or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › Apple announces iPhone 2.0 software and SDK beta
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Apple announces iPhone 2.0 software and SDK beta - Page 3

post #81 of 185
Quote:
Originally Posted by admactanium View Post

haha. during schiller's exchange server demo regarding the calendar, one of schiller's appointments for the day is "brainstorm new apple rumors."

Does he mean:
1. discuss apple rumors that already exist
2. think of a rumor to leak and get everybody all riled up
3. he just wants to tweak everyone he knows is obsessively
examining and interpreting every little thing in the presentation
???

funny anyway
post #82 of 185
i'd assume it's a little joke that they're coming up with crazy things to leak to rumor sites and fans. funny little bit that was hard to see.
post #83 of 185
From the iPhone SDK Readme: "iPhone SDK will run on Intel-based Macs running Mac OS X v10.5.2 and later."

I was looking forward to trying this out, but not if I have to buy a new Mac to do it. \
post #84 of 185
Quote:
Originally Posted by strangeways View Post

I was looking forward to trying this out, but not if I have to buy a new Mac to do it. \

How old is your Mac that you can't run Leopard?
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 185
Quote:
Originally Posted by Outsider View Post

I do! Make it 15 million.

Yeah and that's not counting Australasia, the rest of Europe, contracts ending, a 3G iPhone, even larger storage and the possibility this year of an iPhone nano. I'm going to call it 25 million.
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 #86 of 185
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

How old is your Mac that you can't run Leopard?


"iPhone SDK will run on Intel-based Macs..."
post #87 of 185
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ireland View Post

Yeah and that's not counting Australasia, the rest of Europe, contracts ending, a 3G iPhone, even larger storage and the possibility this year of an iPhone nano. I'm going to call it 25 million.

How exactly would an iPhone Nano work? The screen on the iPhone would be unusable if shrunk down and a non-touch screen version would totally defeat the idea of the iPhone. I can't see it, but I'm willing to here your views as I could be missing something.
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 #88 of 185
Quote:
Originally Posted by wilco View Post


"iPhone SDK will run on Intel-based Macs..."

Thanks, I obviously missed that part.

This is a grand day, Wilco. You finally posted a non-hostile, helpful reply. Keep up the good work.
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 185
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

How old is your Mac that you can't run Leopard?

I have a Powerbook from 2004 and a G5 iMac. I.e., no Intel processors. I'll probably upgrade to a MBP later in the year, but since I work in the nonprofit industry I can't really afford to make major computer purchases very frequently.

Too bad Apple doesn't seem to offer discounts to nonprofit organizations other than educational institutions...
post #90 of 185
Quote:
Originally Posted by ALPICH View Post

To answer your points 1 at a time

1) There is still a $99 fee just to allow access to your free software. etc etc

You're obviously angry about something that Apple did to you. That's OK.

But, please allow me to point out that you're naive if you think there's some such thing as "free." The water you drink from your faucet is not "free" - you pay a water bill every month; your use of your TV is not "free" - you pay an electricity bill; this post that you just made is not "free" - you paid your cable or telephone or satellite provider so that you could.

$99 for something that (you hope) will be a blockbuster and make you rich and famous as a software developer is not such a big deal.
post #91 of 185
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

How exactly would an iPhone Nano work? The screen on the iPhone would be unusable if shrunk down and a non-touch screen version would totally defeat the idea of the iPhone. I can't see it, but I'm willing to here your views as I could be missing something.

Dude! Never ask Ireland about an iPhone Nano. He has, like, drawings and renderings and marketing plans and a terrifying, unshakable faith.

Run. Run if you want to live.
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
post #92 of 185
When I first saw the iPhone, on the web, i thought it was too big. But when I saw it in person for the first time at work, I could not imagine it being any smaller, thinner, or less wide.

Also, what a pain it would be for developers to design an interface for 2 differently sized iPhones? Ugh.
post #93 of 185
Quote:
Originally Posted by Toyin View Post

I'm facing the same situation with my Airport Extreme base station. I went and bought that and a nice 500gb hard drive in anticipation of wireless back up that was one of the features of Leopard.

I think that that is a very different situation to what we have here with the iPod touch. On Leopard's information pages at Apple's website, before Leopard was released, Apple clearly stated that wireless backup would be possible using Airport Extreme + external HDD, but this info was removed around the time of Leopard's release.

