you check out these stats: https://www.statista.com/statistics/268251/number-of-apps-in-the-itunes-app-store-since-2008/

    I do not see your point. An unchanged app takes zero effort for Apple to continue to host/sell. The storage cost is absolutely negligible. I would argue that a non-updated app is far less effort and less cost to Apple than one that is updated regularly.

    You think there’s no cost associated with serving up 180 billion app downloads? Are you for real?

    I didn't say no cost. I said negligible cost for the specific class of apps we're discussing here: apps that haven't been updated for two years but still operate. Keep in mind that a developer pays $99 per year just to keep their account active. If you think the hosting cost for a few unchanged apps could possibly even come close to that then I don't know what to tell you.

    Sorry, I can't follow your logic. For paid apps, every one of those 180 billion app downloads generates revenue for Apple. For free apps the cost is more than covered by the yearly developer fee. What I'm saying is an unchanged app - free or not - is less cost and trouble for Apple to continue to host. I don't see it as fair to the developer and I don't see the justification for Apple to do it.

    Doesn't matter. It's up to them. But that doesn't mean they shouldn't be called out for being heavy handed for no apparent reason.

    "For paid apps, every one of those 180 billion app downloads generates revenue for Apple."

    How about the refunds? Think there aren't a significant number of those? Remember we're talking billions of downloads.

    And how many free apps are there, versus paid ones? I believe my linked information provided that.

    And do you know how much it costs Apple annually on the backend to keep all of this humming? Of course we don’t. They don’t report that. And how much did it cost Apple to develop all of this?

    As @wim pointed out, the $99 per year that Developers pay easily covers the cost of hosting the apps for a year. On top of that, since Apple is not threatening to remove apps from the servers -- only from being listed for sale -- this clearly is not an issue of the cost of hosting. If it were, they would be removing the apps from the servers.

    It is fine for you to approve of Apple's policy -- but it seems like you are making an argument that it is some sort of business necessity -- and that clearly isn't the case.

    There clearly is an issue which needs solving in the sense that App Store has grown so large that discoverability (which was the early lifeblood of the App Store model) is terrible. A case could be made that there are stale apps that no one is interested in that clog up the store. But this route doesn't seem like the best method if Apple wants developers to stay enthusiastic.

    Whether you like it or not, a lot of developers are pretty sour with how Apple treats them. There are probably ways that Apple could solve this issue without making developers even more annoyed.

  • NeuMNeuM
    edited April 2022

    @espiegel123 said:

    @NeuM said:

    @wim said:

    @NeuM said:

    @wim said:

    @NeuM said:
    Also, let me know how easy any of this is for Apple after you check out these stats: https://www.statista.com/statistics/268251/number-of-apps-in-the-itunes-app-store-since-2008/

    I do not see your point. An unchanged app takes zero effort for Apple to continue to host/sell. The storage cost is absolutely negligible. I would argue that a non-updated app is far less effort and less cost to Apple than one that is updated regularly.

    You think there’s no cost associated with serving up 180 billion app downloads? Are you for real?

    I didn't say no cost. I said negligible cost for the specific class of apps we're discussing here: apps that haven't been updated for two years but still operate. Keep in mind that a developer pays $99 per year just to keep their account active. If you think the hosting cost for a few unchanged apps could possibly even come close to that then I don't know what to tell you.

    Sorry, I can't follow your logic. For paid apps, every one of those 180 billion app downloads generates revenue for Apple. For free apps the cost is more than covered by the yearly developer fee. What I'm saying is an unchanged app - free or not - is less cost and trouble for Apple to continue to host. I don't see it as fair to the developer and I don't see the justification for Apple to do it.

    Doesn't matter. It's up to them. But that doesn't mean they shouldn't be called out for being heavy handed for no apparent reason.

    "For paid apps, every one of those 180 billion app downloads generates revenue for Apple."

    How about the refunds? Think there aren't a significant number of those? Remember we're talking billions of downloads.

    And how many free apps are there, versus paid ones? I believe my linked information provided that.

    And do you know how much it costs Apple annually on the backend to keep all of this humming? Of course we don’t. They don’t report that. And how much did it cost Apple to develop all of this?

    As @wim pointed out, the $99 per year that Developers pay easily covers the cost of hosting the apps for a year. On top of that, since Apple is not threatening to remove apps from the servers -- only from being listed for sale -- this clearly is not an issue of the cost of hosting. If it were, they would be removing the apps from the servers.

