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 3

post #81 of 139
Quote:
Quote:
2:30: Apple will prevent developers from distributing Apps on their own. They must pay the $99 fee, get an electronic certificate, and distribute via Apple's new iPhone App Store.

EACH app will cost the developer $99 to post. This will cover hosting cost, a review process, obtaining a certificate, and will discourage posting frivolous applications. Seems pretty reasonable to me.

Actually, what you quoted doesn't say anything about each app. It is ambiguous, which is why I said it needed clarification. If the certificate is per-developer, then the $99 fee is per-developer in the quoted text. If the certificate is per-app, then the $99 fee is per-app.

I can't find clarification on Apple's site yet, but let's not start unequivically stating things that Apple hasn't said.

Edit: Apple's site seems to imply that it's $99 to join the program, and free to host any apps.
post #82 of 139
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jensonb View Post

Yay, another "nominal" fee. I'll bet it's £12.99/$19.99 again. I sure love getting punched in the bean bag every 3 months Apple. I wouldn't mind if the charge was actually nominal.

Oh jesus tapdancing christ, it's twenty f-ing dollars. I'm a full time college student, part time freelance artist, and even I see $20 as nominal. I mean, seriously, if you can't handle $20 for a software bundle, I think you need to find a better job, or y'know, don't spend all your money on personal technology.


I'm looking forward to the release.
post #83 of 139
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

I wrote a consolidated reply to the OP. What I really meant was that you can read and ingest a good chuck of the info before the refresh occurs. I certainly could been more precise. I think you undestand why i didnt' care to be.

Well, yes, but it is still quite annoying, it blanks the entire screen, resets the location and I have to find where I was last.

To me, what you wrote clearly suggests reading the entire article in 60 seconds, even if what you meant was different. There are better ways to do it, and I think AI used to use something better than that.

Not that I'm saying it justifies a certain person's behavior to the slightest degree.
post #84 of 139
Quote:
Originally Posted by wbrasington View Post

No, it's 99 bucks one time even if you don't publish something.
Then as many as you do..... no charge.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ravelgrane View Post

EACH app will cost the developer $99 to post. This will cover hosting cost, a review process, obtaining a certificate, and will discourage posting frivolous applications. Seems pretty reasonable to me.

It's unclear, but the addition of Electronic Signature leads me to beleive that it's per app. Either way, we should have an unarguable answer within a few hours.


Quote:
Originally Posted by SpamSandwich View Post

Crap or not, $99 is a tiny amount to charge. What is the big deal? You'll pay more for coffee over a year.

Quote:
Originally Posted by BlackSummerNight View Post

The $99 fee is going to kill what is known as freeware.

Or hosting your app on a server for 6 months that has any decent bandwidth.

Quote:
Originally Posted by samab View Post

Revenue share for DoCoMo's imode is 9% for DoCoMo, the developer keeps 91%.
Revenue share for Qualcomm BREW is 10% for Qualcomm, 10% for carrier (i.e. Verizon's Get It Now store) and the developer keeps 80%.

Interesting! Do you know if Apple is doing more with regards to testing, assisting and hosting that DoCoMo and Qualcomm aren't? I'm sure they looked into these companies when planning their service. Do these companies also have an equivalent "iFund" service in place?

Quote:
Originally Posted by BlackSummerNight View Post

I wonder why they don't want VOIP data on cingular's network.

I'm sure it's part of the agreement with the carriers. If I could use VoIP on my iPhone on a cell tower I'd lower my minutes to the cheapest package available, and even cancel voice if possible.

Quote:
Originally Posted by BlackSummerNight View Post

So why would Apple say they are the exclusive distributor of Apps, If I can just make all my apps available on my site.

There will be sites advertising their apps, but the download link will probably route to the iTunes Apps Store via something like: http://phobos.apple.com/WebObjects/etc.

Quote:
Originally Posted by JeffDM View Post

Well, yes, but it is still annoying. What you wrote to me clearly suggests reading the entire article in 60 seconds, even if what you meant was different. There are better ways to do it, and I think AI used to use something better than that.

