Originally Posted by gin_tonic
Yes, I can. Just paying $99 every year. $99 per year for running MY OWN application on MY OWN iPod/iPhone.
Then jailbreak your phone and youre good to go. If you can create an app with Xcode then you can easily figure out how create a jailbroken app. Youre not breaking any laws as far as I can tell.
Originally Posted by lune
It is one thing for apple to want to control what is sold on their app store platform, but I believe it is wrong for them to dictate that one can't sell their apps directly. I am personally surprised that no one brought a court case for locking the device to such an extant that developers have to give 30% to apple for their hard work.
Im guessing the iPhone is your first smartphone. Its been discussed ad nauseam
, but the 30% isnt jut Apple skimming off the top and its a lot lower than most other mobile app stores before it charged for a similar service. Ill look them up later and see if theyve altered their rates since the App Store arrived.
This might have been fine initially when there wasn't 100.000 app and some cashed so nicely that they couldn't complain, but seriously.
How does the number products sold in a store dictate that a store should low their prices. Dont expect them to lower this non-excessive fee until there is competing store doing better with lower rates.
First one couldn't install OSX on any other product that Apple expensive hardware.
Then dont buy a Mac. Apple creates their software to sell their HW. That is their business model. You are not entitled to running Mac OS X on any HW you choose nor required to purchase anything from Apple if you dont want to. Free market FTW!
Then one couldn't transfer his purchased music to any other non itunes device, without a hack.
iTunes runs on nearly every PC in the world so that isnt a problem. iTunes has the first and only option to legally remove DRM from audio as dictated from RIAA. Also, iTunes Store music hasnt DRM for awhile now. Most importantly, if you dont like quality and/or restrictions of a store you dont have to buy from them. Nothing stops you from buy Amazon music, CDs, etc.
Now one can't sell their iApp without going through Apple store.
Nope, but that is their choice. You dont have to support their business model if you dont like it.
What is next is the question?
Developers can't sell their software without giving money to Apple.
There is no doubt that Apple is following the trend of the neo con/fascist, where one can't do anything freely without becoming a criminal.
So much for being politically neutral. I think they are a bit hypocrites on this one.
I guess I should have read this part first. What a fraking nut! Against paragraphs and a free market. I suggest supporting the Motorola Droid. Long live the Peoples App Phone.
Originally Posted by Gazoobee
It's basically dishonest and two-faced of Apple to say on the one hand that they are going to mark al the apps that are "for adults" and then at the same time censor apps for content like boobies or swastikas. That's totally fascist really and it can't really be said that there is any logical argument to support it.
Their process seems very disjointed. They have apps that access risqué images of women but then can other apps. The apps dont actually have the files on them which i guess shifts any liability but its a silly stance. Put up proper parental controls and just keep anything harmful or illegal out of the store. Nothing more; nothing less.
Originally Posted by timgriff84
Err background apps, and I don't accept the crap that its to stop the phone slowing down. People mange multiple programs on a PC perfectly fine and realize that when it starts to slow you need to close some stuff.
So when I press the Home Button on the iPhone the app should just run in the background. How many apps could that potentially be in a very short time? Do I really need WeatherBug running constantly in the background. Is the foreground app so unimportant that the background app should be allowed to suck as much CPU cycles and RAM that it chooses to? How about the fact the first two iPhones barely had enough RAM to run the basics? That the iPod app running while trying to use Safari with tabs would make the page I was just on reload because there wasnt enough RAM to hold the page? How about the slowdowns that occurred from
Also wouldn't be particularly hard to give users a display so they can see which apps are hogging the memory and processor.
Theres an app for that.
Mail can receive emails, but Skype cant recieve messages.
iPOD can play when you exit it, yet Last FM has to stop if you ever want to do anything else, like use your phone while listening to music.
So correct me if Im wrong but isn't that a frickin huge piece of functionality that Apple apps can use but everyone else's cant?
Its Apples apps. They have created them and tested them. Their developers know exactly how much resources they use while running in the background. Other developers, not so much. Instead of complaining Ive found solutions. Ive been running Backgrounder since it launched. Not all apps are created equal. Start Google Earth and SkyVoyager, then push it to the background while trying to use your iPod, get mail, and use Safari. Not a good experience.
Apple is creating a consumer device for the average person. They have taken a market segment that was primarily for geeky virgins and hardcore business users and made it popular for the average person.
Id wager that Apple will likely include background app support in v4.0. That it will be available for the 3GS and beyond, but not for the original and 3G for the reasons stated above. The best method I can think of is to make it work like the Push Notifications in Settings. Meaning, they will create Background App API and leave it up to the developer to choose which apps are capable of running in the background and what services will work in the background. Its simply stupid to have most apps run in the background just like its stupid for most apps to have Push Notifications, but there are certainly some that greatly benefit from it.