    It is fine for you to approve of Apple's policy -- but it seems like you are making an argument that it is some sort of business necessity -- and that clearly isn't the case.

    There clearly is an issue which needs solving in the sense that App Store has grown so large that discoverability (which was the early lifeblood of the App Store model) is terrible. A case could be made that there are stale apps that no one is interested in that clog up the store. But this route doesn't seem like the best method if Apple wants developers to stay enthusiastic.

    Whether you like it or not, a lot of developers are pretty sour with how Apple treats them. There are probably ways that Apple could solve this issue without making developers even more annoyed.

    Are the developers whose apps are successful also sour? I wonder.

    Only the CEO behind the Unreal Engine software, Epic, screwed the pooch when he tried to malign and blackmail Apple, despite them making huge amounts of money from sales of Fortnite in the App Store. They were really dumb. And they also screwed their distribution through the Android App Store.

  • espiegel123espiegel123

    @NeuM said:

    @espiegel123 said:

    @NeuM said:

    @wim said:

    @NeuM said:

    @wim said:

    @NeuM said:
    Also, let me know how easy any of this is for Apple after you check out these stats: https://www.statista.com/statistics/268251/number-of-apps-in-the-itunes-app-store-since-2008/

    I do not see your point. An unchanged app takes zero effort for Apple to continue to host/sell. The storage cost is absolutely negligible. I would argue that a non-updated app is far less effort and less cost to Apple than one that is updated regularly.

    You think there’s no cost associated with serving up 180 billion app downloads? Are you for real?

    I didn't say no cost. I said negligible cost for the specific class of apps we're discussing here: apps that haven't been updated for two years but still operate. Keep in mind that a developer pays $99 per year just to keep their account active. If you think the hosting cost for a few unchanged apps could possibly even come close to that then I don't know what to tell you.

    Sorry, I can't follow your logic. For paid apps, every one of those 180 billion app downloads generates revenue for Apple. For free apps the cost is more than covered by the yearly developer fee. What I'm saying is an unchanged app - free or not - is less cost and trouble for Apple to continue to host. I don't see it as fair to the developer and I don't see the justification for Apple to do it.

    Doesn't matter. It's up to them. But that doesn't mean they shouldn't be called out for being heavy handed for no apparent reason.

    "For paid apps, every one of those 180 billion app downloads generates revenue for Apple."

    How about the refunds? Think there aren't a significant number of those? Remember we're talking billions of downloads.

    And how many free apps are there, versus paid ones? I believe my linked information provided that.

    And do you know how much it costs Apple annually on the backend to keep all of this humming? Of course we don’t. They don’t report that. And how much did it cost Apple to develop all of this?

    As @wim pointed out, the $99 per year that Developers pay easily covers the cost of hosting the apps for a year. On top of that, since Apple is not threatening to remove apps from the servers -- only from being listed for sale -- this clearly is not an issue of the cost of hosting. If it were, they would be removing the apps from the servers.

    It is fine for you to approve of Apple's policy -- but it seems like you are making an argument that it is some sort of business necessity -- and that clearly isn't the case.

    There clearly is an issue which needs solving in the sense that App Store has grown so large that discoverability (which was the early lifeblood of the App Store model) is terrible. A case could be made that there are stale apps that no one is interested in that clog up the store. But this route doesn't seem like the best method if Apple wants developers to stay enthusiastic.

    Whether you like it or not, a lot of developers are pretty sour with how Apple treats them. There are probably ways that Apple could solve this issue without making developers even more annoyed.

    Are the developers whose apps are successful also sour? I wonder.

    Yes!!!!!!

    I recommend digging through the Audiobus archives and reading through posts by developers about their thoughts about the App Store eco-system and Apple's curation. There is pretty widespread dissatisfaction. It has been a pretty long-running theme among developers (even pre-App store) and has gotten worse over the years. (Most of my working life was in the Apple software development universe -- much of it related to music software).

    Only the CEO behind the Unreal Engine software, Epic, screwed the pooch when he tried to malign and blackmail Apple, despite them making huge amounts of money from sales of Fortnite in the App Store. They were really dumb. And they also screwed their distribution through the Android App Store.

    Not sure how this is relevant to what I wrote.

Sign In or Register to comment.