If it was a more mature reply I would have been throughout. AI is clearly worried about server load by constant refreshes, which is why they added that feature. But I don't understand if they are concerned about the load, why they had the entire site reload instead of using a dynamic page that only loads the additional information.
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 #85 of 139
Awesome
post #86 of 139
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flounder View Post

Do they have other charges? They seemed to make a pretty big deal out of not charging any hosting fees, marketing fees, or credit card fees.

No hosting fees, no marketing fees and credit card fees for DoCoMo and Qualcomm BREW. They do charge certification fees.

When you buy a game from Verizon's Get It Now --- they don't ask for your credit card number. Verizon put the charges on your monthly bill, then they send 10% to Qualcomm and 80% to the developer.
post #87 of 139
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post

2:29: Apple will prevent VoIP apps over cellular networks, but not over WiFi.
2:11: NO CHARGE FOR FREE APPS.

GREAT!
post #88 of 139
Quote:
Originally Posted by samab View Post

They do charge certification fees.

How much are they?
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 #89 of 139
Quote:
Originally Posted by ikir View Post

Awesome

Quote:
Originally Posted by ikir View Post

GREAT!

post #90 of 139
Quote:
Originally Posted by vinney57 View Post

The upgrade fee for the iPod Touch is due to the accounting laws and has been DISCUSSED AND EXPLAINED AD NAUSEAM.

Who came up with the "accounting" justification first? Did Apple themselves provide this explanation first? Or did some news website throw it out there, and Apple ran with it? As I understand, those "accounting laws" do not specify how much a company has to charge. So if Apple honestly did want to offer the update for free but wasn't allowed to, then why don't they do the next best thing? Offer the update for something like 20 cents instead of $20. If Apple can do that, then their "accounting" rationalization might be more believable.
post #91 of 139
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism

Interesting! Do you know if Apple is doing more with regards to testing, assisting and hosting that DoCoMo and Qualcomm aren't? I'm sure they looked into these companies when planning their service. Do these companies also have an equivalent "iFund" service in place.

You only need an iFund type push when you have zero developers on your mobile platform. iMode and BREW have been around for 15 years with thousands and thousands of developers.

Remember that if you are on the imode catalog, then you are exposed to 48 million imode users. If you are on the Qualcomm catalog, then you are exposed to 400-500 million CDMA users.
post #92 of 139
Quote:
Originally Posted by running View Post

$99 fee to publish applications? even for "free" applications?

this is against nature of free software

I paid more for hosting few thing in the past on my server.... it is not too much.
post #93 of 139
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpamSandwich View Post

I'm not a developer, but wouldn't you do the debugging on the simulator first?

I wonder if the simulator can simulate multi-touch gestures or tilting the iPhone in different directions.
post #94 of 139
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

How much are they?

NTSL charges $1000 for TBT (true BREW testing).

http://brewforums.qualcomm.com/showthread.php?t=3921

I think Qualcomm charges $400 for a digital certificate.

Higher upfront cost, but you get to keep more of the revenue share.
post #95 of 139
Quote:
Originally Posted by skottichan View Post

Oh jesus tapdancing christ, it's twenty f-ing dollars. I'm a full time college student, part time freelance artist, and even I see $20 as nominal. I mean, seriously, if you can't handle $20 for a software bundle, I think you need to find a better job, or y'know, don't spend all your money on personal technology.


I'm looking forward to the release.

I paid £200 for the iPod touch. I did not get told it would be bumped to £226 just to keep it updated. I chose the touch over the iPhone to avoid incurring after-sale fees.

And just because I'm not happy about paying it, doesn't mean I can't afford it. It's the principal of it.

Anyway, that said, I sure do want to play Touch Fighter...That looks awesome.

