I maintain several open-source apps for macOS. I don't use macOS anymore, and am not interested in investing in that platform, however users still get value from my apps.
Right now, macOS treats those apps as if they're radioactive because I didn't spend the $100/year it costs to notarize the apps. The result is that some users suddenly think the apps they've been using are either broken or malicious.
That $100 is already a barrier, if I had to pay more money to release apps at all for Apple devices, I just wouldn't.
Which brings me back to my main point:
> Many of these apps that game the App Store generate enough revenue that a $100 fee won't be a barrier to entry, but will certainly be a barrier to entry for students, hobbyists, and developers whose apps are pre-revenue.
The cost barrier might stop a handful of script kiddies, but it will do nothing to stop the malicious apps bringing in $300k a month in revenue which are both more prolific and widespread.
> Meanwhile, legit developers spend hundreds or thousands or more hours on a good app. $100 in the first world just isn’t that much.
I don't know what country you're in, but I'm in the US and it's a country where not having $100 can mean not eating, making rent or buying medicine that you need. There are a lot of students, hobbyists and those that are trying to break into the industry who are in this boat. Your proposal would make it hard for them to release an app.
There are also people in this country who are either wealthy enough, or their income is high enough, that they wouldn't notice a $100 change in their budget. Your proposal wouldn't affect their ability to release an app, but they would benefit from a lack of competition.
In the end, users would suffer from the lack of competition, and people without means would be priced out of participating in the market.
Right now, macOS treats those apps as if they're radioactive because I didn't spend the $100/year it costs to notarize the apps. The result is that some users suddenly think the apps they've been using are either broken or malicious.
That $100 is already a barrier, if I had to pay more money to release apps at all for Apple devices, I just wouldn't.
Which brings me back to my main point:
> Many of these apps that game the App Store generate enough revenue that a $100 fee won't be a barrier to entry, but will certainly be a barrier to entry for students, hobbyists, and developers whose apps are pre-revenue.
The cost barrier might stop a handful of script kiddies, but it will do nothing to stop the malicious apps bringing in $300k a month in revenue which are both more prolific and widespread.
> Meanwhile, legit developers spend hundreds or thousands or more hours on a good app. $100 in the first world just isn’t that much.
I don't know what country you're in, but I'm in the US and it's a country where not having $100 can mean not eating, making rent or buying medicine that you need. There are a lot of students, hobbyists and those that are trying to break into the industry who are in this boat. Your proposal would make it hard for them to release an app.
There are also people in this country who are either wealthy enough, or their income is high enough, that they wouldn't notice a $100 change in their budget. Your proposal wouldn't affect their ability to release an app, but they would benefit from a lack of competition.
In the end, users would suffer from the lack of competition, and people without means would be priced out of participating in the market.