or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › Notes from Apple's iPhone Software Roadmap event
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Notes from Apple's iPhone Software Roadmap event - Page 4

post #121 of 139
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

At first, I thought it was SOx but upon looking into it it seems unlikely. Now I think it's just a way to cover the costs of development and, of course, to make a profit. iPhone users are paying it for to their carriers who pay Apple. I see nothing unreasonable with charging customers for anything beyond bug fixes.

You're a fool if you think the nominal little charge they have for the touch upgrade is going to come anywhere near the cost of the development for all of this.
They are chargin chump change, just enough to get past the regulators and bean counters.
post #122 of 139
Quote:
Originally Posted by wbrasington View Post

You're a fool if you think the nominal little charge they have for the touch upgrade is going to come anywhere near the cost of the development for all of this.
They are chargin chump change, just enough to get past the regulators and bean counters.

One word: iPhone
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
post #123 of 139
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

The Q+A and live blogging was ambiguous but the keynote clearly states that it's $99 for access to the SDK and right to post. There seems to be no other fees. This is quite agressive on Apple's part, but people will complain about the price anyway. In fact, I think we had two new posters who were slinging insults left and right earlier who got banned and their posts deleted. Fun fun fun.

I look forward to seeing how RiM, Nokia and MS react to this "practically free" mobile platform. I also wonder wht is going to happen with RiM tomorrow, but it may be too early for the masses to see the storm that is brewing in Cupertino.

I think this goes further than just paying for the right to post. You get the SDK for free, at least the beta.

"Jobs continuing on: Developers have to register with us. For that $99, we give them an electronic certificate that tells us who they are..."

I don't know how much of the real quote that is, though it reads like one. But, the "tells us who they are, sounds more like a tracking device.

I found it.
Here, from Macworlds coverage, is the apparently real, whole quote"

Quote:
"The developers have to register with us, and for $99 they get an electronic certificate, and that tells us who they are. If they write a malicious app, we can track them down, we can tell their parents, and we will know who they are. And we can turn off the spigot if we need to."
post #124 of 139
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

I think this goes further than just paying for the right to post. You get the SDK for free, at least the beta.

Yeah, definitely. So far it seems there is a good accountability system in place and a way for a plethora of free apps to be available. I look forward to Adium and Skype being ready for primetime by June.


PS: They have enable remote wipe with Exchange but that does me no good. I hope someone finds a way to hook into that feature in Mobile OS X so I can send something as a simple as a "specially" written SMS message or use Yahoo's PUSH to activate it incase of loss or theft. Or even contact AT&T to have them send the wipe; we could certainly use more of carrier-manufacturer tie-ins.

PPS: I wonder how long it will be before we start seeing application demos using video captures of the iPhone Simulator popping up on YouTube? Should be interesting.
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
post #125 of 139
Quote:
It's not much, but I do question its necessity, and there's a principe of the thing, it seems like Apple's getting into the habit of nickel-and-diming its customers. Apple's iPod update to let people play games and added better search functionality did not cost anything, but things seem to have changed in the last couple years. The game update allowed people to buy games from Apple. The iTouch update should be able to allow people to buy software from Apple. It seems pretty odd this time around to have to pay money to get the opportunity to pay for software. It would seem that Apple would want to keep the barriers to entry low.

You're not just paying for AppStore. You are paying for Mobile OSX 2.0 and which ever significant app upgrades that come with it. Apple will have likely done enough work to warrant a $20 upgrade.

The iPod has a much simpler OS that likely did not take very much work.
post #126 of 139
Quote:
Originally Posted by TenoBell View Post

You're not just paying for AppStore. You are paying for Mobile OSX 2.0 and which ever significant app upgrades that come with it. Apple will have likely done enough work to warrant a $20 upgrade.

The iPod has a much simpler OS that likely did not take very much work.

Who knows, it might even be less.