MacBook Pro 15" | Intel Core2 Duo 2.66GHz | 320GB HDD | OS X v10.9
Black/Space Grey iPad Air with Wi-Fi & LTE | 128GB | On 4GEE
White iPhone 5 | 64GB | On 3UK

Reply

MacBook Pro 15" | Intel Core2 Duo 2.66GHz | 320GB HDD | OS X v10.9
Black/Space Grey iPad Air with Wi-Fi & LTE | 128GB | On 4GEE
White iPhone 5 | 64GB | On 3UK

Reply
post #96 of 139
does anyone know if there will be a video of this event?

thanks
post #97 of 139
Quote:
Originally Posted by skottichan View Post

Oh jesus tapdancing christ, it's twenty f-ing dollars. I'm a full time college student, part time freelance artist, and even I see $20 as nominal. I mean, seriously, if you can't handle $20 for a software bundle, I think you need to find a better job, or y'know, don't spend all your money on personal technology.

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.
post #98 of 139
Quote:
Originally Posted by Haggar View Post

Who came up with the "accounting" justification first? Did Apple themselves provide this explanation first? Or did some news website throw it out there, and Apple ran with it? As I understand, those "accounting laws" do not specify how much a company has to charge. So if Apple honestly did want to offer the update for free but wasn't allowed to, then why don't they do the next best thing? Offer the update for something like 20 cents instead of $20. If Apple can do that, then their "accounting" rationalization might be more believable.

They, Apple, must charge something that will come close to covering their costs. This is to protect investors. If Apple did not do this then some state or teachers retirement fund could sue Apple for giving away work. The only way to get software for free is for very small jobs, too little time invested to be worth getting compensated for, or a bug fix. Added functionality will always cost unless of it took someone a few hours to complete. I don't know where the threshold is but it would be something like this at least 10,000 people would be willing to pay for the added functionality and at $5.00 a pop, that would just about cover the costs. So you can see the cost to the company would be large enough to register on the time/cost meter, unlike adding a new template to iWork that thousands of people may use but it only took a few hours to complete. Small tasks like a new template would also not get an account number to track the time internally to Apple and would go under a general code or cost center. Usually general time is used when people are between projects and or bored.
Please consider throwing extra cycles at better understanding Alzheimer's, Mad Cow (CJD), ALS, and Parkinson's disease go here <a href="http://folding.stanford.edu/" target="_blank">http://folding....
Reply
Please consider throwing extra cycles at better understanding Alzheimer's, Mad Cow (CJD), ALS, and Parkinson's disease go here <a href="http://folding.stanford.edu/" target="_blank">http://folding....
Reply
post #99 of 139
Quote:
Originally Posted by Haggar View Post

Who came up with the "accounting" justification first? Did Apple themselves provide this explanation first? Or did some news website throw it out there, and Apple ran with it? As I understand, those "accounting laws" do not specify how much a company has to charge. So if Apple honestly did want to offer the update for free but wasn't allowed to, then why don't they do the next best thing? Offer the update for something like 20 cents instead of $20. If Apple can do that, then their "accounting" rationalization might be more believable.

If you'd like to single-handedly take on eliminating Sarbanes-Oxley, be my guest. The business world would thank you.

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply
post #100 of 139
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpamSandwich View Post

If you'd like to single-handedly take on eliminating Sarbanes-Oxley, be my guest. The business world would thank you.

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.
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 #101 of 139
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpamSandwich View Post

If you'd like to single-handedly take on eliminating Sarbanes-Oxley, be my guest. The business world would thank you.

Again, those "accounting laws" don't dictate how much a company has to charge. And Apple's story is "Oh, we'd like to give it away for free but the big bad government says we have to charge for it". But again, there seems to be no rule regarding how much to charge. So if Apple is really serious about wanting to give it away for free but being forced by the government to charge, then shouldn't Apple have just charged the absolute minimum amount "required" by law and not a penny more? So basically, Apple says since they can't give it away for free then they will charge $20, as if there was no other option in between. It would be better if Apple just came out and admitted that they want to make a profit from selling the update.
post #102 of 139
Quote:
Originally Posted by running View Post

$99 fee to publish applications? even for "free" applications?

this is against nature of free software

Yeah, but it will help weed out the crap apps (crapps?).
post #103 of 139
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jensonb View Post

I paid £200 for the iPod touch. I did not get told it would be bumped to £226 just to keep it updated.

