[MBCook]

> Documentation is barely existent

Depends on the thing. And there is a large community with examples online, which helps.

> you can’t really reuse your code in any other context

Not everyone cares. If I’m only targeting an iOS app the fact the code doesn’t run on Android or Windows isn’t a problem for me.

> you have to pay them money to even release your software

On Apple’s App Store, sure. Or if you want your stuff signed. If you want to release open source or don’t mind shipping unsigned stuff it’s free free free.

> they steal 30% of your revenue > they reserve the right to shut you down at any point, for any reason and provide almost zero recourse.

Only if you’re in their App Store or want your stuff signed.

> I get why people had to use it historically but it seems like a really bad choice to try and build any kind of reliable future on top of in 2024.

The bargain is the same as it ever was. I’m OK with it. I made stuff in Xcode for my Mac just for me for a long time without hassle or paying a cent. The costs only cost if you want to distribute pre-built binaries to others.

[j1elo]

> On Apple’s App Store, sure. Or if you want your stuff signed.

> Only if you’re in their App Store or want your stuff signed.

I'd buy that one if installing something from outside Apple's App Store was just like in Windows, downloading an installer package and running it (which AFAIK it is for Mac, but not for iOS). And similarly to the signed stuff: not sure about modern Windows as I ran away from it a while ago, but last time I used it (Win 7) if the installer wasn't signed you could just install it anyway with a single click. Say those two things aren't capped on iOS or Mac, then yes, your rebuttal is valid.

But if "you" (Apple) change the rules of the game of how traditional installers have always worked, over the years making those two things de facto mandatory, then later you cannot claim in your right mind "hey but if you want to make your software impractical to use, you're free to do so!"

[cageface]

Shipping unsigned stuff is not commercially viable. Very few users even know how to get around gatekeeper and even fewer are willing to do it to run your app.

[MBCook]

I agree. But if you’re not developing commercially maybe that doesn’t matter to you.

If it does it’s $100 bucks a year, no matter how many things you develop and how many users you have. That doesn’t seem too bad to me.

[talldayo]

> That doesn’t seem too bad to me.

Avid denialists like you make me glad antitrust works. It is in fact "bad" to create an artificial pipeline of demand and then manipulate the pressure by excluding profitable competition. You might argue you're entitled to that pipeline if you own it, but that doesn't protect you if you use it for anticompetitive purposes. Microsoft found this out a while ago, when they were threatened with a breakup if they further abused their monopoly position.

Apple spent 10 long years refusing to renegotiate their asinine, arbitrary rules until the government stepped in. In that time, an uncountable amount of market damage has been caused by Apple's protectionist policy and can't be ignored simply because it works for some people. Apple is in the wrong, and they know it; that's why they're accepting their fate instead of fighting for their right to continue abusing their App Store privileges forever.

[purple-leafy]

This is the tech version of Stockholm syndrome folks, for those of you unaware