In addition, to those who think that 30% take for Apple is too much, remember that this is also covering the cost of all of those free apps that Apple will be hosting, with their upgrades etc. That has to be paid for as well, and Apple isn't charging the developers for those. I checked by looking at the presentation.
post #127 of 139
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpamSandwich View Post

Apple is ALWAYS trying to make a profit. Just keep that in mind, no matter what the level of benevolence appears to be.

But then won't Mac people just call you a conspiracy theorist, accuse you of wearing a tinfoil hat, and ask if you have a gun pointed at your head? Is this one of those "dirty little secrets" which everyone knows about, but is taboo to speak of openly?
post #128 of 139
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpamSandwich View Post

They make a profit or the shareholders run away like sheep on fire.

It would seem that the interests of shareholders are different from the interests of actual customers. While customers care about long term support, shareholders care about the company bringing in money any way it can.
post #129 of 139
Quote:
Originally Posted by Haggar View Post

It would seem that the interests of shareholders are different from the interests of actual customers. While customers care about long term support, shareholders care about the company bringing in money any way it can.

Actually, they aren't.

The interests are closer than you think. As long as a company doesn't charge outrageous amounts for their products, unrelated to expenses, which, surprise, Apple doesn't (they make about 14% profit), then everything is fine.

If a company didn't attempt to make a profit on each product, they would be derelict. It would mean that only some of their products returned a profit. Very bad business. Even the iTunes music sales return a small profit.

If customers want a strong company, one that can afford to do the R&D required to come out with excellent, new products, they had better hope the company isn't losing money on part of its product stream.

Weak companies can't offer strong support.

Stockholders have the same interests.
post #130 of 139
Wow I have to say that my expectations were blown out of the water. They answered every concern I had in both the consumer and enterprise markets save flash support.
post #131 of 139
When Apple mentioned that they are licensing Microsoft's ActiveSync technology, a couple of questions came to mind:

1) Who ported ActiveSync to Mac OS X (or to the iPhone OS)? Did the Microsoft Mac BU do the port? Did Apple? I would be surprsied if Microsoft actually revealed the source code as part of the licensing agreement.

2) Does the licensing agreement only apply to the iPhone, or will we see an upgrade to Mail.app on Macs that will add Exchange connectivity?
post #132 of 139
Quote:
Originally Posted by DoughBoy View Post

When Apple mentioned that they are licensing Microsoft's ActiveSync technology, a couple of questions came to mind:

1) Who ported ActiveSync to Mac OS X (or to the iPhone OS)? Did the Microsoft Mac BU do the port? Did Apple? I would be surprsied if Microsoft actually revealed the source code as part of the licensing agreement.

2) Does the licensing agreement only apply to the iPhone, or will we see an upgrade to Mail.app on Macs that will add Exchange connectivity?

interesting. i think Mail.app support for Exchange would be HUGE news. i personally don't need it, but it would do a world of good to silence the 'apple no good for corporate users' crowd. at least somewhat.
post #133 of 139
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

Who knows, it might even be less.

In addition, to those who think that 30% take for Apple is too much, remember that this is also covering the cost of all of those free apps that Apple will be hosting, with their upgrades etc. That has to be paid for as well, and Apple isn't charging the developers for those. I checked by looking at the presentation.

People should compare it with other revenue share from other mobile phone platforms (not how much from mac distributions or pc distributions). Developers who have their apps on the Nokia Content Discoverer deck, Qualcomm BREW deck, DoCoMo imode deck gets pay more money than Apple's revenue share agreement.

Upfront costs may be higher on the other platforms in terms of certification, but the developers get a more on the revenue share.
post #134 of 139
Quote:
Originally Posted by samab View Post

People should compare it with other revenue share from other mobile phone platforms (not how much from mac distributions or pc distributions). Developers who have their apps on the Nokia Content Discoverer deck, Qualcomm BREW deck, DoCoMo imode deck gets pay more money than Apple's revenue share agreement.

