I started looking at Apple's policies and how apps would be rejected without any reason given. And that there was -no- other way to launch a product if Apple rejected it.

And then looked at Android and saw that even if Google rejected it, I could still get the app onto the device in other ways. (And then Amazon came out with their own Android market, making things even better in that regard.)

I developed an app with a partner, released it to App Store then took it down to upload it under a new account. Same app.

Apple rejected our app. They refused to explain by email why. They insisted on only dealing with me by phone. Over the phone they said the policies had changed in the last two weeks and my app would not be accepted. I asked which policy and they refused to say which one. I asked what I could do to get back in the app store and they said they couldn't tell me. I suggested some ideas and the Apple employee on the other end of the phone said that those would be "helpful" but they couldn't say that that would be enough to get my app listed again.

Time to cut and run. I cancelled both orders for customized versions of the app that I had taken from clients (and apologized profusely). I asked Apple for a refund on my developer account. They refused. I said that since the policies had changed then I was entitled to a refund because I bought the account under the old policies and if they'd like to change the terms and I don't agree then I'm entitled to have my money refunded. They said it was a "one time exception" but grudgingly refunded my developer account.

They need to offer:

1. Certified apps from the app store which are approved via this process. 2. Apps which you can just download and chuck on with no Apple or carrier approval.

Ironically just like the Mac App Store i.e. you don't have to go there.

Oh and like Windows for the last however many years it has been around.

The price of dealing with the restrictions is justified by the exposure you get to a market willing to pay for goods. The few apps I've had that were rejected were done so justifiably, and when they weren't, we worked it out with them.

Most of this is hearsay, not fact.

Also, remember we're talking GLOBALLY. What's affordable to you may not be to random Indian programmer 7

2 things that make me think cost is the issue:

>Developer-market balance. Android is the one and only platform that is trilaterally adopted by developers across all three major continents active in application development - Europe, North America and Asia. On all other platforms, there is an imbalance of developer supply and market demand across the globe. iOS is lagging in developer mindshare in Asia while BlackBerry developers are almost completely lacking in Europe. The traditional sweet spot for Java developers has moved out of Europe to emerging markets, with 42% more respondents coming from Asia, Africa and South America. Flash Lite has weak supply in South East Asia where the platform can deliver best-in-class experiences on mass-market phones

And the fact you're highly likely to make little more than 700 back:

> In the gold rush to the applications economy, not everyone is making money. About a third of respondents make less than $1,000 USD per application in total, which is loss-making given that an application often takes months to develop

Yes, I have been doing it on a four year old, Core Duo one for the whole three years since the iOS SDK became available and have had zero compilation performance issues. Keep in mind that the vast majority of iOS applications are laughably small compared to desktop apps.

I'm not disputing that a Mini is still too costly for many, but I think it is unfair to exclude it as development machine.

Mac OS 10.7 (Lion) is virtualizable. I'm sure someone will build a rack and offer cloud-based Lion accounts for developers that can be remoted into 24/7 so long as you have internet access.

2-screen iPhone apps with no media might compile quick enough, but development of the type of apps which make money that would be a huge productivity suck.

"I don't have the money to spend so making money is faster and easier" is not a problem unique to iOS development.

While I would agree with that to some degree, the fact that there is over 400k apps in the appstore tells me that the barrier is either non existent or a lot lower than people are making it out to be.

Furthermore, there are other costs besides the computer itself when developing for iOS. So if the developer isn't making enough money to cover all of those costs, the that developer needs to try something else to make money.

Which isn't to say "not to do iOS development" but to find out why their app isn't selling and adjust. The "build it and they will come" is a fallacy and many developers fall into that trap.

Barriers leading to higher numbers of hobby users trying android app dev than iOS, which is the title of the HN post.

There are more pros on iOS and Win7Phone from the survey (both numerically and percentage wise).

It's amazing how much that updates compile speeds.

Buying a mac mini to do iOS development is buying pain and a computer you're just going to have to replace.

I don't know of anyone putting that forth as the low cost solution (nor is that sort of change out easy for someone who's really terrified to break their $700 computer and not used to fiddling with that stuff).

ifixit.com seems to indicate otherwise: http://www.ifixit.com/Guide/Repair/Installing-Mac-mini-Model...

I do it on a 6 year old Macbook and have no problems.

Take the class of devs who, in their spare time, want to learn mobile programming. If they don't have a Mac, their choices tonight after work are to 1) sit down on their own familiar computer right now and start Android dev, or 2) go buy a Mac and a dev account and get familiar with that and start iOS dev. Paying $800+ for option 2 doesn't exactly sweeten the deal.

A modest app in the store will pay back the costs of the hardware, even though it probably won't pay for your time. Doing iOS work for hire will pay for your time, however.

So people should do what they want, but it's easy to see why Android would be the favorite of new casual mobile devs, many (or most?) of whom don't have Macs.

Many years ago, I was in this exact situation. I planned accordingly and saved until I could buy a cheaply made desktop and taught myself how to code.

I know I did and I wrote a very niche app and did no promotion what so ever. I have not made much on my app but it has paid for a couple of gadgets so far and I am still making a (very) little bit every month.

On experience of developers:

We can also quantify the signs of Apple’s allure towards experienced PC and Internet developers, since the iOS platform attracts significantly more developers with sevenplus years PC/Internet experience, compared to other platforms. This confirms that experienced software developers are moving into mobile, using iOS as an entry platform, in what we believe is driven by the sudden rise in demand for developer talent, especially in North America. Since launching in late 2010, Windows Phone 7 has done pretty well in attracting seasoned developers. We see experienced mobile developers coming to Windows Phone, with a significant bias of current Windows Phone developers having between three and six years of mobile experience - an indication that Microsoft’s strategy to tap into PC and Xbox developer segments is paying of