Hopefully a 10.5.x or a (free) AE firmware update will fix this, otherwise you and a lot of others got shafted.
it's = it is / it has, its = belonging to it.
Reply
it's = it is / it has, its = belonging to it.
Reply
post #94 of 185
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

How exactly would an iPhone Nano work? The screen on the iPhone would be unusable if shrunk down and a non-touch screen version would totally defeat the idea of the iPhone. I can't see it, but I'm willing to here your views as I could be missing something.

Whilst folk such as Ireland believe it's possible whilst keeping a touch-screen, I don't see why this is necessary. I'd still prefer to have a standard candy-bar form-factor mobile phone with integrated iPod from Apple rather than from some other company. I'm confident that Apple could do this better than Nokia or Sony Ericsson, particularly on the music-playing aspect of the phone.

The iPod shuffle has no screen and no click-wheel, but it's still an iPod. The iPhone Nano should have a non-touch-screen and physical 0-9 buttons etc., but it'll still be an iPhone in as much as it's a mobile phone/iPod hybrid made by Apple.
it's = it is / it has, its = belonging to it.
Reply
it's = it is / it has, its = belonging to it.
Reply
post #95 of 185
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post

$99 for something that (you hope) will be a blockbuster and make you rich and famous as a software developer is not such a big deal.

So what about the software developers that just want to release their stuff for free and not earn anything from it such as myself?

I can front up $99 even if it's free software but many open source projects are run on a totally no costs basis. There's also the issue of who owns the licence on an open source project that often has many developers and that may change.

From what I can gather, you pay the $99 for access to the Apps Store, not the SDK. Maybe sourceforge.net will front up one licence so projects can release code for free using a single licence to the App Store.

Or, what about developing apps for clients of mine that aren't supposed to be publicly available?

Anyway, I don't imagine it's a big hurdle, but it's still a pity you have to go through the App Store or somehow qualify for their enterprise installer. I suspect also it'll be broken in a matter of days anyway so that installing outside the Apps Store will be simple.

The complaints about having to upgrade to 2.0 before you can even run 3rd party apps is also with some merit if you're not actually getting any new features in the 2.0 update. Are there any new features in 2.0 other than the announced ActiveSync support, which unless you're in an MS dweeb ran company is totally meh ?
post #96 of 185
I hope the App Store quality control rottwieller is used as a mechanism to ensure apps conform to standard user interface guidelines. It will obviously protect iPhones from malicious software and oppose jailbreaking/contract circumventing apps.
post #97 of 185
Quote:
Originally Posted by ALPICH View Post

WRONG. By the time I purchased my iPod touch the SDK was promised.

But by the time I had purchased my new iMac in august, apple had already promised leopard many months before. I think that until they're actually shipping the device with the software update they don't owe anyone anything.
post #98 of 185
Quote:
Originally Posted by aegisdesign View Post


Or, what about developing apps for clients of mine that aren't supposed to be publicly available?

Apparently they are working on a non public way of distributing applications too. I can't remember when they mentioned it but it was mentioned in the keynote.
post #99 of 185
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dunks View Post

I hope the App Store quality control rottwieller is used as a mechanism to ensure apps conform to standard user interface guidelines. It will obviously protect iPhones from malicious software and oppose jailbreaking/contract circumventing apps.

I really hope NOT. If Apple are to vet all apps then it will stifle innovation in UI design. You'd not have Delicious Library for instance if they had to stick to the Apple HIG.
post #100 of 185
Quote:
The complaints about having to upgrade to 2.0 before you can even run 3rd party apps is also with some merit if you're not actually getting any new features in the 2.0 update.

Look at it its not a 1.1.5 update its a full 2.0 update. So their are very likely to be some significant changes that Apple did not announce yet.
post #101 of 185
Quote:
Originally Posted by halfyearsun View Post

Technically, it's the accounting model, not the monthly fee from ATT. It's just easier to explain it in layman's terms by saying monthly fee.

The subscription accounting model, applied to the iphone and apple tv, defers the revenue from the accounting books over a period of time, 2 years, I believe. It's less profitable in the short term, but allows them to make the updates necessary to stay competitive without charging.

