> ever since we’ve had success on the Android platform [Our Apple developer rep has] made it very clear that his services are no longer available to us.
Wow. That is shocking to me - is that typical of Apple? I know they're very much about having people their ecosystem, but I didn't realize that there was this kind of animosity towards people who stepped out of bounds.
> Wow. That is shocking to me - is that typical of Apple?
Yes it is. We have a pretty successful app in the iTunes store and as a consequence, we have privileged access to the entire team, including engineers and executives who advise us how to word the description of our app and telling us all kinds of tricks to increase downloads.
A few months ago, we released an Android app and since then, we have fallen into a complete Apple black hole. The Apple people we used to exchange daily emails with are not even responding to us any more.
How is it childish ? It's business. Apple has finite resources and there are thousands of amazing, exclusive apps that don't get any direct assistance. Why would they invest their time if it doesn't benefit their ecosystem.
Also as someone who has worked on some of the most popular apps there is always the problem of feature equality. Companies don't want to annoy their customers by only offering features on one platform. So they don't. In which case you end up with a lowest common denominator of features.
"If I don't get what I want, I'm going to take my ball and go home" is the epitome of childish reaction.
The mobile ecosystem is not zero-sum. Publishing on Android doesn't diminish the app's benefit to the iOS ecosystem. If anything, it only benefits their ecosystem, since it will improve the app's popularity, and result in more downloads of that app on iOS, by iPhone owners who hear about it from their Android-using friends.
Apple's job isn't to help build the next Facebook app. It is to build the best ecosystem they can. And that doesn't come from (a) having less exclusives or (b) having apps that don't take advantage of the unique features of the platform.
It's similar to Nintendo. They don't really benefit from having the next generic COD game on their platform. They benefit from having a game that makes the most innovative use of the touch screen control.
But why would you be hostile to someone just because they also built their app for Android? Successful people generally grow to encompass as many income streams as they can, and you're losing the long game by not reaching out to the next Facebook. Do you really NOT want that app on your store any more just because it's on the Play store as well?
It's uncommon for businesses to see a client flirting with another vendor, and in response cease all communications. Usually it's just the opposite - wow the client with attention, and woo them back. Apple certainly has the resources to shed clients at will, but it's still childish behaviour. Why make it harder for a client with a good history to develop on your platform?
Exclusivity arrangements are nothing out of the ordinary between businesses. Developers are not regular Apple customers.
What is out of the ordinary is this way of doing it. Simply not responding to emails any longer, without explaining why, is very unprofessional indeed.
If there was some kind of exclusivity agreement in place, it would make perfect sense. "As long as you're publishing exclusively to iOS, we'll give you extra support and guidance" is fine if both parties are aware of it and have agreed to it.
"Nice app you have there. It would be a shame if you stopped getting support on it" is not.
> Why would they invest their time if it doesn't benefit their ecosystem.
The problem with this approach is that it only works if you're #1 with a comfortable lead. Apple is #2 and fast losing mind share, and this kind of policy is only going to accelerate that trend.
What they care about is irrelevant, they are also alienating creators of apps that make them money with this kind of attitude.
They are basically repeating the same mistakes Jobs made two decades ago which led to the almost bankruptcy of Apple. Granted, they have enough money in the bank to be safe from this, but this kind of behavior is simply accelerating the decay of their market share, and as a consequence of that, of their profits.
The data from the last 8 quarters or so shows that Apple's app store revenue lead over Google is shrinking rapidly. Given Google's rapid gains in both marketshare and app store revenues, it isn't crazy to think that Apple could be the underdog before too long.
So your opinion is that Apple should invest finite resources in a company which isn't dedicating all their resources to building the best iOS app they can ?
That sounds like bad business to me. You should nurture and support your best customers/clients. There are 1 million apps on the App Store. Apple just figured some of the others deserve their support. It's harsh but understandable.
> So your opinion is that Apple should invest finite resources in a company which isn't dedicating all their resources to building the best iOS app they can ?
I think the policy of only catering to shops that are 100% developing on the Apple platforms is a terrible strategic mistake, especially since they are now #2 in this market and fast losing market share.
Also, catering to exclusives doesn't guarantee that you only get great apps in your store. Actually, it guarantees nothing except for acrimony from developers and the feeling that Apple is a fickle partner that can slam the door on them at any time.
The best way to regain market share is not to accelerate insulation but to woo companies developing on Android back by convincing them that iOS is a superior platform to develop for. As it is, all they are doing is convincing more and more developers that in doubt, they should develop for Android first and iOS second.
They could at least act like decent human beings and tell the developers in kind words that their support program is not applicable to them if the apps are not exclusive.
This behavior is not just childish, it's even damaging to the brand.