Upfront costs may be higher on the other platforms in terms of certification, but the developers get a more on the revenue share.

What is the break-even point? Don't they certify apps on a per-device basis or does one BREW / iMode / etc. certification cover the entire class of devices?
post #135 of 139
Quote:
Originally Posted by JeffDM View Post

What is the break-even point? Don't they certify apps on a per-device basis or does one BREW / iMode / etc. certification cover the entire class of devices?

Depends, sometimes it's per device (especially games where you are really relying on individual phone model's hardware) and sometimes the carriers require additional certification beyond what deck requires.

But you are also exposing yourself to a much higher customer base.
post #136 of 139
Quote:
Originally Posted by DoughBoy View Post

When Apple mentioned that they are licensing Microsoft's ActiveSync technology, a couple of questions came to mind:

1) Who ported ActiveSync to Mac OS X (or to the iPhone OS)? Did the Microsoft Mac BU do the port? Did Apple? I would be surprsied if Microsoft actually revealed the source code as part of the licensing agreement.

2) Does the licensing agreement only apply to the iPhone, or will we see an upgrade to Mail.app on Macs that will add Exchange connectivity?

They (Microsoft) didn't necessarily have to share any source code with Apple to make ActiveSync work.

ActiveSync really just amounts to a communication protocol between Exchange Server and a remote device. Microsoft's own code stays safely encapsulated within the Exchange Server, communicating with the outside world through some channel - be it IP, SMS, or something else.

All Apple would need would be an agreement granting them access to a spec sheet documenting the data structures and communication protocol for the data flowing through that channel, and a license to use any trade secrets or patents required to make it all work.
post #137 of 139
Quote:
Originally Posted by lfmorrison View Post

They (Microsoft) didn't necessarily have to share any source code with Apple to make ActiveSync work.

ActiveSync really just amounts to a communication protocol between Exchange Server and a remote device. Microsoft's own code stays safely encapsulated within the Exchange Server, communicating with the outside world through some channel - be it IP, SMS, or something else.

All Apple would need would be an agreement granting them access to a spec sheet documenting the data structures and communication protocol for the data flowing through that channel, and a license to use any trade secrets or patents required to make it all work.

Thanks for the explanation. I just hope Exchange support comes to Mac OS X Mail program.
post #138 of 139
Quote:
Originally Posted by DoughBoy View Post

Thanks for the explanation. I just hope Exchange support comes to Mac OS X Mail program.

I had been wondering about Exchange support in desktop OS X as well. I'm surprised it hasn't been mentioned before now (why didn't I mention it?). It wouldn't be just Mail in OS X, it would also be Address Book and iCal that would work with Exchange.

Communications protocols are one of the things covered by the EU's case against Microsoft. The EU forced Microsoft to reveal their protocols to third parties in a ruling in 2004 (in relation to anti-trust monopoly abuse), and Microsoft dragged their heals and delivered such piss-poor documentation that they were fined even more money recently.
it's = it is / it has, its = belonging to it.
Reply
it's = it is / it has, its = belonging to it.
Reply
post #139 of 139
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. H View Post

I had been wondering about Exchange support in desktop OS X as well. I'm surprised it hasn't been mentioned before now (why didn't I mention it?). It wouldn't be just Mail in OS X, it would also be Address Book and iCal that would work with Exchange.

Communications protocols are one of the things covered by the EU's case against Microsoft. The EU forced Microsoft to reveal their protocols to third parties in a ruling in 2004 (in relations to anti-trust monopoly abuse), and Microsoft dragged their heals and delivered such piss-poor documentation that they were fined even more money recently.

That would be great if Exchange support was system-wide, so that other apps, like maybe Microsoft Entourage LOL, could support Exchange fully (I don't use Entourage, but understand that Exchange support isn't 100%).

Also, I wonder how much it costs to license ActiveSync.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: iPhone
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › Notes from Apple's iPhone Software Roadmap event