Ipods (and the Ipod touch) are not under this accounting model. So when the ipod touch is purchased, that revenue is claimed in full immediately. Thus, any such updates are required by law to carry a charge consistent with market value.

Thank you so much for restoring some sense to this discussion.

Yes, the reason has to do with Federal law and the way Apple accounts for its products (and no, it isn't directly related to the fact iPhone users pay a bill to AT&T). Apple is required by Federal law to either account for the sale in the quarter in which the product was sold, or carry it over a two-year period and a depreciate its value over that time. The iPhone and AppleTV are carried as a subscription method, but all computers and iPods are put on the books when they're sold.

There is no LEGAL way Apple can fundamentally enhance the value of an iPod (like the touch) with a software/firmware upgrade without charging the end user for that enhancement. Go look it up if you have doubts: Sarbanes-Oxley, which was a law passed 5 or 6 years ago as a result of the bookkeeping scams run by Enron and other companies over the 90s.

The whiner here is missing the fundamental truth of these upgrades: The owner of the touch is under no obligation to download and pay for those upgrades. Without the upgrades, the touch will do EXACTLY what the box said it would do. Downloading the upgrades ADDS features and functionality to the touch, which changes the value of the product Apple carried on its books.

If you don't want to pay the charge, then don't download the upgrade. Life rarely gets any easier than that. Your touch will continue as it was before and you are at no disadvantage whatsoever. As the old adage states, you can't lose what you never had.

If you decide that you want the added feature of being able to download and install apps to your touch, then man up and pay the fee. You're making a decision that you want something MORE than what you originally paid for, so accept the consequences which go with that decision.

Either way, for God's sake, stop with the whining. You're entitled to a product which works as advertised when you bought it, but not to unlimited additions of features and functions you didn't pay for in the first place.
post #102 of 185
Quote:
Originally Posted by TenoBell View Post

Look at it its not a 1.1.5 update its a full 2.0 update. So their are very likely to be some significant changes that Apple did not announce yet.

But until then, you're guessing and the original whiner has a point.

One would hope they've significantly updated the software to bring it in line with other phone software. I would presume they've at least got to bring a whole load of updates to Mail just in order to support the features they need for Exchange. I personally hope they're finally adding ToDos, which they'll need for Exchange users.
post #103 of 185
Quote:
Originally Posted by ALPICH View Post

To answer your points 1 at a time

1) There is still a $99 fee just to allow access to your free software. Check the site:

Standard Program $99

The Standard Program is for developers who are creating free and commercial applications for iPhone and iPod touch.

Ooooh. $99 per dev seat. BFD. Ask me how much my MSDN sub costs me. Heck, free indie game developers pay $99 for their game engines (e.g. GarageGames Torque engine).

Quote:
2) I am suggesting that Apple should find a source of income that is reasonable and stick with that. Don't slug both the creator and user just to access something that will sell more of their devices. Its just plain stupid.

Yes, because testing is free. Deployment is free. Certification is free. No wait. It isn't. And avoidable by paying $299 and self deploying. Have fun with your own promotion, hosting, fees, blah blah. 30% is prefectly reasonable.

Quote:
3) No problem. I am sure I will have frustrations there too. But at least I will be able to compile and upload my own software to my own device without having to pay someone for it.

Oh and you must be right about smoking something. I just didn't realise how many people are willing to be slugged so much so many times. And just incase you are wondering. As a programmer I am unlikely to pay for someone to have access to my free APP over and above what I already have to pay for hosting. Also as a programmer who does actually want to make a living I thought you might want to know that if I did create an app for the iPhone / Touch I would be passing on every bit of the cost Apple was charging me so to put this into perspective I would be raising my intended cost by 30% just to cover Apples 30% (it would actually have to be a little more than 30% because of course Apple would be slugging the 30% I just put on to cover them). Also I am going to work out how many copies of my app I think I will sell and dived the posting fee by that. So my $5 app just became $8.50. I really thought people were a little smarter than this. And again Apple love you.

If you are a developer evidently by your comments you've never come close to being a product manager or actually selling shrink wrap software. 70% of sales revenue is very competitive. Don't quit your day job to be an indie dev.

Oh and genius...there no charge for free apps beyond your $99. No hosting fees. No charges and 30% of $0 revenue is $0. If you can't cough up $99 for a dev kit you aren't serious anyway.
post #104 of 185
Quote:
Originally Posted by aegisdesign View Post

I really hope NOT. If Apple are to vet all apps then it will stifle innovation in UI design. You'd not have Delicious Library for instance if they had to stick to the Apple HIG.