Who held the gun to your head and forced you to update it?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Haggar View Post

Apple's story is "Oh, we'd like to give it away for free but the big bad government says we have to charge for it".

Do you actually have a quote from an official Apple source that can verify that Apple themselves have claimed this?

I think it is clear that:

1.) SOX requires Apple to charge at least something.

2.) Apple could charge less than $20 and still be SOX compliant.

3.) Apple are charging $20 rather than something less in an attempt to make a profit (don't know if they did or not because I don't know how many bought the upgrade), and I fail to see the problem in a company trying to sell a product for a profit.
it's = it is / it has, its = belonging to it.
Reply
it's = it is / it has, its = belonging to it.
Reply
post #104 of 139
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. H View Post

Who held the gun to your head and forced you to update it?



Do you actually have a quote from an official Apple source that can verify that Apple themselves have claimed this?

I think it is clear that:

1.) SOX requires Apple to charge at least something.

2.) Apple could charge less than $20 and still be SOX compliant.

3.) Apple are charging $20 rather than something less in an attempt to make a profit (don't know if they did or not because I don't know how many bought the upgrade), and I fail to see the problem in a company trying to sell a product for a profit.

More than likely they are charging close to their cost once they figure out how many people are likely to pay for it. Again 10,000 people at $5.00 per copy is $50,000 some things cost more than others especially if there is wide spread testing and QA and security testing as well. The costs can add up fast when many people from many different divisions are working on the same project at the same time. Here you can see iPhone, and OSX, and Quicktime divisions as well as QA, Security, Marketing, Sales. The executive group are creating a group that will review the apps as well as act as police if they run amok. So $20 is not bad when you add up all, and I only scratched the surface, of who could be involved and see how many people could have been working on this. Oh yea I guess that would also include the Xcode team as well, the team that actually wrote the SDK.
Please consider throwing extra cycles at better understanding Alzheimer's, Mad Cow (CJD), ALS, and Parkinson's disease go here <a href="http://folding.stanford.edu/" target="_blank">http://folding....
Reply
Please consider throwing extra cycles at better understanding Alzheimer's, Mad Cow (CJD), ALS, and Parkinson's disease go here <a href="http://folding.stanford.edu/" target="_blank">http://folding....
Reply
post #105 of 139
Quote:
Originally Posted by wbrasington View Post

No, it's 99 bucks one time even if you don't publish something.
Then as many as you do..... no charge.

I just finished watching the keynote. While the event notes taking by AI and otehrs were ambiguous it's clear when you watch it that it's $99 to become an iPhone developer and then apps are free to host. Mea culpa.

While this will lead to a lot of free apps that, like on OS X, some will be of excellent quality it will also lead to a very poor apps too. I hope Apple will be weeding these out or storing them in a shitty shitty bin bin.
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 #106 of 139
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. H View Post

Who held the gun to your head and forced you to update it?

Well there's a clever comment

Not

I bought the iPod touch armed with the knowledge that 3rd Party Apps were coming to both it and the iPhone. I bought the device partially because I wanted the apps. So you see, it's not about holding guns to people's heads, it's about not making things plain to customers ahead of time. Steve did not mention that it would cost extra for me to add 3rd Party Apps in his SDK letter way back when.

MacBook Pro 15" | Intel Core2 Duo 2.66GHz | 320GB HDD | OS X v10.9
Black/Space Grey iPad Air with Wi-Fi & LTE | 128GB | On 4GEE
White iPhone 5 | 64GB | On 3UK

Reply

MacBook Pro 15" | Intel Core2 Duo 2.66GHz | 320GB HDD | OS X v10.9
Black/Space Grey iPad Air with Wi-Fi & LTE | 128GB | On 4GEE
White iPhone 5 | 64GB | On 3UK

Reply
post #107 of 139
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jensonb View Post

Well there's a clever comment

Not

I bought the iPod touch armed with the knowledge that 3rd Party Apps were coming to both it and the iPhone.

But you have no idea what those 3rd party apps are going to be so how do you know you are going to want/need them?

