Because iPhones are general-purpose computers, not video game consoles. And they are the property of their owners, not of Apple. Independent developers have not just a right but a God-given right to write code for general-purpose user-owned computers without interference from Apple, and the fact that they cannot do so means Apple is violating that right and they (Apple) should receive the pointy end of a stick until they change their ways or be legislated out of existence.

The distinction you’re trying to make between an iPhone and a game console isn’t very clear.

Developers have been conditioned to know they cannot develop games for consoles without the manufacturer's permission, but we expect to be able to develop applications for general-purpose computers freely. And the iPhone is clearly in the latter category regardless of what Apple calls it, because of the range of things it can do.

Agreed; all of them should be general-purpose computers, neither should be subsidized by software sales and neither should be locked down.

> Because iPhones are general-purpose computers, not video game consoles.

You just pulled that of a thin air. I mean, a latest Samsung fridge is a general-purpose computer as well, so...

> And they are the property of their owners, not of Apple. You know what you're buying, so just stop buying it. Pinephone ships in April.

A Samsung fridge ought to be user-programmable too. And I do plan to buy an unencumbered phone when one of them becomes stable enough for daily use.

Iphones try very hard to look like general purpose computers; that's why everyone was so pissed when they pushed that U2 album, it pierced the veil.

Apple explicitly markets that the iPhone is locked down.

How is that ‘trying hard’ to look like a general purpose computer?

Broadly speaking, a general purpose computer is one that can do anything (like an Apple IIe) and the opposite is one that is constrained to do a few specific things (like an ATM). Whether an iphone (or a wintel computer with UEFI, or an Android phone locked by the hardware manufacturer, or etc etc) qualifies is a matter of semantics, and not interesting to argue about; I elided this distinction because (I imagined) the kind of people posting here would be familiar with it and know what I meant.

A more nitpick-proof way to phrase my point would be that an iphone is a general purpose computer controlled by Apple, and it tries very hard to look like a general purpose computer controlled by the person that bought it. The customers want to have their cake and eat it too; they want the power of a general purpose computer, and the security of a locked-down appliance. You can't have both, but Apple's size and popularity is a testament to how close they have managed to get.

In my opinion they're not trying very hard. It's called "phone", not "computer" to start with.

Because these people literally pay for that? There is a 30% some cut even on the revenue apart from the yearly pay the dev needs to pay to the platform.

Imagine if you pay for your coffee and while you're drinking it the waiter decides to take it back with no explanations given. Just randomly barging in on the service you paid for!

When did anyone say that? Apple and Google offer a service to app developers to host their app, and some developers are complaining it's too difficult to use.

> some developers are complaining it's too difficult to use

The guy in the article is complaining it's hard to publish an app since you need to upload enough high-res screenshots. I mean, yeah? Try "publishing" your backend on AWS, it's not a walk in the part either.

Because the App Store is a requirement to get software to run on their family's bought and owned hardware, in this case?

You can pay for developer account and connect your devices. Then you can easily install your builds. It's $100/year, but Apple hardware is not cheap anyway, consider it like iOS "pro".

Don't buy it, there're plenty of alternatives.