Pay $299 and self deploy your "in-house" enterprise app. That's my guess and I think that's what I'm going to get for work. None of our stuff would ever appear on the apple store.
post #105 of 185
ALPICH I really hope you reread this post of yours because there are issues with logic here.


Quote:
Originally Posted by ALPICH View Post

To answer your points 1 at a time

1) There is still a $99 fee just to allow access to your free software. Check the site:

Standard Program $99

Frankly I don't think you realize just how good this is. $99 bucks to have Apple handle everything related to the distribution of your software free or not is a very good deal.
Quote:

The Standard Program is for developers who are creating free and commercial applications for iPhone and iPod touch.

(got that at the bottom of http://developer.apple.com/iphone/program/ so I think I can trust it)

2) I am suggesting that Apple should find a source of income that is reasonable and stick with that. Don't slug both the creator and user just to access something that will sell more of their devices. Its just plain stupid.

Do you really believe that at the price of 99 dollars this is going to be a source of income for Apple? No really think about it, frankly it is one of the best deals I've ever seen.
Quote:
3) No problem. I am sure I will have frustrations there too. But at least I will be able to compile and upload my own software to my own device without having to pay someone for it.

I'm not one to knock the Nokia 810 as I looked seriously at the entire Nokia line up, but they made some engineering trade offs I can't deal with. Now I'm not going to sit here and discount writing your own software, as I've done a tiny bit of that myself, but that isn't the market Apple is after. Frankly if you can't see that the devices are targeted to different markets then you will likely have a hard time understanding the value of the program.
Quote:
Oh and you must be right about smoking something. I just didn't realise how many people are willing to be slugged so much so many times. And just incase you are wondering. As a programmer I am unlikely to pay for someone to have access to my free APP over and above what I already have to pay for hosting. Also as a programmer who does actually want to make a living

STOP RIGHT HERE!

This issue of wanting to make a living is what makes the Apple program so attractive to programmers. If you really want to make a living then you have to look at the Apple program as if you where a businessman, doing so you would realize there is a big opportunity here.
Quote:
I thought you might want to know that if I did create an app for the iPhone / Touch I would be passing on every bit of the cost Apple was charging me so to put this into perspective I would be raising my intended cost by 30% just to cover Apples 30% (it would actually have to be a little more than 30% because of course Apple would be slugging the 30% I just put on to cover them).

It might help your case to show a little maturity and expand your vocabulary beyond slugging. In any event of course you will, my good man it is called business. In any event if you don't understand how generous Apple is being with the very low value of 30% then you don't understand distribution.
Quote:
Also I am going to work out how many copies of my app I think I will sell and dived the posting fee by that. So my $5 app just became $8.50. I really thought people were a little smarter than this. And again Apple love you.

The only person that needs to get a little smarter here is the one you see in the mirror. Of course you price your product to cover expenses, that is how everybody in this country makes money. You claim to be a programmer but it is very clear to me that you did not take any business, economics or math sequences. There is really nothing fancy about business, you just need the right product at the right price to attract the customers. Pricing that product though can be very complex if you are trying to grow a business.

Part of the reason you are getting such harsh responses from the collective here is that you claim to want to make money. Well that is all well and good but then you take a position that would leave you in an environment where it wouldn't be possible. If you want to make money programming you have to hang up the programmers hat from time to time and put on the businessman's hat.


Dave
post #106 of 185
Quote:
Originally Posted by rhowarth View Post

Any word on whether apps will have access to Bluetooth?


A very good question - Thank You!

I have a few app ideas that really could make use of Bluetooth. More so it needs to be a complete Bluetooth. Or at least a BlueTooth that supports a few more profiles than what Apple currently supports.

Dave
post #107 of 185
Quote:
But until then, you're guessing and the original whiner has a point.