Did you buy the iPod touch just to be cool and have the latest gadget, or because it actually performs a function that you require?

And where did Apple ever say that:

1.) No updates to the iPod touch OS would be required to run 3rd-party apps?

2.) That if an update were required, that it would be delivered for free?

Again, when the update comes, who is going to force you to buy it? No one. You cannot run away from the fact that either the update will be worth to you what Apple charge for it, in which case you can buy it and be happy, or it won't be worth it and you won't buy it. Of course in the second case it sounds like you'll also sulk because you don't have the latest and greatest even though you don't really need it.
it's = it is / it has, its = belonging to it.
Reply
it's = it is / it has, its = belonging to it.
Reply
post #108 of 139
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jensonb View Post

Steve did not mention that it would cost extra for me to add 3rd Party Apps in his SDK letter way back when.

Did Steve mention that it would be free to upgrade your Touch after doing massive updates to the codebase Of course not; you made a bad assumption. They are going from version 1 to 2. I certainly don't expect that 10.6 will be a free upgrade for me. And before you start saying that OS X point updates are more complex, remember that they cost more than a dinner for 2 at iHop.

3rd-party apps will cost as much as the developer charges. No more, no less.
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 #109 of 139
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. H View Post

I fail to see the problem in a company trying to sell a product for a profit.

Except that Apple has never mentioned profit as a reason for charging for either the 802.11n enabler or iPod Touch updates. Every time the issue of charging for these updates comes up, the response from both Apple and Apple defenders is "accounting laws" and nothing else. If "accounting laws" is truly the only reason for charging, then the decent thing to do would be to charge the absolute minimum amount required by law and not a penny more. If Apple is trying to make a profit, then they should just come out and say it, rather than hiding behind legalese.
post #110 of 139
Quote:
Originally Posted by Haggar View Post

Again, those "accounting laws" don't dictate how much a company has to charge. And Apple's story is "Oh, we'd like to give it away for free but the big bad government says we have to charge for it". But again, there seems to be no rule regarding how much to charge. So if Apple is really serious about wanting to give it away for free but being forced by the government to charge, then shouldn't Apple have just charged the absolute minimum amount "required" by law and not a penny more? So basically, Apple says since they can't give it away for free then they will charge $20, as if there was no other option in between. It would be better if Apple just came out and admitted that they want to make a profit from selling the update.

I believe you are correct. Apple can charge whatever they want. The problem from what I understand is that they're now required to report giving the software away as a "loss" in their financial reports. From Apple's perspective, having a line that appears to shareholders like a profit (or breaking even) is better than one that looks like a loss any day of the week (even if that decision loses them money overall). In other words, lets say Apple estimates it's $20/iPod touch user to develop/distribute the software, then if they charge $20, they don't have to report giving the software away as a loss (otherwise, they'd have to report giving the software away as a loss). But suppose by charging $20/device only 25% of users upgrade and Apple ends up losing ~$30/device in lost sales through the App Store (not likely, but suppose). Since those non-sales aren't real, they don't get reported anywhere.
post #111 of 139
Quote:
Originally Posted by Haggar View Post

Except that Apple has never mentioned profit as a reason for charging for either the 802.11n enabler or iPod Touch updates. Every time the issue of charging for these updates comes up, the response from both Apple and Apple defenders is "accounting laws" and nothing else. If "accounting laws" is truly the only reason for charging, then the decent thing to do would be to charge the absolute minimum amount required by law and not a penny more. If Apple is trying to make a profit, then they should just come out and say it, rather than hiding behind legalese.

Apple is ALWAYS trying to make a profit. Just keep that in mind, no matter what the level of benevolence appears to be. They make a profit or the shareholders run away like sheep on fire.

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply
post #112 of 139
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

AIM? Why not iChat?!

To me the reason for that has always been what I think obvious.. they aren't going to release iChat for the iPhone until the day release iChat 4.0 for Windows, and that "will" happen this year.
Citing unnamed sources with limited but direct knowledge of the rumoured device - Comedy Insider (Feb 2014)
Reply
Citing unnamed sources with limited but direct knowledge of the rumoured device - Comedy Insider (Feb 2014)
Reply
post #113 of 139
Quote:
Originally Posted by mdriftmeyer View Post

Fantastic event. They addressed the gambit.