That they do this on scale (not just certain small teams) lets me believe that the persons who created this policy have some type of psychological issue.
They should definitely see a doctor, if they aren't already doing it.
It's funny you say that. In many companies you can hear people saying "it's nothing personal, just business" (you also hear the same from movie villains, oh well).
At Apple, for as long as I remember, it's exactly the opposite: it's not just business, it's always personal.
If you hurt Apple, Apple will hurt you back.
You can think of Apple as a smart, powerful, spoiled prince/princess. If you have something the prince(ss) wants, they'll try to be friends with you and shower you with gifts. But if you go this path you better never end up on their bad side.
It may seem childish to some, but as far as game theory goes, this kind if behavior makes one's choices and outcomes very clear when you interact with Apple.
Anecdotally, I've heard horror stories from friends who develop apps for multiple platforms of being "punished" by Apple for releasing features to their Android application first, or similar things.
Those friends don't talk about it publicly for fear of further retaliation, but given their experiences, what OP wrote doesn't surprise me in the least.
> Those friends don't talk about it publicly for fear of further retaliation, but given their experiences, what OP wrote doesn't surprise me in the least.
But what is surprising, especially given the prevalence of these anecdotes, is that OP wrote about it. I have the feeling he made the calculation that there isn't much left that Apple can do to them (other than kick them out of their app store, which would probably backfire spectacularly, of course).
I can actually understand them dragging their heels on that - it only manifests when you leave iOS, at which point they've already lost the customer, and it causes a worse experience on their new non-Apple device, which could drive the user back into Apple's arms. It's slimy, but switching ecosystems is a high-friction event, and Apple may have just determined that the cost of supporting former customers is greater than the winback they'd get from doing so.
Alienating developers, on the other hand, seems like a losing play. Publishing on Android doesn't mean you stop publishing on iOS, but giving them the cold shoulder might drive them to do so.
It's the same play in both cases - creating extra friction when you step outside of Apple's ecosystem.
Users who switch to an Android phone aren't any more "lost" to Apple than developers who publish on Android. They often still have iPads, iPods and/or Macs. Some might still buy music and/or video from iTunes. And so on.
In both cases, Apple is choosing to risk losing X as well in order to increase their chances of holding onto Y. And since we see other companies making both choices, it isn't an obviously winning or losing play in either case.
It's actually asking happening to new Apple customers as well. My wife got an iPad and signed into Messages thinking she could use it like Messages on her mac – instead it broke her android phone°.
She has since stop using the iPad I think largely because her initial interactions with it were so poor. This is actually hurting Apple's goals.
° I assume this means she entered her phone number as a contact address - but frankly the experience is so horrible that she's unwilling to talk about it.
They're actually hurting their current customers, those that can't get a text message through to their lost Apple brethren. Shame on them for having traitors in their flock, I guess.
Certainly, but the common factor is that the friends they're having problems with are dirty Android users. I have no doubt they've been content to let people believe that the problem is that Android can't handle text messages.
Yes, we were told directly by Apple that we will not be featured on AppStore or get any dev contacts if we release Android app together with the iOS version.
That certainly explains why there are so many iOS exclusives. Here I was blaming the Android platform or foolish developers, when in fact Apple's aggressive business practices were -- at least partially -- to blame.
Also serves as a reminder what we, both as devs and users, gave up when we put ourselves at the mercy of approximately 2.5 app store operators. There's no need to remind me what we gained, I'm aware. The question is rather if we can get a system that combines the best of both worlds.
That makes me wonder if they'd have gotten the same reaction for a successful Windows Phone app (though, for practical reasons, I don't expect many developers to end up testing that).
That's pretty funny, because Microsoft has been actively courting Apple devs. They've had special events featuring Apple devs and companies associated with Apple, making the case for developing on the Windows 8 platform. Including Windows phone, which I suspect Apple and their fanbois aren't too concerned with at the moment.
Seems like a weird attitude.
Almost everyone with the resources to do so is going to want their app distributed as widely as possible across multiple platforms.
Personally if I was at Apple I would be accepting that and trying my best to make iOS the platform you have the best dev experience on so that you are encouraged to put as much time as possible into the iOS app and update it more or at least as regularly as elsewhere.
When I worked for Universal Uclick, we released the GoComics app all at the same time for iOS, Android, and Windows Phone. I worked on the iOS release until its launch, and we had the ear of its developer support team up until and well after its release. We even were able to get the app 'featured' in the App Store shortly after its release.
We didn't experience a cold shoulder at all from Apple after putting out the app for other platforms. But then again, that was just us.
Wow. That is shocking to me - is that typical of Apple? I know they're very much about having people their ecosystem, but I didn't realize that there was this kind of animosity towards people who stepped out of bounds.