This isn't really a fair comparison because any OSX user can just download and run Android studio for free, while your average Android programmer would require over a thousand dollars (to get a bottom-level Apple device with the worst specifications, or closer to two thousand+ to get competitive hardware) and then a yearly subscription to XCode at $100/year, and that's without having any actual iPhones to test on as well.
So it makes sense that for you, spending $0 to test on Android makes sense, but on the flip side, Apple has intentionally engineered their developer program to have a four figure entrance fee, and frankly most indie developers can't shell out potentially several thousand dollars on OSX/iOS devices and licenses just to do some testing, especially when as the developer above said, "they can ask a friend to test".
> ... and frankly most indie developers can't shell out potentially several thousand dollars on OSX/iOS devices and licenses just to do some testing ...
Sounds like these so-called “indie devs” who cannot afford to build for iOS devices should not tackle projects/clients that require building for iOS. Or, if a client is in the mix, bill the client a large enough fee to cover the cost of testing on real devices. That’s not a problem Apple is responsible for solving.
I would never rely on developing, testing, and releasing an Android app on a simulator alone. I don’t want to buy a bunch of Android devices. So I don’t take on work that is meant for Android, or I hire people who can properly test on devices. Pretty simple—and it’s both my choice and a matter of professional responsibility and accountability to ship work I can stand behind.
Apple isn’t going to change any time soon. I’m so tired of the disingenuous moaning from “indie devs” who want to take on projects for and make money from iOS, but can’t be bothered to get over their own personal anti-Apple feelings to buy a device.
The ecosystem of Apple devices are hardware and software. The simulators and build tools are never enough. You wouldn’t ship an app for Apple Watch without testing it on a watch, would you? Or would you ship it relying only on having one friend with an Apple Watch test it? Sounds lazy and unprofessional—and if an indie dev can’t do the job right, they shouldn’t take on the job.
How much revenue will you generate from supporting Apple users or implementing Apple features? Bottom line is you run a business as a developer and if you can’t afford to spend, maybe a couple hundred bucks then you probably shouldn’t be in business anymore. Companies have no obligation to give you things for free.
On the flip side, 80% of all devices sold are Android and Android devices are the majority of sales, web usage, etc so there is no obligation for any developer to support the minority of devices and users at extreme cost when they can already achieve mass coverage.
That razor cuts both ways, and I'd point out that this situation is very similar to how OSX comes with Windows bootcamp, but a Windows 10 machine can't run OSX. If you run OSX, running Windows is something that you might just have to do. But if you're a Windows user, outside of walled garden development, there's not much point to OSX
Yet despite all that, we’re still having this conversation and a single iOS feature has hit the top of Hacker News.
While Android may make up the majority of devices worldwide, Apple devices are still very popular among wealthy clients (anyone living in the west would meet this criteria), which is ultimately the part of population business care about most.
Simply put, supporting Apple devices is very profitable. No company is going to leave money on the table due to niche ideological concerns.
> On the flip side, 80% of all devices sold are Android and Android devices are the majority of sales, web usage, etc
That's nice if the only thing you do is selling eyeballs with adware. If you're actually looking to make money in sales you'd be a fool to not support iOS. I'd call it an obligation to your wallet.
Xcode can be downloaded for free, developer accounts are also free. What isn't free is shipping stuff to users in any form unless you're part of a development team.
My first MacBook (used for Xcode that is) costed 250 dollar coupled with a 200 dollar iPad 2 around 2013-2014. The iPad 2 was stolen and the MacBook 2008 kept working until around 2018 but was replaced in 2015.
But the grandparent simply needed to test a login feature that required iCloud. Any iPhone would do.
Interesting justification/rationalization for the extraordinary cost of supporting the minority of users. Paying the Apple Tax is a cost of doing business in the Apple garden, but for folks outside of that walled garden, the extraordinary costs of Apple hardware (often sold at 3 times or more their cost!) usually isn't going to make business sense.
If you're going to be a mobile developer, supporting the android 80% is far cheaper and easier than supporting the iOS 20%. It then shouldn't be a surprise if the 80% get better support than the 20%.
So it makes sense that for you, spending $0 to test on Android makes sense, but on the flip side, Apple has intentionally engineered their developer program to have a four figure entrance fee, and frankly most indie developers can't shell out potentially several thousand dollars on OSX/iOS devices and licenses just to do some testing, especially when as the developer above said, "they can ask a friend to test".