Totally agree. Highly surprised how much they took on board. Next up, copy & paste. Although that may not come until they release Mac touch.
Citing unnamed sources with limited but direct knowledge of the rumoured device - Comedy Insider (Feb 2014)
Reply
Citing unnamed sources with limited but direct knowledge of the rumoured device - Comedy Insider (Feb 2014)
Reply
post #114 of 139
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ireland View Post

To me the reason for that has always been what I think obvious.. they aren't going to release iChat for the iPhone until the day release iChat 4.0 for Windows, and that "will" happen this year.

You think so? I just don't see a benefit for another multi-IM client on Windows. But if it does come to Windows it will need full MSN and Yahoo support for the Win and Mac versions to make it viable.

Either way, I have no doubt that Adium developers are already working on iAdium.
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 #115 of 139
It's 99 dollars per year.
post #116 of 139
Quote:
Originally Posted by ravelgrane View Post

No, go back and read the Q+A:



EACH app will cost the developer $99 to post. This will cover hosting cost, a review process, obtaining a certificate, and will discourage posting frivolous applications. Seems pretty reasonable to me.

It doesn't look to be for each app. The certificate is to be able to track the developer in case (s)he does something that isn't proper with their apps that Apple missed upon application.
post #117 of 139
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaveGee View Post

First: I'm sure someone will find someway to load apps onto the iphone (they've done it before and they'll do it again) - it won't be pretty but it'll allow the hardcore users to install freeware apps and once an app has a following the author can post it online at the iTunes store for $1.99 or something and allow the great unwashed masses to fund the apps publication fee.

If the app can't garner 50 people to pony up $1.99 each then it says just about all that needs to be said about the usefulness of the app...

Dave

We'll see about the unregistered apps. I'm not sure they will be able to load them.

What has to be remembered is that the only reason why they work now, is because of an unfixed security hole in the iPhone's Safari. Apple, so far, has chosen not to fix that hole, even though they have fixed other security holes.

Want to guess why?

But, once we get the ver. 2 upgrade, with all of the new enterprise goodies, and whatnot, why would Apple leave that gaping, well publicized, security hole, open?
post #118 of 139
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jensonb View Post

Yay, another "nominal" fee. I'll bet it's £12.99/$19.99 again. I sure love getting punched in the bean bag every 3 months Apple. I wouldn't mind if the charge was actually nominal.

Sure, it would be nice if it were free. You don't have to get the new upgrade, with all the new enterprise features, or the ability to add new programs if you don't want to pay for it.

By the way, tell us which other portable player has upgrades?

You know why you will have to pay for this if you have an iTouch. Stop complaining, you aren't being forced into it.
post #119 of 139
Quote:
Originally Posted by Haggar View Post

Who came up with the "accounting" justification first? Did Apple themselves provide this explanation first? Or did some news website throw it out there, and Apple ran with it? As I understand, those "accounting laws" do not specify how much a company has to charge. So if Apple honestly did want to offer the update for free but wasn't allowed to, then why don't they do the next best thing? Offer the update for something like 20 cents instead of $20. If Apple can do that, then their "accounting" rationalization might be more believable.

You can't simply run with it.

Actually, Apple doesn't have to charge this fee. But, if they don't, they have to pay it themselves. It is a bit complex, but the number isn't pulled out of thin air. The charge has to be related to the value of the item being added to the product.

I wish people would stop making a big deal out of it though.

By now, everyone should know that the iPhone and ATv get free updates, and the iTouch has to pay for them.

If it isn't worth it to some people, they have the option of not getting it. I'm not referring to you in particular, but throwing it out in general.
post #120 of 139
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

It doesn't look to be for each app. The certificate is to be able to track the developer in case (s)he does something that isn't proper with their apps that Apple missed upon application.

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.
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
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: iPhone
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › Notes from Apple's iPhone Software Roadmap event