Lets remember this when Apple releases 2.0.
post #108 of 185
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69 View Post

Part of the reason you are getting such harsh responses from the collective here is that you claim to want to make money. Well that is all well and good but then you take a position that would leave you in an environment where it wouldn't be possible. If you want to make money programming you have to hang up the programmers hat from time to time and put on the businessman's hat.

http://mooseyard.com/Jens/2008/03/th...¢-iphone-apps/

Here is an excellent and thoughtful analysis of the whole App Store concept from the mindset of someone who is both a developer AND a businessman. Since our whiner fancies himself to be a developer but has no apparently chops for business, preferring instead to focus on the $99 price of admittance and the 30% take to Apple, the article above has a good chance of snapping on some light switches.

Good quote:

So assume you spent some evenings and weekends writing a cool little utility or game. You submit it to the App Store and set the price at $1.43. You get $1 of pure, unadulterated profit from every user of the app. No bandwidth costs, no fees to PayPal or Kagi, no postage, no packaging, no extortionate demands by distributors and retailers to get shelf space. And note I said Âfrom every user  itÂs not just from the one or two percent of users who actually bother to pay shareware fees.

I think thatÂs a pretty good proposition. By the time the App Store goes live, Steve promises us there will be ten million iPhones in the world. If a tenth of a percent of them impulse-purchase your $1.43 app, thatÂs $100,000. You could live off that. Even if itÂs only a hundredth of a percent (one in ten thousand), you make $10,000 off your little hobby and can buy some nice toys for yourself (and for your significant other, as compensation for the time you spent ignoring them.)


Facts can be one's friend, and clear-headed thinking will rarely lead one astray. Instead of looking for reasons to complain about the App Store arrangement, it might make more sense to strategize how to earn some decent money for one's programming efforts. That sounds a lot more enriching than lobbing rocks (with horrible aim, BTW) and whining to no good effect.
post #109 of 185
Quote:
Originally Posted by George Kaplan View Post

By the time the App Store goes live, Steve promises us there will be ten million iPhones in the world.

Did Jobs state that they plan to have 10M units sold by June?
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 #110 of 185
Quote:
Originally Posted by vinea View Post

Oh and genius...there no charge for free apps beyond your $99. No hosting fees. No charges and 30% of $0 revenue is $0. If you can't cough up $99 for a dev kit you aren't serious anyway.

Yeah right.

Just like iTools was free. Once Apple hooks people in, expect price increases, expect Apple to take a bigger share, and expect to get f'd over. Typically Apple.
post #111 of 185
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

Did Jobs state that they plan to have 10M units sold by June?

The stated goal from Day 1 of the introduction has been to sell 10M in the first year. Whether the company makes it is another story, but certainly with a new, 3G model and Enterprise adopting the iPhone in quantity, this is certainly attainable by end of the year, if not sooner.

To my knowledge, there is no cell phone in the history of the industry which has sold in the quantity comparable to the iPhone in a similar introduction period. The very idea that Apple is selling more phones with a single model deployed over a single carrier than other brands are with multiple models over multiple carriers is mind-bottling.

Whether or not there are 10M in use by the end of June, it will be an extraordinarily deep pool of users for a developer to fish in.
post #112 of 185
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave K. View Post

Yeah right.

Just like iTools was free. Once Apple hooks people in, expect price increases, expect Apple to take a bigger share, and expect to get f'd over. Typically Apple.

Thanks, Sunshine. Maybe one day you'll realize the money Apple plans to make from this venture has nothing to do with the 30%, (which most likely doesn't cover the costs of administration, bandwidth, checking the app for wholesomeness, etc.), but instead is about driving more consumers to buy the iPhone, which means more monthly revenue from AT&T. If you really need an illustration, look up "King Gillette".

Your comment reminds me of one made by Davey Johnson, when he managed the Reds and had a sulking shortstop:

"If you gave him a $20 bill, he'd complain it wasn't a ten and ten ones."
post #113 of 185
Quote:
Originally Posted by George Kaplan View Post

The stated goal from Day 1 of the introduction has been to sell 10M in the first year.

Whether that referred to 10M units in the calendar of 2008 or a total number for 2007 until the end the end of 2008 is still under debate, but I have read no evidence nor recall Jobs or anyone from Apple stating that they will plan to sell 10M units in exactly one year from the launch date.

If you have evidence to support your claim please present it, not that we need another argument here at AI.
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 #114 of 185
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69 View Post

Frankly I don't think you realize just how good this is. $99 bucks to have Apple handle everything related to the distribution of your software free or not is a very good deal.

Although it is $99 more than Google Code or Sourceforge.net.

The $99 deal is damned good if you want to sell closed source apps. It's not so good if you have an open source model.
post #115 of 185
Quote:
Originally Posted by George Kaplan View Post

The stated goal from Day 1 of the introduction has been to sell 10M in the first year. Whether the company makes it is another story, but certainly with a new, 3G model and Enterprise adopting the iPhone in quantity, this is certainly attainable by end of the year, if not sooner.

No, the plan is 10 million in 2008.



Quote:
Originally Posted by George Kaplan View Post

To my knowledge, there is no cell phone in the history of the industry which has sold in the quantity comparable to the iPhone in a similar introduction period. The very idea that Apple is selling more phones with a single model deployed over a single carrier than other brands are with multiple models over multiple carriers is mind-bottling.

And totally not true. IIRC RIM sold 12M blackberries in the same quarter Apple sold <4M and Nokia sold 134M phones.

Quote:
Originally Posted by George Kaplan View Post

Whether or not there are 10M in use by the end of June, it will be an extraordinarily deep pool of users for a developer to fish in.

They're not planning to hit 10M by June. It's 10M in 2008, ie. from Jan 1st 2008 to the end of 2008. However, there will be a decent sized pool of developers because traditionally Apple has attracted the small indie developers that can live off a small market. That's how it works with Macs and that's how it'll work with iPhone. It's very important to the success of the iPhone OS that it's almost an easy shoe-in for Mac OS developers to use the same tools and API as they're used to. Developing for other mobile platforms requires new tools and entirely new APIs.
post #116 of 185
Quote:
Originally Posted by George Kaplan View Post

Facts can be one's friend, and clear-headed thinking will rarely lead one astray. Instead of looking for reasons to complain about the App Store arrangement, it might make more sense to strategize how to earn some decent money for one's programming efforts. That sounds a lot more enriching than lobbing rocks (with horrible aim, BTW) and whining to no good effect.

Facts are one's best friend --- except that this guy couldn't do simple math. A tenth of 1 percent of a 10 million users at $1.43 = $10,000, not $100,000.

The problem is that developers on other mobile phone platforms get a larger revenue share. Since the beginning (all the way back in 2001), BREW developers gets a 80% revenue share.

http://wbt.sys-con.com/read/40914.htm

Sure it cost about $1000 for BREW testing and $400 for a BREW digital certificate --- but you can get it back in the end with a 80% revenue share instead of 70%.
post #117 of 185
Quote:
Originally Posted by samab View Post

Sure it cost about $1000 for BREW testing and $400 for a BREW digital certificate --- but you can get it back in the end with a 80% revenue share instead of 70%.

Out of curiosity, how many BREW developers are there? How applications are there? How many of these developers are supplying free apps?

The low price for developer support and the ease at which apps can be had will undoubtedly help to sell even more devices (which is beneficial to both Apple and the developer's desire to have as many potential customers as possible). We can squabble about which method is more profitable to a developer but you can't argue that Apple's approach is more beneficial to the end user. Especially since, even as Jobs stated, there will be a glut of free apps for the platform.
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 #118 of 185
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

Whether that referred to 10M units in the calendar of 2008 or a total number for 2007 until the end the end of 2008 is still under debate, but I have read no evidence nor recall Jobs or anyone from Apple stating that they will plan to sell 10M units in exactly one year from the launch date.

If you have evidence to support your claim please present it, not that we need another argument here at AI.

http://enthusiast.hardocp.com/news.h...VzaWFzdCwsLDE=

Steve Jobs, speaking at Apples shareholder meeting, reiterated the companys goal to sell 10 million iPhones by the end of the year.
post #119 of 185
Quote:
Originally Posted by aegisdesign View Post

And totally not true. IIRC RIM sold 12M blackberries in the same quarter Apple sold <4M and Nokia sold 134M phones.

A single model? They sold 12M Pearls?
post #120 of 185
Quote:
Originally Posted by samab View Post

Facts are one's best friend --- except that this guy couldn't do simple math. A tenth of 1 percent of a 10 million users at $1.43 = $10,000, not $100,000.

You're right, of course. That doesn't change the fact that some weekend and night work which for many is a labor of love and a personal challenge can still reap tremendous benefits.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: iPhone
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › Apple announces iPhone 2.0 software and SDK beta